Wrong. The Birth of a Nation is based on "The Clansman: An Historical Romance of the Ku Klux Klan," which advocates racial segregation as a necessary measure to address the "savagery" of free blacks. The film portrays the violence of the KKK as a justifiable means to maintaining order in the South, and reinforces the perceived inferiority of African Americans.

Double wrong. It's "The Bicycle Thieves" in the UK. It's "The Bicycle Thief" in the United States.

Really? Are you genuinely confused? Could you not infer "murdered" from the context? If you're not confused, are you actually upset that he hit the "r" instead of the "d"? Does that aggravate or perplex you? Or are you just trying to impress me with your attention to detail, correcting the most trivial spelling errors you can find?

Hahaha. I think that would actually be a breath of fresh air in advertising. Instead of seeing those vague and worthless quotes like, "THRILLING!", "ADRENALINE RUSH!", "PULSE-POUNDING!", and "GRABS YOU AND NEVER LETS GO!", usually all taken from the same obscure review, we'd get some genuinely hilarious feedback. I'd love to see a Lionsgate ad for Crank 2 that read: "Plotless, meandering, and utterly devoid of substance. An hour long murderous rampage. Everything we've come to expect from Jason Statham! Gloriously awful!". I mean, that's really the review I'm looking for anyway. I'd rather you not try and convince me that Crank 2 is a quality movie; I just want you to tell me he's going to hurt people in really creative and excruciating ways.

I think you make a good point. A lot of the confusion and controversy seems to stem from the changes that Zombie makes in order to put his own signature on the project. If this were a "reboot" in the strict sense, like a Batman Begins or The Incredible Hulk, I scarcely believe people would be as offended as they seem to be. It's the fact that his "reimagining" comes much closer to a "remake" than it does to a "reboot." When the core of the work appropriates the bulk of the source material, people tend to become hypervigilant, brooding over the faithfulness of the adaptation, and nitpicking even trivial changes that are made.
I agree wholeheartedly that we should "let the man do his thing," whether or not we like the changes. As long as people realize that the disparities between the original and Zombie's "reimagining" are a product of Rob Zombie's conscious artistic choice, and not some glaring oversight, I don't seen an issue. People just need to realize that they are going to be seeing Rob Zombie's idiosyncratic interpretation of Carpenter's original, and while they may not like it, it shouldn't be merely because it wasn't similar or faithful enough to the original.

I'm not entirely sure they could have made a faithful adaption of the Watchmen graphic novel without an R rating. It's a powerfully visceral and violent work, and I think Snyder tried to maintain that kind of atmosphere. I think many of the Watchmen fans would have been put off by a PG-13 rating. Your point is still a good one, especially in this context when the movie is a comedy. I Love You, Man was a very soft R, and likely would have benefited from a PG-13 rating, especially considering their demographic.

only 60? Anyone want to throw out an estimate for the body count? He slaughtered 236 alone in Rambo, so I'm going to be conservative and put it at 450.

Do yourselves a favor and do not see The Day the Earth Stood Still. I'm fairly certain I saw the movie, but all I seem to remember is a glowing ball, a big metal giant, and some really hungry alien bugs. Oh, and Keanu Reeves doing his best Neo impression (but he no longer knows kung fu). There may or may not have been a plot. I'm really not sure.

I'm still waiting for the sequel to Masters of the Universe. Here's hoping Dolph's weapon of choice in The Expendables is a giant sword.

I agree that it is quite rare in the industry, particularly when you've got talent that can command gross profit agreements. However,when there is no exceptional talent taking gross points, the net profits clause provides some incentives to the talent who have a significant impact on the outcome; the incentive effects of the net profits clause fade away precisely when that intermediate level talent has less impact on the outcome.
So, If the movie is made with no-name talent and it succeeds at the box office, the back-end could be substantial. You are absolutely right that the vast majority of movies will fail to show a net profit even when they are commercially successful, but this is influenced in large part by the presence of the gross participants. (Take another Demi Moore flick, Indecent Proposal, which , had five gross participants: stars Robert Redford, Demi Moore, and Woody Harrelson; producer Sherry Lansing; and director Adrian Lyne.)
The general idea is if a film without a major stars succeeds, the net profits participants are likely to receive some contingent compensation. To give you a few examples other than Ghost: Grease, The Bad News Bears , Ordinary People , Star Trek II , III , IV , and Flashdance.
Still, I would agree that it is "extremely rare," given the number of projects completed each year, and would guess that only about five percent would actually pay out.

While it may seem unfair in this case, there is good reason in the entertainment industry to employ net profit agreements. Net profit agreements balance the effects on studio-distributors with the effects on net profits participants. They prevent the studios from giving too much of the back-end, which would water down its incentives to market the film effectively. At the same time, they also give the participants a share of the back-end, albeit contingent, which sharpens their incentives both before and after the completion of production.

Another important aspect of the net profits agreements is that they are not tailored to deny contingent compensation under all circumstances. The addition of a major star has a tremendous impact on whether or not a net profits participant is likely to recover. This is because major stars are likely to be “gross participants,” and their compensation is in part a function of the film’s gross receipts. The breakeven point for net profits participants depends on the presence of gross participants as well as the magnitude of the production and distribution budgets. These too are interrelated, as big stars are complements for production and distribution expenses. The likelihood of receiving net profits from a successful movie will almost certainly fall when a gross participant is added to the project. However, the expected value of the net profits participant’s overall contract will increase. The gross participant’s presence increases the likelihood that the project will actually go into production and that means that the net profits participant is more likely to receive his or her fixed compensation