Coin Return
Loose Slot
Spider-Man still holds the record with $115 million.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Weekend Box Office Estimates
- Thread starter Coin Return
- Start date
- Status
Spider-Man still holds the record with $115 million.
galeninjapan
Banned
Even though Im not much of a fan of ROTS I hope it dethrones Titantic.
FrenchMovieTheme
Member
only 108 million? i heard people predicting from $150-225 million for this weekend. where are all the starwars nerds!? you let the force down ladies!
karasu said:
Prove it.
I was 20 when it came out, and saw it MANY times. The audiences had a mix of families, older couples, teenagers, college students and everyone in between, girls included. What Titanic did was appeal to nearly EVERY demographic, and that is why is played so broadly.
Star Power
Member
nevermind.
Agent Dormer
Dirty Drinking Smoker
They shouldn't have released the movie during E3. That was their problem!
i thought lots of teenage boys when to watch "titanic" cuz of the boobies. remember it was pg-13 so they couldn't be denied if they were 13 and up without a parent. damn only $108million? shit, my theater had 8 fuckin screens that was sold out from the afternoon to the night every day.
It all depends on how you spin it. Spider-man holds friday-sunday record. SW3 opened on a Thursday, and it holds the 4 day, 3 day, but since it opened on a thursday, it'd be impossible to win the friday-sunday. Had it been a Friday Opening it probably would have beaten Spider-man's record by 40 million or so.
NintendosBooger
Member
The only thing that will dethrone Titanic is inflation.
Which is also the only reason Titanic beat Gone With The Wind (and Star Wars, ET, The Sound of Music and The Ten Commandments).NintendosBooger said:
These records that ignore inflation are absolutely worthless. They're simply selfserving hype, one giant hoax played on idiot Americans by the film industry and journalists.
cvkpaladin
Member
Well, IMDB and Box Office Mojo both list SW III as making $108 mil. If someone could source the $125 mil, that would be nice.
OpinionatedCyborg
Member
Just imagine how much it would've made if the last two Star Wars weren't shitty.
galeninjapan said:
:lol :lol :lol Not again...
GhaleonEB said:
Correct. If females could make a movie gross almost $2 billion worldwide, we'd have a host of chick flicks that would've at least gotten close to the billion mark. With that simplistic argument, Pretty Woman would've made Star Wars-like numbers.
Titanic was a once in a lifetime phenomenom where people from almost every walk of life went to see it, and kept on seeing it again and again. The fact that it opened up at less then 30 mill, and saw it's box office numbers beat it's previous weekend figures twice in the first eight weeks, and then made 15 mill or more for almost four months is simply beyond the pale, and probably won't be acheived by anything in the next 20 years that isn't a critically acclaimed 9/11 flick. Especially when the theatre to DVD turnaround is as quick as it is now.
I'm interested in seeing how the Titanic SE DVD sells...I doubt it'll be anything like the theatrical release, or the Shrek 2 DVD release. Hell, who even talks about the movie anymore? Titanic was once in a lifetime...I think it was also released in one of the driest periods in box office history (I think it's only notable competition during that run was a Bond flick).
NintendosBooger said:
Yep.
Dan said:
Talking about inflation in Titanic's case does a disservice to it's box office success. Fact of the matter is there hadn't been a movie that had seen such a ridiculous run since ET. We're talking a gap of 15 years there, with a host of successful movies produced in that period. Such success cannot be diminished.
And let's not forget that Titanic was competing with television, cable, Blockbuster video, concerts, sporting events, video games, and the early years of the world wide web. What was Gone With The Wind competing against, square dancing Saturdays? The entertainment choices we had ten years ago (nevermind now) completely dwarf what was available a half century ago. Somehow people always forget that part of the equation.
