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

[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.