Movie Boxoffice, adjusted grosses and such.

[Morn 8]

Well, Aliens to me is a cliched typical dull action movie, and Alien is truily something interesting and different, it's more interesting, more in sci fi styles, better directed. A much better movie.

It was expected when it was released to be a bomb, and an artistic failure, it was neither. It was a critical and obviously a boxoffice success.

Which is ironically a greatly inferior film to the masterpiece that is Cleopatra.

[Morlock 11]

His stock is already higher after CMIYC and GONY, and will get even higher after The Aviator.  

But time will tell.

No it won't!

First off GONY was by NO MEANS a major hit. Its gross was fairly discouraging given all the hype the movie had. Plus his performance in the film was fairly well criticized and not well recieved by most critics.

As for CMIYC that was a modestly big hit, but its success is more attributed to Spielberg/Hanks rather than Dicaprio. Its easy to get box office results when you've got those names behind your film.

As for The Aviator the concept sounds uninteresting and I think it will alienate most audiences. The premise HARDLY screams box office gold.

Gangs of New York was not a major hit and The Aviator won't be simply because American audiences don't like Scorsese. His biggest hit was Cape Fear.

CMIYC was a very popular movie, and a lot of it IS attributed to DiCaprio.

[Morn 8]

I think it's also that CMIYC was in a very modern pop culture style too.

[A24 4,375]

Joe, I know all the things you're telling me about "the expectations". Aren't they the modest people in the world, those directors that say they really thought their films were gonna bomb?

Nobody knows when it's going to be a hit. It's a natural and human thing to presume and anticipate the worst. There's always doubt. What do you think? Is showing a pretentiously cocky additude better?

I generally do not believe in the masses' consensus where a film like Titanic scores well. It's the masses (the very average viewer) that have made cinema into what it is today: Boring, shallow and soapy. Or better, Titanicky, if you will (I 'm just kidding). Many a people from that gigantic Titanic group would love to see Citizen Kane be banned from that list as the #1 critically acclaimed movie of all time. These people couldn't care less about masterpieces like Midnight Cowboy or Sunset Boulevard.

And no, I wasn't thinking about Fargo, which is a pretty good film and, whattha ya know, enjoys an even greater critical success than Titanic. But you probably will laugh that away too. You see only what you want to see.

And another thing, Joe, how can you love a film with such an embarrassing soundtrack? Face it.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I really expected a better arguement from you that this last post. But then I reread my arguements and realized you did the best you could.

I won't argue with you about Titanic on this thread anymore since it is obvious you have an adgenda agaisnt everything that is James Cameron's Titanic, include the score which you find embarrassing.

BTW, Citizen Kane, extremely boring film, well crafted and acted, but tedious. Midnight Cowboy is good from what I remember but I haven't seen it since the 70's and Sunset Blvd. was wonderful.

[Morlock 11]

And another thing, Joe, how can you love a film with such an embarrassing soundtrack? Face it.

There's nothing embarrassing about the soundtrack. Fine, maybe he song- but that's just shamelesly commercial, but so are many others. Elements LoTR shamelessly commercial. And the score fits the movie perfectly, as I think all Horner, Williams, Goldsmith, Elfman, Zimmer and most other composer's scores do.

[MrScratch 294]

Joe, I hate to break this to you, but you have been manipulated by Hollywood and the media. The movie industry is the only entertainment industry that counts its success in dollars. TV uses ratings, the music inustry uses number of albums sold and a weekly top 40. Publishers use bestseller lists, not dollars earned. The studios count the nominal dollars earned and use this as a measure of success (against films past and present) and also as a marketing tool. You are a fool for buying into this, it's all HYPE!

In unadjusted dollars, The Phantom Menace made more than the original Star Wars. Are you telling me that TPM is a better and more successful film and more of a phenomenon?

