Slashdot Mirror

What's really annoying, is that those numbers you quoted are THEATERS, not SCREENS.

Clones opened up playing on approximately 6,100 screens at 3,161 theaters across North America

Spider-man Swinging into 3,615 theaters ... with an estimated 7,500 prints

The math still works out that spiderman made more per screen, but of course the Thursday opening isn't taken into account.

What's really annoying, is that those numbers you quoted are THEATERS, not SCREENS.

Clones opened up playing on approximately 6,100 screens at 3,161 theaters across North America

Spider-man Swinging into 3,615 theaters ... with an estimated 7,500 prints

The math still works out that spiderman made more per screen, but of course the Thursday opening isn't taken into account.

Why has no one EVER ajusted for inflation? For all I know the best and most watched movie way Ben Hur... hehe....

Somebody has done just that

I really hope that one day we will see the figure for "Box Office" in terms of HOW MANY PEOPLE PURCHASING THE TICKETS, instead of HOW MUCH $$$$.

Kindly turn off your caps lock, then point your browser at http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted/. It shows the adjusted all-time figures for ticket sales vs. prices at that time.

This is starting to get annoying.

Fact: Spider-Man 3,615 screens
Fact: Star Wars ATOC 3,161 screens

Taken from http://www.boxofficemojo.com/daily/
The Math
Spider-Man opened with $31,769 per screen.

Star Wars opened with $27,254 per screen.

Spider-Man wins.

This is starting to get annoying.

Fact: Spider-Man 3,615 screens
Fact: Star Wars ATOC 3,161 screens

Taken from http://www.boxofficemojo.com/daily/
The Math
Spider-Man opened with $31,769 per screen.

Star Wars opened with $27,254 per screen.

Spider-Man wins.

This is starting to get annoying.

Fact: Spider-Man 3,615 screens
Fact: Star Wars ATOC 3,161 screens

Taken from http://www.boxofficemojo.com/daily/
The Math
Spider-Man opened with $31,769 per screen.

Star Wars opened with $27,254 per screen.

Spider-Man wins.

A quick search on Google picks up a number of places that rank movies according with grosses adjusted for inflation:

Boxofficemojo.com

Boxofficereport.com

--Cire

Check out the numbers - they are unbelievable. Spiderman made 40% of AOTC's gate recipts on AOTC's first three days, and it was Spidey's third weekend. That's what the AMAZING in Amazing Spider-Man means...

They obviously aren't figuring inflation into this number. Wouldn't it be a little more accurate to list how many tickets were sold instead?

The inflation-adjusted top movies of all time list for viewing pleasure...

http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted/

2 comedy...

3 drama...

5 cartoon/family...

SIXTEEN -- SIX-FSCKing-TEEN fit in the SF/Fantasy category.(though Twister might count as a comedy...)
Of course, you can divy 'em up however you want, but my point here should be crystal clear. I'm *NOT* gonna say this again.

BTW, by my count - for those that are interested...

3 movies rated R

4 movies rated PG13

THIRTEEN movies rated PG

2 movies rated G
Now, explain to me why Hollywood keeps doping films with gratuitous sex, violence & language that does nothing to advance the story. My guess is that they're more interested in impressing their party-friends and pushing a social agenda than making decent films. I believe Walt Disney used to say he made family films because "Why sell two tickets when you can sell four?" Hollywood - sheesh. What a bunch of morons.

(Sorry to rant so far OT, but my car ran out of gas on the way to the store tonight, and BP DOESN'T HAVE GAS CANS for loan, rent or buy; so I had to walk to Sheetz Fuel Mart in the rain and buy one. By the time I finally got to the store, it had just closed. What a night -- I'm such an idiot!)

As for opening days, first weeks, overalls, etc. it would really be interesting to see how this stacks up against opening of Gone With the Wind, ET or Return of the Jedi with dollars adjusted for inflation. What you never hear is an estimate of how many bodies they got into theater seats, also, track it next weekend, as the word-of-mouth gets around and we see whether it has lasting power.

