Pelzter 0 Posted July 8, 2002 Share Posted July 8, 2002 ..taking in a very modest additional domestic haul of approx. $2.5m (modest considering the dwindling number of theaters still showing it), bringing its total US gross to approx. $291m, compaired to the $290m gross of TESB. Will it beat ROTJ with $309m? Probably not...--Pelzter, your own private box-office whiz, as dull as that may seem...PS: Spider-Man is now (finally) one of only 5 movies ever to gross $400m domestically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker 5 Posted July 8, 2002 Share Posted July 8, 2002 Amazing what higher ticket prices can accomplish. [insert sarcasm]Neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 9, 2002 Share Posted July 9, 2002 Hear, hear. "Gone With the Wind" is STILL the all-time box office champ, followed by "Star Wars" (the one and only), and -- believe it or not -- "The Sound of Music" in third. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figo 2 Posted July 9, 2002 Share Posted July 9, 2002 Oh shit. Forgot to log in again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker 5 Posted July 9, 2002 Share Posted July 9, 2002 PS: Spider-Man is now (finally) one of only 5 movies ever to gross $400m domestically.You should mention that it's only the third film to do it on it's initial release. The other 2 to do that are Titanic and The Phantom Menace.Star Wars and E.T. have also done $400 million domestically, but that includes re-releases.Figo, how could you possibly log-out? Neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AHerrera83 0 Posted July 9, 2002 Share Posted July 9, 2002 Hear, hear. "Gone With the Wind" is STILL the all-time box office champ, followed by "Star Wars" (the one and only), and -- believe it or not -- "The Sound of Music" in third.Regrettably, I believe the adjusted gross lists use the original release date to index the inflation for a particular film. If this is so, then all the rerelease figures would be incorrect (The $150 million from the SW-SE has to be adjusted to 1997 dollars, not 1977 dollars).Anyone knows if this is indeed the case?The only sure way to know actual popularity would be through number of tickets sold, but Hollywood doesn't have the figures for the older films. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figo 2 Posted July 9, 2002 Share Posted July 9, 2002 Last week's New Yorker ran an article on Richard Rodgers. It ranked "The Sound of Music" as the third highest grossing film of all time, behind GWTW and SW. I think that's a reputable source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeinAR 1,949 Posted July 9, 2002 Share Posted July 9, 2002 I for one refuse to recognise the adjusted for inflation list, just as many of you refuse to use the actual dollars list.Neither tells the whole tale, neither reflects actual tickets sold.The AFI list uses a formula that uses freaky math, you know the kind used to figure qb efficiency ratings. I don't do freaky math.At least the actual list, uses unadjusted dollars, which is a number I can deal with.Some of you don't want to deal with that list because of your hatred for Titanic. Titanic being at the top of the list doesn't bother me for several reasons:1. Its a great film2. It stayed tops at the weekly boxoffice forever it seemed(26weeks?). It had longevity, something only one film has had since Titanic, anyone care to take a guess?Finally I don't need any list to tell me that GWTW, SW, and the SOM all were monster hits, they are legendary, but I also know that while ticket prices are far more expensive now, there are also twice as many people in this country as there were when GWTW came out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figo 2 Posted July 9, 2002 Share Posted July 9, 2002 "Titanic" was hardly a great film, although it was entertaining. On a technical level, it was a marvel. One thing you fail to take into account, Joe, is that, thanks to rentals and home video, films are seldom reissued in the theatres these days. For this reason alone, it is highly unlikely ANY film, taking into account the wholly reasonable adjustment for inflation, will ever catch GWTW. When theatres start charging ten dollars a ticket, as opposed to the nickel or whatever it was in 1939, you have to admit it enormously skews one's perceptions. Of course, the studios will always tout their latest summer blockbuster as the highest, fastest grossing film of all time. That's just good business.Figo, enjoying the delicious irony of an auditor who can't be bothered to do math. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figo 2 Posted July 9, 2002 Share Posted July 9, 2002 I should also add that GWTW has been around for over 60 years. Even with an equivalent number of reissues, "Titanic" would have to work very hard to make up for lost time. At the time of it's release, GWTW already had a jump of over half a century's receipts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeinAR 1,949 Posted July 9, 2002 Share Posted July 9, 2002 Ok Figo, I can do math, I did afterall do well on my ACT in math, but I never have liked what I call freaky math, which uses uncontrolled variables. See Worldcom, or Arthur Anderson :twisted: Even Mr. Spock would have trouble with the formula, he would have to guess.You talk about $10. movie tickets, well tickets here in Little Rock are only $7. Across the nation tickets prices range dramatically.In