The fact of the matter is, movie grosses, ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION OR NOT, are meaningless. Why are they meaningless? Let me tell you... ticket prices are constantly fluctuating (increasing), peoples spending habits vary, the cost other goods fluctuates (milk, gas, tea in China) and other factors like there being NO TV back in the 30s and 40s, people going to the movies to not only see a movie but to see a cartoon and a newsreel, the fact that motion pictures were new and still evolving (silent, sound, b&w, color, widescreen), theaters went from single mom-and-pop houses to huge multiplexes, movies soon became available at home (television, cable, VCRs, DVDs), there weren't marketing blitzes like there are today!

Based on ALL OF THESE legitimate factors that go into determining how much people spend on movies and what they go see you can't pit Titanic vs GWTW. Titanic made more, but GWTW ticket prices were cheaper, but Titanic played on more screens, but there was no TV when GWTW was released, and around and around and around and around. You can't determine the more successful film from 1939 to 1997 unless you count ACTUAL TICKETS SOLD. Somehow, those figures aren't available.

It is simply NOT ACCURATE to count dollars and to weigh the earnings of a Titanic vs the earnings of a GWTW. Hell, its not even right to even weigh ROTK vs FOTR because I know I didn't pay $9 to see FOTR!

Movie ticket prices are even different during the day than they are at night! What if 50 people catch a matinee of movie A and 50 people catch an evening show of movie B. Well, matinee prices are cheaper so movie A earned less dollars, right? But the same number of people saw them...

Bottom line: There is no formula that can count dollars earned and have it accurately measure a movies success from one year to another, let alone one decade to another.

It's all hype. Why do you think studios rush to see who has the number 1 movie of the weekend? Why do you think studios rush to see who has the biggest opening weekend of all time, or the quickest to reach $100 million? $200 million? $300 million? To advertise the fact and make it seem like their movie is one of the best of all time, or a new hit or a must-see.

True movie lovers shouldn't buy into this and shouldn't believe it. This information is gathered and given to the masses to help sell them something. Because your average movie "consumer" likes going to the movies, but does not love the art of filmmaking.

Fact: Raiders, Titanic, ET, Godfather, Star Wars, Jaws, GWTW, Jurassic Park, Forrest Gump etc. were all huge box office successes and were the number 1 film of the year. And I consider all of them gifts to the movie loving audience!

Enough said, enjoy the movies, go see them, rent them, analyze them, critique them, root for them at the Academy awards, but don't compare the box office winnings of GWTW vs Titanic vs Star Wars vs ROTK vs Jaws vs E.T. because it can't be done and the argument will only go in circles!

[Morlock 11]

Whoa- long post! Anyway, I don't think anyone realy thinks that money is the final word. So, so many of the best movies have been box office duds. It's a Wonderful Life and Singing in The Rain were relative failures.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,270]

I agree with the above, and the passionate tone it was said with.

[MrScratch 294]

Whoa- long post! Anyway, I don't think anyone realy thinks that money is the final word. So, so many of the best movies have been box office duds. It's a Wonderful Life and Singing in The Rain were relative failures.

Not to mention one CITIZEN KANE! A box office dud, but how much money do you think that film has made the studios since it was released...

[Morlock 11]

I don't think Citizen Kane is quite as good as the other two, but of course, the same point applies.

[A24 4,375]

BTW, Citizen Kane, extremely boring film, well crafted and acted, but tedious.

I said the same when I was eight or ten . I moved on. I evolved. When I was eight or ten I would've loved Titanic and its childish love story targeted to teens.

OK, I'll stop now.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[A24 4,375]

I don't think Citizen Kane is quite as good as the other two, but of course, the same point applies.

At a certain point I feel it gets impossible to say, movie X is better than movie Y, movie Z is not so good as movie Y but better than movie X. At a certain point it's getting a bit useless and absurd. At a certain point they are all 5 stars movies. One is not better than the other. They're not in the same genre. They have different subjects and stories. They reflect other and different times. They handle different styles.

I understand and feel this can be said about all movies.

Taxi Driver is better than Schindler's List. I see...*

A Streetcar Named Desire is better than The Day the Earth Stood Still. What does that mean?*

Singin' in the Rain is better than 12 Angry Men . Hmmm... Really?*

Psycho is better than The Bridge on the River Kwai . Wow, that's so interesting!*

Some Like It Hot is better than The Godfather. My God, thanks for the warning!*

These are probably all fabulous 5 star movies and cannot be judged against each other. What you can do is judge each movie by itself. It would be more appropriate and wiser to express your personal favorites instead.

