Overseas?

[ladyofastolat]

Does anyone else get annoyed by the fact a film's takings are usually broken down as "domestic" (i.e. the USA), and "overseas" (the rest of the world) even if the film was made in one of those "overseas" countries. My hackles rise whenever I encounter it. If it's an American publication, written for American people, about an American film, then fine. If it's an international publication, written for people across the world, then I don't think they should do it. I don't mind them breaking it down that way per se, but I wish they'd label the categories "US box office" and "non-US box office," or something. I find it quite vexing to be lumped into a generic "overseas" - a far less important market, it seems, usually quoted only as an after-thought - especially when we're talking about a British-made film.

I also wish they wouldn't talk about these "overseas" takings as being in dollars. I've often read in British newspapers that a film took "the equivalent of ten millions pounds in America." Fine. It makes more sense to British readers to have it translated like this. However, I don't like reading that a film "took ten million dollars in the UK." It didn't. It took however many pounds.

Over-reacting...?

Comments

[pellegrina.livejournal.com]

While I agree with the sentiment, one might also quote: "Fog in Channel. Continent Cut Off." ;-)

[ladyofastolat.livejournal.com]

Oh yes, definitely. It's also comparable to the Isle of Wighter's habit of lumping Hampshire and Inverness and all points in between together as a generic "Mainland."

[evilmissbecky.livejournal.com]

However, I don't like reading that a film "took ten million dollars in the UK." It didn't. It took however many pounds.

If the conversion has already been made, using the day's current exchange rate, then yes it did make ten million dollars. What the article is leaving out is how much it made in pounds before the conversion.

And unfortunately I think this is just one of those by-products of having the major Hollywood studios running everything, and imposing their ways and standards on the everyone.

I wonder how they do it in India, where movies are a large, flourishing industry even greater than in Hollywood. Do the Bollywood studios announce their earnings in rupees or dollars or Euros or what?

[ladyofastolat.livejournal.com]

I don't mind an internal publication aimed at an American market saying "this film took the equivalent of ten millions dollars in the UK", but I don't see why it needs to automatically be converted into dollars in international publications written for an international market. Yes, translating it into a common currency allows conversions to be made, and it probably makes sense for that to be the dollar, but I just wish they'd acknowledge the fact that it was a conversion. ("the equivalent of...")

Yup, I'm over-reacting, and it's not a big thing, I suppose. It just seems symptomatic of... something.

[(Anonymous)]

At work again, so can't sign in...but I did want to say I agree with you. If it's an international publication, then an acknowledgement should be made. It's like how they list the highest-grossing films of all time... "adjusted for inflation."

[wellinghall.livejournal.com]

Possibly over-reacting, but not excessively so. It's just another example of American insularity, IMHO.

[philmophlegm.livejournal.com]

c.f. "The World Champion Indianapolis Colts".

[gervase-fen.livejournal.com]

Was there a particular film in question here?

As a devotee of the minutiae of Variety's slanguage-filled business reports, I take it as read that domestic is the US revenue stream. Domestic tends to be North America, i.e. US and Canada - the first Mr Bean film debuted in the North American Top 10 exclusively through Canadian ticket sales.

[ladyofastolat.livejournal.com]

No, it was just a "passim" thing, that's been bothering me for a while, and happened to come up in a conversation at work.

[louis-soul.livejournal.com]

What bugs me is that here if a film is "domestic" it's usualy taken to mean it's suitable for american audiences, it's safe and you know what you can exspect. If something is marked as "overseas" or just as "foreign film" it creates this aura as if it were X rated, something that is unknown, and possibly full of sex and perversion that is unsuitable for american culture even if it's a children's film. People then become wary of "foreign film".
It bugs me that most films from other countries aren't shown worldwide, it makes me feel like I'm missing something.