other words ticket prices are not a constant throughout the country, then there are matinee prices, senior citizens discounts, children's, etc. I paid $4 to see Minority Report. Inflation rates have been high and low and are not accurately reflected in changes in ticket prices.Either way I still recognize Titanic for its accomplishments, and its longevity at the boxoffice. Sixth Sense is the only film since that has been at the top of the weekly boxoffice for more than just a few weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figo 2 Posted July 9, 2002 Share Posted July 9, 2002 I recognize "Titanic's" accomplishments, as well. I'm not one of those guys who would bash it simply because of its astounding success. In fact, I felt good for James Cameron, after all he went through to get the film made. However, a few million teenage girls going crazy enough over an equally-girlie Leonardo to sit through the film multiple times hardly qualifies it as the most-watched (therefore highest grossing) movie. You mention there are more people on the earth right now than there were in the 1930s, but something else you fail to take into account is that more people went to the movies back then (if they could afford them) as a means of entertainment. Now people just turn on the TV, rent a video, or log onto the computer. Movies are no longer patronized by adults looking for a means of escape or simply an affordable night out, they are now almost solely the province of the young, which is a huge part of why the overall quality of films has dropped so precipitously in the last quarter century. As the world gets faster, kids' attention spans get shorter, and the films become louder, faster and more nonsensical. I'm not saying that "Titanic," at three hours long, necessarily fits this profile, nor am I defending the soapy love story in GWTW (with its more charismatic actors), but Kate and Leo's interactions are geared a little toward the simpleminded, and I suspect James Cameron's wife must be a very bored woman indeed, so removed is "Titanic's" romance from any truthful semblance of passion. Perhaps the director has never really been in love (other than with himself)?Anyway, I know better than to push the math angle with an auditor.Figo, making sure his books are straight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AHerrera83 0 Posted July 9, 2002 Share Posted July 9, 2002 However, a few million teenage girls going crazy enough over an equally-girlie Leonardo to sit through the film multiple times hardly qualifies it as the most-watched (therefore highest grossing) movie.But then again, the same thing can be said about Star Wars or Spiderman. Any movie that generates these kind of numbers depends heavily on repeat business; maybe we're not teenage girls, but let's face it, most of us are fanatics for these movies. Last time I checked, the average American went to the movies just 7 times a year, so it's clear that many, many people, have yet to see most of the blockbusters. Internationally, the numbers vary, but they're generally lower.I used to work for Disney, first in their International Department, and then in the local office in Mexico, and the only way we could truly judge a movie's success was through tickets sold. This is due for several reasons, mainly:1. Prices vary both within a country and for every country.2. Many countries have half price off one or more days during the week; in Mexico's case, it's Wednesday, and Wednesdays you end up having more people going to the movies than on Sundays!3. Most countries have floating Rates of Exchange. This means that their equivalency to the U.S. Dollar varies from day to day. Although for The Lion King Mexico's gross couldn't compete with the U.K., Germany or France, more people saw that film in Mexico than in half of Europe put together.4. Dramatically, when one particular currency loses in value (Argentina, for example has just lost 200% of its value), the US gross figures lose accordingly, so you can have a movie that grosses 1/3 with the same amount of viewers.For the U.S., the same holds true. Prices in L.A. and New York are significantly higher than in the middle of the country. Also, remember than in the fifties, many, many theaters had double-bills, in which you got to watch a news rell, a cartoon, a b-movie and the feature film for the same price. Just how in the world do you quantify that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figo 2 Posted July 9, 2002 Share Posted July 9, 2002 Some very good points. However, regarding the whole "Titanic"/little girl thing, I think it needs to be said that EVERYONE saw the original "Star Wars," EVERYONE saw "Jaws," EVERYONE saw "Gone With the Wind." These films attracted their share of fanatics, sure, but they weren't targetted toward any specific demographic (eg., geeky adolescent boys). When I see what is being cranked out by the studios today (in the form of trailers), I look forward to each new feature with blackening despair. I won't be going to see anything with "Matrix" or "Blade" in the title. Unfortunately, from the looks of it, they are hardly the worst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AHerrera83 0 Posted July 9, 2002 Share Posted July 9, 2002 I'm sorry, my friend, but I saw Star Wars 10 times during its initial release in 1977 (at age 12, you keep track of those kinds of things) and I had a rivalry going with some friends as to who saw it the most (I lost). Still, I've got other friends my same age who didn't see it until their own children forced them to and some others who have refused to watch it up to this date.It is true that the original film in a series is seen by more people than the sequels, but you'll just never find a film that everyone saw.The case of Gone With the Wind is similar to that of Titanic. This was "a chick movie" back in its day, and a whole lot of girls saw it over and over just so that they could faint (literally) when Rhett Butler uttered his now famous words...There's just no two ways about it, the fans make the blockbusters! