Dark Night Beats Star Wars as #2 in US all time box office. Can it beat titanic only 120 million to go
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rodger Brown: Dark Night Beats Star Wars as #2 in US all time box office. Can it beat titanic only 120 million to go
I have to believe the demographic that could through various means be brought to see Titanic in theaters is a bit larger than the Dark Knight's.
I almost see it as a moviephilic duty to attempt to unseat Titanic by seeing The Dark Knight in theaters once, maybe two more times.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I seriously doubt it'll catch titanic. Also, adjusted for inflation it's nowhere close to either of them. On my phone currently or I'd post a link.
Posted by Rodger Brown (Member # 11476) on :
I dont think it will either but like 6 weeks at number one not so bad. Also people don't go to movies any more. Not like they used to. Sure record profits are being made but I remember taking dates to movies for 3.50 and that was after Titanic had made its run in theatres.
Of course it only cost me $7 to fill up my old beetle but thats another story for my grandchildren who will hear it over and over until im dead.
PS im only 25
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
I agree with Strider, 120 million in the 70s and 80s was far more than it is now. I wonder if you can count tickets sold?
Posted by Rodger Brown (Member # 11476) on :
Oh btw now it costs over $50 to fill up my new beetle
Posted by Rodger Brown (Member # 11476) on :
there are sites out there that account for inflation but i haven't bothered to google them maybe somebody could and then post it
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
I hope it beats Titanic. I don't know why that movie even has the number one spot.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nick: I agree with Strider, 120 million in the 70s and 80s was far more than it is now. I wonder if you can count tickets sold?
Didn't Titanic come out in the 90's?
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Yes. And I knew girls who told me they cried on the odd times, but not the even times.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Dark Knight is currently 39th. Titanic is 6th. Gone With the Wind is #1.
If you take a look here you'll see why I think it'll be impossible for any movie to pass titanic till ticket prices are significantly higher.
Whereas most movies have a 30-50% drop in gross after the first weekend, Titanic actually increased by 25%. It then proceeded to stay relatively even for almost 10 weeks(which is also unheard of), sometimes increasing its gross by significant percentages. Even after the 10 week point the drop off was relatively minor. It also steadily increased the number of theaters playing the movie for something like 15 weeks.
The Dark Knight is in its 5th week and if it continues dropping at the rate it has been will top out in the lower 500s.
The phenomena that occurred surrounding Titanic is not going to be easy to replicate.
[ August 19, 2008, 12:43 AM: Message edited by: Strider ]
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
I remember getting dragged to see it. All the guys in my theater cheered when Jack sank. It was morbidly funny.
Titanic came out in 1997, so it was late 90's. Star Wars: Return of the Jedi came out in 1983(which was the last one as we all know), 14 years before Titanic. I think 14 years is plenty of time for inflation to have a very large effect on movie earnings comparisons.
BlackBlade, I should have been more clear, I'm just saying 120 million or one dollar, inflation has to be taken into consideration. I wasn't making a comparison to titanic, I just used the figure in the opening post.
[ August 19, 2008, 12:54 AM: Message edited by: Nick ]
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Unfortunately, Dark Knight won't pass the Titanic in adjusted sales.
As much as I know a handful of people who have gone to see Dark Knight two, three or four times... there were many girls I knew in college who saw Titanic 14, 15, and 16 times. It was insane. One group of girls went every weekend for two months straight.
If Titanic is unseated, it will likely be by a movie that caters to the same crowd, and will be an equally (or more) frustrating #1 grossing movie (at least to those who grit their teeth at Titanic holding that title).
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
The Sims: The Movie?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:As much as I know a handful of people who have gone to see Dark Knight two, three or four times... there were many girls I knew in college who saw Titanic 14, 15, and 16 times. It was insane. One group of girls went every weekend for two months straight.
I've seen the original Star Wars trilogy maybe 10 times over my lifetime, and I'm starting to get sick of it. Seeing the same movie that many times in the span of a few weeks does seem insane to me. Seriously: insane.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I too knew several girls who went to see it multiple times, as in 6 or 7 times. It seems so strange to me that the movie isn't considered a classic, seeing as how it made so much money. I don't think I know ANYONE who owns the DVD for example.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:I've seen the original Star Wars trilogy maybe 10 times over my lifetime, and I'm starting to get sick of it. Seeing the same movie that many times in the span of a few weeks does seem insane to me. Seriously: insane.
I've seen them sooooo much more than that, and I don't think I'll ever tire of them. But I also love to re-watch movies.
