On 28 Apr, 21:58, ":Jerry:" <INVA...@INVALID.INVALID> wrote:
> "Dom Robinson"  wrote in message
>
> news:ea81646c-ee7c-4f29-aaf7-81c459c810b4@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On 28 Apr, 17:32, ":Jerry:" <INVA...@INVALID.INVALID> wrote:
> >> "The dog from that film you saw" 
> >> wrote in messagenews:67mam1F2pb8s8U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> >> > "Bob Howes"  wrote in message
> >> >news:L5mRj.5818$ko5.5526@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> >> >> The first half of your reply is exactly what I was saying.
> >> >> Films
> >> >> were never meant to be seen on television at all, they were
> >> >> designed for cinema projection which makes the "as the director
> >> >> intended" argument completely specious.
>
> >> > only for films made before home video existed.
>
> >> Rubbish, the box office still makes or breaks any film, home
> >> viewing
> >> is a bonus.
>
> > That's not actually true. There are a number of films that don't do
> > well at the box office but later go on to become cult films and make
> > their money back on home viewing (DVD, PPV, etc).
>
> They are the exception, otherwise they would not be released first in
> the Cinema.

Not at all. You can often get big names appearing in films, and then
if some of those don't do well, by the time they reach the home market
good word has spread and it gets a second lease of life later on, just
in time for that home market and it takes the money back.