----------------

Alex Cremers

* The above quotes are fictional. I've made them up for explanatory reasons.

[Rogue_Leader 2]

I think it's also that CMIYC was in a very modern pop culture style too.

Yeah true, it combined a contemporary style with a 60's retro style which was also kind of popular at the time.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Not to mention one CITIZEN KANE! A box office dud, but how much money do you think that film has made the studios since it was released...

not that much. Remember I didn't say it wasn't great, I just said it was boring.

I said the same when I was eight or ten . I moved on. I evolved. When I was eight or ten I would've loved Titanic and its childish love story targeted to teens.  

I am glad to know that you are the superior.

Joe, who thinks he will watch Sophie's Choice before he goes to bed. Maybe someone here can critisize that film for me and tell me why its embarrassing.

[Rogue_Leader 2]

Citizen Kane was a box office dud? Are you sure about that?

I thought it did fairly well upon release. Especially since it had the whole "William Randolph Hearst scandal" tie-in.

[A24 4,375]

Citizen Kane was only released in a few little obscure film houses by the doings of William Randolph Hearst, the offended newspaper typhoon on whom the character Kane was based on. You can read all it about it on the internet. Orson Welles made this movie while he was only 26! Talk about true genius!

The first time I saw Citizen Kane I thought it was utterly boring. I was young and had the wrong expectations. Many people have the wrong expectations when they start watching 2001: A Space Oddysey and therefore don't like it. I was one of them. So this movie is better than Star Wars, ay? I also thought Blade Runner was a merely just okay picture the first time I watched it. I went back the same week and all things changed. Star Wars and Alien were no longer my absolute #1 sci-fi favorites. And then I discovered this happened to a lot of people.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[Morlock 11]

I don't think Citizen Kane is quite as good as the other two, but of course, the same point applies.

At a certain point I feel it gets impossible to say, movie X is better than movie Y, movie Z is not so good as movie Y but better than movie X. At a certain point it's getting a bit useless and absurd. At a certain point they are all 5 stars movies. One is not better than the other. They're not in the same genre. They have different subjects and stories. They reflect other and different times. They handle different styles.

I understand and feel this can be said about all movies.

Taxi Driver is better than Schindler's List. I see...*

A Streetcar Named Desire is better than The Day the Earth Stood Still. What does that mean?*

Singin' in the Rain is better than 12 Angry Men . Hmmm... Really?*

Psycho is better than The Bridge on the River Kwai . Wow, that's so interesting!*

Some Like It Hot is better than The Godfather. My God, thanks for the warning!*

These are probably all fabulous 5 star movies and cannot be judged against each other. What you can do is judge each movie by itself. It would be more appropriate and wiser to express your personal favorites instead.

----------------

Alex Cremers

* The above quotes are fictional. I've made them up for explanatory reasons.

I think that It's a Wonderful Life and Singin' in the Rain are the absolute best of their genres, and I think totaly and entirely succeed in what they were trying to do, and I would (and have) watch either far more willingly than Citizen Kane. Apples and Oranges- but I simply like the other two more than Kane. On my chart, they'd both get a perfact 10, while Kane would get a 9.7.

And BTW- good choices! except for the second line of movies, all of the movies I've seen and are among my all time favorites! (Never seen Streetcar or Day The Earth Stood Still)

[tpigeon 3]

In regards to the Titanic issue on the previous page, I agree with Joe on this one. I feel that Titanic is a wonderful movie. Yes it is rather sappy and melodramatic, but that's kind of the point, that's what these movies are. I do not, however, think that this movie is in any way phony as Alexcremers describes it. You want a good example of phoniness, watch Pearl Harbor, or the movie I like to call "Titanic-gone-wrong." Titanic is simple, epic storytelling on the grandest of scales, like Gone With the Win, or even Star Wars if you will. I was sweeped up into it right from the beginning all the way to the exhilrating and emotional climax. Is it a perfect film? It's certainly not without cliches and so on, but they are never insulting. Cameron is in a way, giving homage to the films and stories of old that inspired his, it's not a mindless rip-off. There is a huge difference. You want to see a movie that rips off of the genre its a part of and everything apart of it, watch the Mummy films, directed by a Stephen Sommers, who's almost as bad as Michael Bay. Back to Titanic though. It's a movie I feel that has cinematic magic to it. It's epic, yet fundamental storytelling, and it's a well-made film that is always watchable, always engaging, and quite powerful at times.