The amount of times I've seen movies like The Matrix, Fight Club, The Big Lebowski, Rounders, Swingers, Dazed and Confused, The Princess Bride, Office Space, and some others is incalculable. Well over 50 probably. The Matrix and Fight Club were almost on continuous repeat in my fraternity house when they came out on dvd. Some that I used to watch a lot as a child like The Goonies or The Neverending Story are probably way up there too. And I'm kind of embarrassed to admit how many times I watched movies like Highlander, The Beastmaster, and The Last Dragon growing up.
In a few more years I'm thinking movies like Amelie, City of Lost Children, and I Heart Huckabees will catch up too.
Basically, I love re-watching movies, and while Titanic isn't the kind of movie I would spend that much free time on, I completely understand the desire and mindset that surrounds engaging in that activity.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
Are you joking scifibum! What? I've seen the starwars films at least 50 times each.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I too knew several girls who went to see it multiple times, as in 6 or 7 times. It seems so strange to me that the movie isn't considered a classic, seeing as how it made so much money. I don't think I know ANYONE who owns the DVD for example.
It's weird to me as well. You don't see it on cable, and people don't seem to list it in their top movies. Still, I think I saw it at least twice because it was in the theater for at least a year.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
titanic's box office returns were the result of an inexplicable mass insanity. idk.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
I had to go down to #29 before I found a movie I haven't seen, and that was Shrek 2. Makes me feel better about myself. Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I think most people's perspective on Titanic is highly skewed by all the crazy hype it got, and by the teenage girl Leonardo DiCaprio insanity.
It won the academy award for best film for one reason: It was a great film. Most people cannot even fathom this now, because they hate how over-exposed they got to it, and so hate the movie in retaliation.
I saw the film opening night, and thought it was pretty amazing. I went home and told my older brother and his two best friends that it was a great movie that they needed to go see it. They took my advice and saw it the next night. When they came back they said "Phil, you were right, that was an awesome movie."
Then it was in theater's for the next year, made a billion dollars, the song got played to DEATH and the teenage girls went to see it over and over again to drool over DiCaprio.
When the movie came up in conversation with these very same guys, who liked the movie a lot when they first saw it (and went out of their way to tell me so), they had nothing but bad things to say about it now. They wouldn't even admit to what they initially said after coming back to see it.
Any piece of pop culture that gets tied up and intertwined with the teen and pre-teen girl demographic must be rejected by the entire male demographic as a matter of principal it seems.
So it became the cool thing to do to trash the movie, despite the fact that the vast majority of critics and early audiences loved it. Its hard to find anyone who will admit to being a fan, because its considered lame to be one.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
I think Titanic's popularity had to do with 1) hype and 2) specifically targeted hype. Teenaged girls everywhere were obsessed, and their mothers too.
I'll stick up for Xavier here. I saw the movie two or three times in the theater with friends, girls and guys, and I enjoyed it. I don't think I've seen the movie in its entirety since then, but I've caught bits and pieces on tv and not turned them off. I have nothing against the movie, but it's not the kind of movie I get an urge to re-watch.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I see Titanic on cable now and again. I know two people who own it on DVD. I won't because it's simultaneously cheesy and insanely sad. (I watched it 6 or 7 times in the theater and my friend whose dad was a member of the Academy and I watched it before it was released on video and, um, was DVD around then? Anyway, I'd walk to her house with her after school and we'd watch it, so I must have seen it at least 14 to 20 more times within a few months.
As much as yes, some of it was cheese, including most of the plot, it was a gorgeous movie, visual-wise, and there were some real tear-jerker moments (the one that makes me pause the movie and cry for ten minutes is the mother tucking her kids in to sleep as she tells them a story about Tir Nan Og. Oh, man, I'm tearing up right now.)
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I liked it, but even on the first viewing I thought it was way over the top. Of course, it was suppose to be.
I hate it now because of the overexposure, and because it was never the best film ever...and I had to listen to all the teenyboppers gush about how it was for something like 2 years.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Titanic *can* be re-watched, if you apply the drinking game rule "Drink whenever she says Jack" and then start the movie half-way through.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I thought the movie was a little melodramatic and targeted to a demographic other than my own, but it was enjoyable overall.
Was it #1 grossing movie of all time good? Not to me. It isn't, to me, worth watching a second time.
The fact that it is #1 (still) is more a testament to how marketing and choice of target audience are more at play than quality when talking about gross profit.
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
quote:Originally posted by Leonide: Titanic *can* be re-watched, if you apply the drinking game rule "Drink whenever she says Jack" and then start the movie half-way through.
Good plan!
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I remember watching it in theaters when it first played and, seriously, there was a standing ovation of appriciation at the end by the audience. Yes, myself included. Of all the short years of movie watching I had NEVER seen that happen before and haven't since.
