Forums - Sales Discussion - All-Time Worldwide Box office

arsenicazure said:
superchunk said:
arsenicazure said:
superchunk said:
finalrpgfantasy said:
arsenicazure said:
It interesting to note that district 9 which was last on THAT list is prolly better than 70% movies there...

100% right, district 9 even deserve more succes than most of the films in the list.

You are horrible people. D9 was a horrible movie with absolutely no believability. I was hyped for that movie but so many parts were increadibly stupid it was amazing.

It was a sort of avatar without beautiful pandora/3D. The subtle political commentry on apartheid, the documentary style and the emotions were amazing. It wasnt "just another brain dead alien invasion movie",Peter jackson did a much better job than spielberg or Emmerich.

Far more believable than an alien race communicating with a tree..

I saw D9. It was no where near the caliber of Avatar in any sense. The political issues really dumbed down to the point of idiocy while Avatar is pretty much exactly how we do thing now, let alone to another race of beings. The action sequences were highly improbably, like throwing a fucking pig when you can just zap anything to disintegration.

It had a lot of potential, but the newbee director f'ed up. I don't see how peter jackson could keep his name on that trash.

While I will admint the fantasy/scifi elements of Avatar with complete worldwide communications and conciousness transfers were far more unbelievable, at least that fits into the idea of Gia, whereas D9 simply made things illogical.

If you havent been to south africa or havent read much about their history, you wouldn't have much clue as to what subtleties District 9 had, that I'm talking about.

Actually, I read quite extensively about the historical context of D9 and there is a HUGE difference in racism and controlling a far more advance alien species. That scenario simply would never playout. Whereas the Avatar scenario is pretty much exactly how it would play out, well, except we'd probably steamroll them just as the D9 peoples wouldn't have let the brutatlity last and steamrolled us.



Around the Network
superchunk said:
arsenicazure said:

If you havent been to south africa or havent read much about their history, you wouldn't have much clue as to what subtleties District 9 had, that I'm talking about.

Actually, I read quite extensively about the historical context of D9 and there is a HUGE difference in racism and controlling a far more advance alien species. That scenario simply would never playout. Whereas the Avatar scenario is pretty much exactly how it would play out, well, except we'd probably steamroll them just as the D9 peoples wouldn't have let the brutatlity last and steamrolled us.

I've been doing my very best to ignore this discussion buuuut

The alien race in D9? They're the drones of their race, with little or no active minds of their own. They do almsot nothing but follow orders. That's why there's only two drones in the whole movie - the scientist and his son - which are able to take any initiative or think imaginatively. This was explained fairly early on. They're docile because that's just the makeup of their species. They're no good unless told to do something



darthdevidem01 said:
Seece said:
Yes yes, we know why you've posted this, because AVATAR is going to take the top spot.

Despite probably only selling 1/6 of the amount of tickets Titanic did.

& titanic isn't even the biggest film in terms of tickets sold

Star Wars Episode 4 is second, while GOne With The Wind is first

 

 

Of course Gone with the Wind sold more tickets than titanic but with multiple release, according Imdb :

In USA :

1939, 1942, 1947, 1954, 1967, 1974, 1989...

In Australia, 5 times,

In UK, 2 times...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0031381/releaseinfo

Same for Star wars 4, of course...

 

 



thismeintiel said:

@darklich13

You think you could do your inflation magic to The Sound of Music? I posted a link earlier where based on just initial US releases, it was #1. Though the guy included population growth and recent ticket sale trends. I was just kinda wondering what it is WW for just inflation.

Also for those who downplay the success of previous movies because of "lack of other entertainment", you're forgetting one major detail. Back when Gone With the Wind and The Sound of Music released, there were far far less theatres in the US (other countries as well). And of those theatres, the overwhelming majority of those had only one screen. Multiplexes didn't really get a start in the US till the mid-60's, becoming the norm in the 70's-80's. So even if some of those movies had re-releases, they probably still ended up having the same or fewer showings than today's films.