All-Time Box Offices[Adjusted for Inflation] (Gone With the Wind is #1, Titanic is *only* #7)

Some other lists (@ boxofficemojo.com)

As for opening days, first weeks, overalls, etc. it would really be interesting to see how this stacks up against opening of Gone With the Wind, ET or Return of the Jedi with dollars adjusted for inflation. What you never hear is an estimate of how many bodies they got into theater seats, also, track it next weekend, as the word-of-mouth gets around and we see whether it has lasting power.

All-Time Box Offices[Adjusted for Inflation] (Gone With the Wind is #1, Titanic is *only* #7)

Some other lists (@ boxofficemojo.com)

As for opening days, first weeks, overalls, etc. it would really be interesting to see how this stacks up against opening of Gone With the Wind, ET or Return of the Jedi with dollars adjusted for inflation. What you never hear is an estimate of how many bodies they got into theater seats, also, track it next weekend, as the word-of-mouth gets around and we see whether it has lasting power.

All-Time Box Offices[Adjusted for Inflation] (Gone With the Wind is #1, Titanic is *only* #7)

Some other lists (@ boxofficemojo.com)

They did think of that, there is a page on the site that contains an inflation-adjusted list of All Time Domestic grosses. Not surprisingly, Gone With The Wind tops the list with $1.1 billion dollars, followed closely by the 1977 release of Star Wars.

The full list is here.

Very, very interesting site.

Looking over the statistics at boxofficemojo.com, i've made an interesting observation.

To begin, the unadjusted statistics are meaningless. It's like looking at the price of a 1910 hotdog and concluding that the cost of lips and a$$holes has increased.

Looking over the adjusted all-time records boxofficemojo.com, things look a bit more sensible. I have no doubt that these movies represent the most popular movies of all time (about half are even on the AFI top-100).

However, if we compare this to the adjusted all-time opening weekened statistics boxofficemojo.com , we see that Not One of the top 100 was more recent then 1989.

What this indicates to me, is that over the course of the last two decades, hollywood has shifted it's advertising dollar from a constant support of a released movie, to an all-out blitz opening weekends. Why?

The VCR perhaps?

-Chris

Looking over the statistics at boxofficemojo.com, i've made an interesting observation.

To begin, the unadjusted statistics are meaningless. It's like looking at the price of a 1910 hotdog and concluding that the cost of lips and a$$holes has increased.

Looking over the adjusted all-time records boxofficemojo.com, things look a bit more sensible. I have no doubt that these movies represent the most popular movies of all time (about half are even on the AFI top-100).

However, if we compare this to the adjusted all-time opening weekened statistics boxofficemojo.com , we see that Not One of the top 100 was more recent then 1989.

What this indicates to me, is that over the course of the last two decades, hollywood has shifted it's advertising dollar from a constant support of a released movie, to an all-out blitz opening weekends. Why?

The VCR perhaps?

-Chris

Looking over the statistics at boxofficemojo.com, i've made an interesting observation.

To begin, the unadjusted statistics are meaningless. It's like looking at the price of a 1910 hotdog and concluding that the cost of lips and a$$holes has increased.

Looking over the adjusted all-time records boxofficemojo.com, things look a bit more sensible. I have no doubt that these movies represent the most popular movies of all time (about half are even on the AFI top-100).

However, if we compare this to the adjusted all-time opening weekened statistics boxofficemojo.com , we see that Not One of the top 100 was more recent then 1989.

What this indicates to me, is that over the course of the last two decades, hollywood has shifted it's advertising dollar from a constant support of a released movie, to an all-out blitz opening weekends. Why?

The VCR perhaps?

-Chris

1 Gone With the Wind: $1,146,081,811

2 Star Wars: $1,025,027,477

3 The Sound of Music: $850,020,681

4 E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial: $823,800,033

5 The Ten Commandments: $760,123,752

6 Jaws: $743,173,676

7 Titanic: $725,045,021

"Never before in Hollywood history has a movie grossed over $100 million in its first three days, not even when taking ticket price inflation into account."

Or more specifically how well ATOC does during its opening compared to TPM did.

Prior to TPM, the hype machine was in full swing and everyone, even the non-geek-fanatics, was interested in not only seeing it, but on opening night.

But I just get the feeling that's no longer true for ATOC, thanks to the letdown that TPM was for the hardened fans, and in many ways, it was the contagious enthusiasm of the fanatics that carried over to the general populace.