Now that I look back there are some serious problems with the movie, but at the time they were ignored. It was a huge film that had some good actors and an historical panorama that enthralled. Another thing that has to be remembered is that the discovery of the Titanic (that the movie played off of) was still fresh. In a way this movie was cathartic as a memorial for those who died at the bottom of the ocean. Yet, interesting enough, it also had a message that those who went down had it coming because of their pride and financial positions. Add to that the appeal of two young actors who were complete heart-throbs for a generation (one of them shown nude) and you have a huge hit.
And so, how to make a hit out of a mediocre film? Sex appeal for the young. Political revenge for the working class against the rich. A cinematic memorial service to the recently burried. A huge historical panorama containing myths and legends of both tragedy and heroism. An appeal to "realism" based on the most scientific findings. Have it written and directed by someone with a proven track record making films that appeal to the male set that normally doesn't watch these sorts of movies. These thoughts, of course, bring up the question of why Pearl Harbor wasn't as succesful.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
quote:These thoughts, of course, bring up the question of why Pearl Harbor wasn't as succesful
Pearl Harbor had Ben Affleck?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
All of James Cameron's movies are, in their really odd way, love stories.
I would still love Titanic if I weren't sort of disgusted by his personal conduct in the aftermath. I mean what kind of an idiot throws over Linda Hamilton? And then has the gall to talk about their daughter in the Oscar acceptance speech? Weirdo.
However:
quote:If Titanic is unseated, it will likely be by a movie that caters to the same crowd, and will be an equally (or more) frustrating #1 grossing movie (at least to those who grit their teeth at Titanic holding that title).
Unless the makers of Twilight are really inept, I'm sure it will happen this holiday season.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Originally posted by T:man: Are you joking scifibum! What? I've seen the starwars films at least 50 times each.
High five!
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Of all the short years of movie watching I had NEVER seen that happen before and haven't since.
Actually, that's happened at every opening-night Pixar film I've ever attended, except for Cars. Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I've never been in an opening night for a highly popular film, and I've never heard cheering and applauding at the theater (except for an isolated whoop every now and then). I'm starting to think the opening night crowd is a different sort of crowd.
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I've never been in an opening night for a highly popular film, and I've never heard cheering and applauding at the theater (except for an isolated whoop every now and then). I'm starting to think the opening night crowd is a different sort of crowd.
You'd be right there. Midnight movie crowds tend to be movie fans, not watchers, if that makes any sense. I know the entire theater gave a standing ovation when Return of the King ended at the midnight showing I went to...even if it was a sort of weary, 3:30 AM applause Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
One of the first real cultural differences I noticed when I toured Europe is that Europeans have a tradition of applauding and yelling "bravo!" at the end of movies.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka:
quote:If Titanic is unseated, it will likely be by a movie that caters to the same crowd, and will be an equally (or more) frustrating #1 grossing movie (at least to those who grit their teeth at Titanic holding that title).
Unless the makers of Twilight are really inept, I'm sure it will happen this holiday season.
Posted by Rodger Brown (Member # 11476) on :
I don't think twilight will unseat titanic. Yes little girls will love it and you know what Ill probably go see it too but the budget used to make the film isn't what titanic was and from what I've seen the effects are pretty cheesy
Titanic did have the little girl following but it had a bigger audience too. It was a film that transcended genres and did in fact look gorgeous. It was a movie that was worth buying a dvd player for. Just like I think Transformers is worth buying a blu-ray for but thats another story for another day.
As I said in an earlier post. People don't go to movies like they used to. I used to go to a movie every friday night. I saw some real crappy movies but those crappy movies made money in the theatre. Now crappy movies do occasionally do ok in the theatres but mostly they just go to DVD.
I prefer to pay 5 - 20 for a movie I can watch over and over in great quality in the comfort of my own home and I can watch the movie over and over. It costs 15 bucks to go see a movie with my wife once plus another 15 bucks for popcorn.
It takes a really good movie to get me to the theatre and the dark knight is a great movie that again transcends genres.
Twilight will not be that film I repeat as good as the books are selling Twilight will never be as good as Titanic or The Dark Knight or Star Wars or Shrek 2.
You can quote me on that and I'm sure you will if I am proved wrong.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
"It costs 15 bucks to go see a movie with my wife once plus another 15 bucks for popcorn."
Those matinee prices?
Matinees near me in NJ are $8, and regular tickets $10-11. I don't even think about popcorn or concession - we generally smuggle in candy/drinks from Target at one fifth the price.
Posted by Rodger Brown (Member # 11476) on :
In Utah evening prices are 7.50 - 8.00 and matinee is generally 5.00 - 5.50 so we still see movies cheaper than most.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer:
quote:Originally posted by T:man: Are you joking scifibum! What? I've seen the starwars films at least 50 times each.