Sorry, I can't find any data on Sound of Music being released outside of US.  If you can find any data please let me know, but from what I can tell it was a domestic release only. You make a very good point about theaters though.



EMULATION is the past.....NOW.......B_E_L_I_E_V_E

 

 


well i love films and any WW list,however they do it,and it can never be perfect for what people have already said,but they do show you what the really big movies were and are,Avatar has done amazingly and will no doubt get competition from future 3-d blockbusters

personally i went to see avatar 3-d at my cinema and while it was a good blockbuster it was no better than T4 salvation as a film in my opinion,obviously it is a great movie going expereince for everyone with 3-d being the great new buzz as technology powers forward,and the youngsters that will see will love it,like when i saw stars wars at a young age it was and still is the best,but i'm sure older people were like meh whatever

i like a good blockbuster and avatar was a good blockbuster,personally i don't think the 3-d specs at my cinema work that well and i don't want to watch every film in 3-d,we need helmets or something don't we

you have to hand it to cameron though for coming up with the idea and having the two big modern blockbusters under his belt,he can certainly use that when he discussing contracts with the studio



                                                                                                                                        Above & Beyond

   

Around the Network

and i agree with whoever mentioned inglorious basterds,i watched that over xmas on blu-ray and thought that was one of the better films i saw last year,very enjoyable



                                                                                                                                        Above & Beyond

   

Great movie but I think the 3D is over rated. I enjoyed the 2D more.

Main reason was Avatar wasn't full 3D here. It was 3D behind a glass window. Nothing come out of the screen at you like in full 3D. It was also blurry on the sides when the 3D was playing. the middle was crisp and clean.

Did anyone else found this to be true for their cinema?

 

 

on a side note:

http://static1.cinemenu.com.br/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/avatar-pocahontas.gif



 

 

MontanaHatchet said:
Naum said:
One funny thing about that list is "New moon" numbers... 683 million dollars.. not bad for a movie that cost around 50m to do

The thing I love about that is that it really really pisses alot of people of

oh and another funny thing is that "Twilight" and "New Moon" together have earned more money then pretty much all wampire movies the last 20 years put together

I love terrible movies doing well


that ghost movie with the two people that made up a ghos tin their house (I can remember the name come out last year) cost like 10-15K to make.

 

i think this has grossed over 100million now. so this is good profit haha.



 

 

donathos said:
Miguel_Zorro said:
donathos said:
Miguel_Zorro said:
The inflation argument is valid, but only to a point. The argument that people have far more "other options" today is also very valid.

Again, if you'd like to know which is "more valid" check out the OP's list.  It's dominated by movies from the last 10-12 years.  The reason?  Because the "inflation argument" has a far, far greater impact than the "other options" argument, or any other argument.

When Gone With the Wind came out? You had to go to the movie theatre if you wanted to see it *at all*. It also came out during World War 2, when there really wasn't much else to do for fun. For the 2+ years that it was in the theatres, the only competition that it had was a bunch of movies that I doubt many people have ever heard of.

That said, movies have always had to compete with other forms of entertainment.  The people of 1939 didn't just lie in bed staring at their ceilings.  Sure, they didn't have many of the forms of entertainment that *we* enjoy today, but they didn't know that they were missing anything; they had full lives anyways.

That's why the top grossers list *doesn't* have a bunch of movies from the 20s, 30s, 40s, etc., when people supposedly had nothing better to do.  Gone With the Wind is the *only* film from that era on the list, right?  The only one even close.  It sticks out for a reason--because it sold a ton of tickets.

Finally, as for its competition... this is what Wikipedia has to say about the movies in 1939:

Movie historians and film buffs often look back on 1939 as "the greatest year in film history". Hollywood was at the height of its Golden Age, and this particular year saw the release of an unusually large number of exceptional movies, many of which have been honored as all-time classics, when multitudes of other films of the era have been largely forgotten.

I read that on Wikipedia already, and looked at the actually movies that came out in 1939.  Which movies from 1939 do you consider exceptional and big box office draws?.  More importantly, Gone With the Wind did most of its box office in 1940 and 1941.  What was so big other than Gone With the Wind over the course of those 2 years?