Personally, I'll go see AOTC, but I certainly won't wait in a long line for it, and absolutely seeing it openning night isn't the priority that it once was. I don't doubt that ATOC will do well, but it's performance will be rather level over its run, not quite explosive during that opening weekend that the other Star Wars films will be.

And while there are still hardcore fans, their numbers will most likely have been reduced, at least in part.

Just for some numbers, a quick look at Box Office Mojo shows that The Phantom Menace did $64,820,970 in its opening weekend, compared to Spider-Man's $114 million. As it stands, Spidey is already at 1/4 of TPMs $431,088,297 gross to date number.

I agree. You can see the adjusted rates at boxofficemojo.
Gone With the Wind from 1939 is still #1 with $1,146,081,811 adjusted. Thats only $198,654,225 unadjusted.

There's a better link with all sorts of box-office statistics here

I can't believe TItanic made that much!

Won't Star Wars make that money back? A lot of it will go right back into the economy (minus a hefty sum George Lucas will pocket). As shitty as Phantom Menace was it still made $925,600,000 worldwide. I think that more than compensates. Now there could be argument made that the world will become dummer from ditching classes to go to Star Wars (that's what I am doing).

Blair Witch didn't do all that well, did it? Only grossed a few millions, not the hundred millions of the blockbusters

Absolutely right - Blair Witch only grossed $140 million in box office, off production cost of $60,000. Nothing for Eisner to lose sleep over.

The article wasn't referring to worldwide gross, but to the gross in Japan.

If you want a bit more trivia, it seems that Sen to Chihiro has the highest worldwide gross of any film that has not been released in the USA (I found it here, it's at #162)

Although this movie has made more than Titanic In Japan, Titanic has grossed 1.8 trillion dollars worldwide. That's a lot. Cartoons do not have the same wide appeal in the United States (or the rest of the world) as they do in Japan. The highest grossing cartoon ever, The Lion King, made less than half of Titanic worldwide.

I'm sure it's a better movie, but the statement that $226mil is a bigger gross than Titanic is ridiculous. Here's some actual numbers. Note that Titanic grossed close to $2BILLION worldwide. Almost an order of magnitude more!

Perhaps what the poster meant to say is that it has grossed more in Japan. And as usual, the rest of the world scratches its head in puzzlement over Japan's antics.

According to this LotR has grossed already over $200M in the US and almost $200M elsewhere. That's way more than the budget of the whole trilogy. Four records mentioned include the biggest Christmas day gross, and some December records. There's also an interesting comparison chart, where the film's gross history is compared against Harry Potter, Star Wars ep 1 and Titanic.

Some guy at Miramax is going to get his ass kicked for wanting to reduce LotR into one movie and driving Peter Jackson away to New Line Cinema, who were ready to fund three movies.

According to this LotR has grossed already over $200M in the US and almost $200M elsewhere. That's way more than the budget of the whole trilogy. Four records mentioned include the biggest Christmas day gross, and some December records. There's also an interesting comparison chart, where the film's gross history is compared against Harry Potter, Star Wars ep 1 and Titanic.

Some guy at Miramax is going to get his ass kicked for wanting to reduce LotR into one movie and driving Peter Jackson away to New Line Cinema, who were ready to fund three movies.

I thought the same thing, although the number I've come across is more like $210 when you include marketing costs.

Anyway, I was curious enough to look up the latest daily results (as of Wed.):

Jurassic Park III -> $19 million
Legally Blonde -> $2.8 million
Cats & Dogs -> $1.7 million
The Score -> $1.6 million
Dr. Dolittle 2 -> $1 million
Scary Movie 2 -> $979,000
The Fast and the Furious -> $956,000
Final Fantasy -> $793,000

Dr. Dolittle 2 (which has been out for 27 days) is currently in front of Final Fantasy (which has been out for 8 days). The Final Fantasy movie can be catagorized as nothing short of a complete failure, despite how it does overseas and on sales/rentals. A $200 million movie that brings in ~$30 million in the US box office is a disaster. There will be no Final Fantasy: The Movie 2.

Methinks the "break even" comment was just a Square fanboy trying to put a positive spin on things.