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figo 2 Posted July 9, 2002 Share Posted July 9, 2002 I was exaggerating, of course. What I meant was that those films -- SW, "Jaws," and GWTW -- had broader appeal than, say, the latest need-to-be-steeped-in-geek-lore-to-enjoy-it blockbuster, AOTC. The phenomenon of people refusing to see a movie because it is popular is well known to me. One of my best friends held off on "E.T." because people couldn't stop raving about it. (He regretted it later.) It's called backlash, and unfortunately it's part of human nature. Yes, fans make the blockbusters. Still, you have to admit, an amazing amount of stuff from the original SW trilogy achieved popular acceptance and a level of recognition in the world at large unparalleled by any other supposed genre series. Even my parents saw and enjoyed SW. However, they also foolishly went to see TPM, and as a result have sworn off Episodes II and III. They rightly believe you shouldn't have to devote your life to the study of Federations and Sith Lords to simply enjoy a movie, a perfect example of pitching too hard for a target audience.Figo, who himself saw SW more than 30 times on its initial release -- back when it was $3.50 general admission and $1.75 matinee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeinAR 1,949 Posted July 9, 2002 Share Posted July 9, 2002 Geez, it was only 2.50 in L.R. and 1.25 matinee back in '77 in L.R.and yes I contributed alot to the boxoffice effort back then. Sat through Empire Strikes Back 16 times(Superman 16times as well). Star Wars only 8 times, Raiders 9, E.T. 12. Jaws 2 I saw about 12.Call me GEEK, I don't care, the movies in the late 70's and early 80's were better and noone will ever change my mind. Thats not to say that there are not great films today, just fewer than in that period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figo 2 Posted July 9, 2002 Share Posted July 9, 2002 Geez, it was only 2.50 in L.R. and 1.25 matinee back in '77 in L.R.I could be wrong about the ticket prices. It was a long time ago, in a... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AHerrera83 0 Posted July 9, 2002 Share Posted July 9, 2002 I got both of you beat. Ticket prices in Mexico around 1977 were around US$0.80! :twisted: ...of course, the theaters weren't worth THAT much! :cry: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morn 8 Posted July 10, 2002 Share Posted July 10, 2002 The difference inflation makes is larger then the difference crazy maths could make joe Even my parents saw and enjoyed SW. However, they also foolishly went to see TPM, and as a result have sworn off Episodes II and III. They rightly believe you shouldn't have to devote your life to the study of Federations and Sith Lords to simply enjoy a movieYou won't even if you do devote your life to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figo 2 Posted July 10, 2002 Share Posted July 10, 2002 Even my parents saw and enjoyed SW. However, they also foolishly went to see TPM, and as a result have sworn off Episodes II and III. They rightly believe you shouldn't have to devote your life to the study of Federations and Sith Lords to simply enjoy a movieYou won't even if you do devote your life to it.My God, Morn actually made a funny! LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker 5 Posted July 10, 2002 Share Posted July 10, 2002 Call me GEEK, I don't care, the movies in the late 70's and early 80's were better and noone will ever change my mind.Geek. Neil - also a geek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamecube 0 Posted July 10, 2002 Share Posted July 10, 2002 Count me in.-Gamecube, a geek too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figo 2 Posted July 10, 2002 Share Posted July 10, 2002 I'll out-geek all of you, since I don't happen to share Joe's opinion that there are ANY good genre films being made today.Figo, who, admittedly, still hasn't seen "Minority Report." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figo 2 Posted July 10, 2002 Share Posted July 10, 2002 Or "Spider-man!" :oops: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morn 8 Posted July 10, 2002 Share Posted July 10, 2002 Or Lord of the Rings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figo 2 Posted July 10, 2002 Share Posted July 10, 2002 Oh yes, I saw "Lord of the Rings." I stand by my previous conclusion.Figo, disappointed because the book was so damned good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted July 14, 2002 Share Posted July 14, 2002 Stefancos- :roll: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hlao-roo 389 Posted July 17, 2002 Share Posted July 17, 2002 Joe, I think it's called fuzzy math... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now