You're missing the point.

What Gone With the Wind did was exceptional, even for its own time.  Saying that its success is accountable to its era overlooks the fact that no other movie from its era did the same thing.  Saying that people at that time had no other entertainment available is false, as is saying that Gone With the Wind had no competition.

Like I/Wikipedia said, 1939 was actually a pretty big year for movies.  If your point is that, well, 70+ years later not too many of those films are still all that popular, I'll grant that--it's hard for me to argue about the popularity of various movies in the 1930s, because I'm guessing that neither you nor I were alive at the time.

But look, you didn't address it in your first reply, so here's another chance: if 1930s/40s movies had some sort of advantage (people had nothing better to do) that balances out inflation--they're both "very valid" arguments--then why is the top grossing list covered in movies from the mid-to-late 90s and the 2000s?  Shouldn't it be covered in those early era films?

No, you're missing the point.  You're also contradicting yourself.  Also, your tone is coming across as a tad condescending.  I don't appreciate that.

Gone With the Wind is a classic.  I'm not arguing against that.  The only movies that did well in that era, aside from Gone With the Wind, were Disney movies.  There was no significant competition.

To your second statement "if your point is that, well, 70+ years later not too many of those films are still popular" - that's actually not my point at all.  A lot of those films became more popular over time.  A lot of the films on the AFI's top 100 list - the same people who claim 1939 was such a great year for movies - bombed at the box office.  People didn't go to see them.  Film critics love classics, so they lavish praise on these movies.  If these movies were so "exceptional", why didn't people go to see them?  Many of these movies actually had disastrous, cut up/shortened versions that were released in theatres.  A movie that people call great today was not the same movie that was released at the time.  Citizen Kane - which is supposedly the "best film of all time" actually lost money in theatres, due to a poorly handled release.  Poorly handled theatrical releases were the norm at the time.  Revisionist film critic history states that Citizen Kane was the best film of all time, but it wasn't even good enough to win best picture in its own time.

As for your last question - "why isn't the top grossing list covered in those early era films" - When you ask this, you're proving my point.  Here's the contradiction.  On one hand, you say "1939 was a pretty big year for movies", but on the other hand, you point on that none of these movies grossed well.  So there's your answer - It's not covered in films from that era because there weren't any other popular, grown-up films that did well.  The other top grossing movies from 1939-1942 were Pinocchio, Fantasia, and Bambi - all animated films, as previously stated - and it just so happens that they're *all* in the top 50 on the inflation adjusted list.

Since we're going in circles, I'll state my point.  I think a lot of people are directing hate towards Avatar and trying to tear it down simply because it's popular.  For some reason, people feel the need to do that with anything that's popular.  If you released Avatar in an era when the only other movies were either shortened versions that bomb in the box office or Disney movies, or if you play in it theatres for up to 4 years in some countries, as happened with Gone With the Wind, while limiting people's ability to see it at home, it will gross more, even inflation adjusted.   Even if you ignore the era argument, I will state that I believe that the following - Avatar will do at least $600 million, if not $700 million in U.S. box office.  It needs $1.5 billion to bet the all-time "inflation adjusted" numbers (I'm ignoring worldwide, because the inflation rates are more arbitrary, but assume the ratios are the same) If you let it run in theatres for several years, like GWTW, and there was no other way to see it (no home theatre, no piracy, etc.), Avatar would clear that number.  It's opinion, and we'll never know.  All of this relates to my core point - which isn't that Avatar is "better" - it's that there are too many other factors at play to simplistically compare movies from different eras using a simple inflation adjusted number.  A simple inflation adjusted number isn't any more fair than comparing total (non-adjusted) box office gross.



I thought avatar was great and I'm glad it's raking in the dough.

It will be #1 all time but titanic's (which, even with inflation, is the highest grossing movie based on its initial run only.... ie: gone with the wind and star wars saw multiple rereleases) gross would see a 50% increase based on avatar standards due to ticket prices being higher, plus i-max sales, plus 3-D sales.