High five!
*air hi-five* No ones alowed to touch in school.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
...
The Ten commandments?
(haven't even seen gone with the wind)
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: "It costs 15 bucks to go see a movie with my wife once plus another 15 bucks for popcorn."
Those matinee prices?
Matinees near me in NJ are $8, and regular tickets $10-11. I don't even think about popcorn or concession - we generally smuggle in candy/drinks from Target at one fifth the price.
When I went to see WALL-E, I went to a matinee. It was the first time I'd been to a theater in probably over a year.
"That'll be eight dollars per adult." "Don't you have a matinee rate?" "That *IS* the matinee rate." "Oh."
Two adults, one child, plus snacks = $62. Sweet merciful crap I'm not doing that again for a while.
And now they are apparently giving student and senior discounts only one day out of the week. You a student and want a lower rate? You have to go see the movie on a Tuesday... a SCHOOL NIGHT.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
You know, you don't have to buy snacks...
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
The AMC theater nearby has a matinee price of $5.00...all day long on any day that isn't Fri-Sun.
Local chain Cinema Cafe offers matinee prices of $4.75 for new releases, $7.75 for evenings and weekends. Second run films are $1.50 during the daytime, $3.25 at night.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: You know, you don't have to buy snacks...
<sarcasm>What? Not buying snacks is stealing! The theaters only make money on snacks, which is why you shouldn't sneak in your own!!</sarcasm>
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: You know, you don't have to buy snacks...
Between my pockets and my wife's purse, there wasn't enough room to bring in food for three of us.
Posted by Rodger Brown (Member # 11476) on :
I decided that when I go to the movies Snacks are part of that experience. I can watch movies at home sometimes enjoy them more but its more about creating an event instead of just entertaining myself.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
Just to let you know, I wasn't talking about sneaking in snacks. Is it really that horrible to just watch the movie?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat: The AMC theater nearby has a matinee price of $5.00...all day long on any day that isn't Fri-Sun.
Same thing here. They're the only reason I see so many movies. Otherwise it'd be too expensive.
Plus they let you bring in whatever food you want.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Movies are very expensive here - we try to limit as much as possible. When two matinee tickets will cost $14-15 (just about a month's subscription to Blockbuster Online), it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
We'll go for the special effects movies that we want to see on a big screen, but really not much else.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Add in paying for a babysitter, we have not been to movies for a while. Somehow bringing a 19 month old to a movie seems like a bad idea.
Posted by Rodger Brown (Member # 11476) on :
I think taking a 19 month old to the Dark Knight would be a great idea. Everyone loves a crying baby and what better way to start a kid down a horrible road than exposing them to hard R's.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
The Dark Knight isn't rated R.
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat: The Dark Knight isn't rated R.
It is, however, one of the most dark and intense PG-13's I've seen. Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
I was responding to Rodger's "hard R's" remark. I made no statement that The Dark Knight wasn't as intense as all heck.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, the fact that Dark Knight isn't R rated says something about the rating system doesn't it? Why have ratings if you don't use them properly? I couldn't believe it was PG-13. Just because the subject is a superhero, doesn't make it a Pg-13 movie. When "The Hammer," a romantic comedy with one instance of the F word gets an R rating, you can see the disparity.
Posted by Rodger Brown (Member # 11476) on :
I was making a general statement on taking babies to movies not on any specific movie and I was being sarcastic. I think its great when parents make the responsible choice and leave the little ones home.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Well, to be fair, we did take her to Walle. But I figure the first showing of the day, a movie intended for kids, everyone should be expecting children. And luckily, she was more then happy to crawl into her aunts lap and watch the movie silently.
Posted by Rodger Brown (Member # 11476) on :
*addendum to my post families should of course go to family movies and kids movies with all little ones it is expected.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Movie ratings aren't exactly an exact science - there are some pretty "out there" ratings from the 80's, and there are some pretty strange ratings today.
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
They are also stretched strategically so that a movie that probably should be R rated will just BARELY be PG-13 so that it gets more ticket sales.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rodger Brown: I think its great when parents make the responsible choice and leave the little ones home.
....... leaving little kids at home unsupervised is the responsible choice?
Posted by Vyrus (Member # 10525) on :
He clearly meant with a responsible trusted adult or hired babysitter. [Hopefully not the $5 an hour 13-year-old-kind, although some of them can be responsible as well.]
I'm terribly afraid I didn't read the entire forum post-is the Dark Knight generally a good movie? [With or without dark themes.]
Posted by Rodger Brown (Member # 11476) on :
Dark themes aside the Dark Knight is one of the best moral films I have ever seen and quite entertaining as well.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)