Ted

[tpigeon 3]

I think you make an interesting point though, Alexcremers. As a critic, I don't often like to say that certain movies are better than others, that's what a rating system is for. When you're dealing with classics or great movies, or four star movies (i know you use five stars, i use four), then it's very hard to rate one above the other, especially if they are in different genres. I don't want to compare Citizen Kane to Dr. Strangelove, or The Godfather with Casablanca. Like you said, it's kind of impossible to do, fairly at least. On what grounds can these films be compared if they are entirely different. Obviously, a **** movie is better than ***1/2 one, but that is a very general way of rating movies, since i'm going to watch Star Wars differently than I'm going to watch Dances With Wolves, or Annie Hall with Lawrence of Arabia. I don't like to rank movies, which seems hypocritical seeing how I just posted my Top Ten of the year a few minutes ago. I would have rather done what Leonard Maltin did and just list all of the films, not just ten, that I felt were worth noting from last year. I hate creating those lists, and I have no idea how Berardinelli created his Top 100 of all time, though I will say that I took much pleasure in reading it.

Ted

[JoeinAR 1,949]

But one thing most of us can agree on that there are alot of 3 star *** films that we enjoy and like more than say 4 star **** films. Our likes and dislikes are not governed by the overall quality of the film, but how the film speaks to us individually overall.

[tpigeon 3]

I see what you mean, Joe. I know the whole subjective/objective thing has been beaten into the ground on this Board, so I won't go on forever about that. *** movies and **** movies are entirely different. a *** movie is a solid, good movie, to be enjoyed for that. A **** movie is a great movie. some action movies that would be good movies are more "enoyable" to some than the general **** classics like Citizen Kane, but not more enoyable than a **** movie like Raiders of the Lost Ark. I guess it depends on the movie, and the viewer's perspective on film in general. For instance, most critics would rather watch a great movie rather than a good one, no matter what the circumstance. but there are so many kinds of *** movies and many ways to take this discussion, so i won't get too involved.

Ted

[A24 4,375]

But one thing most of us can agree on that there are alot of 3 star *** films that we enjoy and like more than say 4 star **** films.  Our likes and dislikes are not governed by the overall quality of the film, but how the film speaks to us individually overall.

Joe, not that I want to go in another endless argument with you, but your favorite movies are all four star rated movies. What's this with liking three star films better?

----------------

Alex Cremers

[A24 4,375]

Ted, thanks you for noticing my post about "Apocalypse Now is better than Snow White "and for understanding the problem so well.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Joe, not that I want to go in another endless argument with you, but your favorite movies are all four star rated movies. What's this with liking three star films better?  

Not trying to argue with you Alex, I was just pointing out that say for example, I absolutely love Ferris Bueller's Day Off. It thoroughly entertains me. Its a 3 star, 3-1/2 star film max. Its not a great film ala Citizen Kane, GWTW, Maltese Falcon, or 2001. I know that yet I prefer Ferris. Also The Creature from the Black Lagoon isn't in those films league, yet I worship that film. If I find it on I must stop and watch. Another example is Faces in the Crowd, a really entertaining film that isn't great, but its fun to watch. Sometimes films can be great but not have much watchability, like SL and SPR, two films I don't want on DVD because I would never watch them, though I do admire them, faults and all, and I do recognize their inherent greatness, but watching them over and over takes a toll I don't want to pay.

[Ollie 1,069]

2001 is boring no matter what age you are.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,270]

2001 is a brilliant film, which paved the way for other brilliant films like Star wars and CEO3K

[Morlock 11]

Sometimes films can be great but not have much watchability, like SL and SPR, two films I don't want on DVD because I would never watch them, though I do admire them, faults and all, and I do recognize their inherent greatness, but watching them over and over takes a toll I don't want to pay.

Although I disagree about those specific films, I certainly agree with you. I think The Pianist, 2001 and, brilliant as it may be, Clockwork Orange fall into that category for me.

I would easily rather watch The Rock or Die Hard 3 over GWTW, Citizen Kane or even On The Waterfront. Hell, given the choice- pobably also over The Maltese Falcon, One Flew Over The Cooku's Nest (I think the most misunderstood film ever), Godfather Pt. 2, All The President's Men, and probably over a hell of a lot more of my favorites.

It probably just means that the shallowness of the movies means no commitment, just good fun, where as I think very few all time great films are fun. The Indy movies (the funnest movies ever), The Man Who Would be King, Casablanca (The Claude Rains scenes), Patton, Amadeus, Jaws, Stalag 17, Some Like it Hot, It Happened One Night, The Producers, My Fair Lady, Singin' in the Rain, are the ones that come to mind, but I don't think there are a whole lot more.

Related, but slightly off topic- I also think that a great comedy is almost impossible to make, and that there are less than 5 that I'd put in a top 50 list. I think the 3 all out comedies I mentioned (Some like it Hot, It Happened One Night and The Producers) are probably the best classic comedies I've seen, and the only ones that live up to their reputation.

[Morlock 11]

2001 is a brilliant film, which paved the way for other brilliant films like Star wars and CEO3K

2001 is a brilliant film. But CEO3K and I never connected. I think it's just because I never had a fascination or wonderment with outer space or it's inhabitants. I was always into gangsters.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

I kinda like CE3K, but I'm put off by the many different versions of the film. Kubrick's 2001 is not a film I will soon watch again. Maybe in about a year or 3, when I'm studying film, I'll watch it again, but right now, I don't feel like getting my socks bored off me again.

- Marc, who did not tape this film when it was showing on TV last Sunday, even though he's currently catching up on his classics.

- Marc2, who thinks he should make his sigs shorter.

[Morn 8]

These are probably all fabulous 5 star movies and cannot be judged against each other. What you can do is judge each movie by itself. It would be more appropriate and wiser to express your personal favorites instead.

Hey listen, what a movie does for you is not irrelevant to how similar the movies are. You can 'compare' movies merely by how much they affect you, although I guess you can't write a review that way.

I was always into gangsters.

Ohh dear, so that's what you aspire to?

[A24 4,375]

Hey listen, what a movie does for you is not irrelevant to how similar the movies are. You can 'compare' movies merely by how much they affect you, although I guess you can't write a review that way.

Are you the "Schindler's List is much worse than Dumbo" kinda guy, Morn? Or what about "American Beauty is way better than Wizard of Oz"? Does that make sense to you?

By saying "it is better", you're implying that it's better made and superior in rank, which could be true in some cases, but often sounds downright absurd. If you, for some crazy funny reason, feel the need to say that you like American Beauty more than Wizard of Oz, then may I suggest that you say it this way: "I like American Beauty more than Wizard of Oz." Or what about this? "Of both movies, American Beauty is my favorite one." Feel the difference?

----------------

Alex Cremers

[Morn 8]

Well I often take it is better to mean rather than a statement about the quality of the film making, a statement of which you get more out of, which you enjoy, which you'd rather see, due to it's casual nature. Hence me saying that's a fine comment to make but a bad way to write a review.

[Morlock 11]

I was always into gangsters.

Ohh dear, so that's what you aspire to?

I aspired to be a gangster in the 1930's, but I guess that's out. I have a lot in common with the likes of Meyer Lansky.

And the names and stories are so colorful, so larger than life, that it makes for a fun read.

[A24 4,375]

Uncle Orson (whoever he is) also found a good solution.

The first twenty or so are roughly in order of importance to me. Can I really say that Hudsucker Proxy is "better" than The Man Who Would Be King? Of course not. But I can say that Man for All Seasons is more important to me than any other movie in my life, though the next few aren't far behind.

Uncle Orson