Ninja Scooter
Member
in 20 years when they make 9/11 the movie, that will dethrone Titanic.
its crazy how all these numbers are so inflated now though. I remember the first real blockbuster i remember following the box office for was Batman in 89. Didn't it set the opening weekend record with like $20 million or something? Now every blockbuster makes $20 million in the first few hours.
its crazy how all these numbers are so inflated now though. I remember the first real blockbuster i remember following the box office for was Batman in 89. Didn't it set the opening weekend record with like $20 million or something? Now every blockbuster makes $20 million in the first few hours.
XMonkey said:
This is true, no clue where 124 million comes in, unless they did something weird like thursday-saturday. That's about what it would have done over a weekend, having opened on Friday I'd assume. Spider-man was a hell of an opening, no way Sith would have beat it by 40 million. Anyway, with inflation, Sith is basically the biggest opening yet. Despite technically not getting the weekend record, it's 4-day mark is almost 25 million beyond anything released yet.
Without inflation, everything changes. Wish I knew about weekends, but all time, Star Wars and Gone With the Wind kill Titantic, as do a few other blockbusters. Though Gone with the Wind was out for 6 years or so I think. Star Wars is definitely the biggest freakout for a movie ever.
I do believe Box Office Mojo takes all of that into account.MIMIC said:
So? I'm not doing it a disservice by complaining about a system of keeping records that holds ABSOLUTELY NO MEANING. I know very well that Titanic is a stellar performer. Only a couple top it with inflation included. But the fact is, you cannot, absolutely CANNOT compare grosses from different time periods without adjusting for inflation and have a comparison of ANY value.Shinobi said:
Again, not forgetting anything. Fact is, these records without adjusted inflation taken into account are empirically valueless.
That's all I'm saying. It's not some vast conspiracy to make Titanic less impressive or rearrange the rankings to suit my preferences. These records, as kept by the industry and supported by idiot journalists, are simply meaningless.
For reference, here's the top ten movies ever, after adjusting for inflation...
1 Gone with the Wind MGM $1,293,085,600
2 Star Wars Fox $1,139,965,400
3 The Sound of Music Fox $911,458,400
4 E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial Uni. $907,867,700
5 The Ten Commandments Par. $838,400,000
6 Titanic Par. $821,413,700
7 Jaws Uni. $819,704,400
8 Doctor Zhivago MGM $794,466,900
9 The Exorcist WB $707,639,500
10 Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs Dis. $697,600,000
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm
1 Gone with the Wind MGM $1,293,085,600
2 Star Wars Fox $1,139,965,400
3 The Sound of Music Fox $911,458,400
4 E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial Uni. $907,867,700
5 The Ten Commandments Par. $838,400,000
6 Titanic Par. $821,413,700
7 Jaws Uni. $819,704,400
8 Doctor Zhivago MGM $794,466,900
9 The Exorcist WB $707,639,500
10 Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs Dis. $697,600,000
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm
Shinobi said:
Lost in Space :lol
Notable titles that came within the swath of destruction of Titanic:
Tomorrow Never Dies
Mousehunt
As Good as it Gets
Jackie Brown
Wag the Dog
Mr. Magoo
An American Werewolf in Paris
Mystery Men
The Replacement Killers
Half Baked
Phantoms
Spice World
Sliding Doors
Great Expectations (WTF TWO PALTROW MOVIES IN TWO WEEKS)
Men in Black 2000
The Wedding Singer
Sphere
Hush (WTF ANOTHER FUCKING PALTROW MOVIE)
Big Lebowski
US Marshalls
Primay Colors
Wild Things
Grease Re-Release
Mercury Rising
and the champion of love: Lost in Space--shitty film, but it beat Titanic
And for reference there were no less than FIVE Paltrow films in 1998. Jesus Christ.
Dan said:
Heh, some other people have tried to downplay Titanic's success with the whole inflation thing, and done so in a way that seems a little too eager. I see what you're saying, but I think the comparisons can be made as long as the people making them use perspective. Of course, most people don't. :lol Certainly comparisons to eras 70 years apart have little meaning, but at the same time they do make for a very interesting contrast.
BTW, the BOM adjusted figures do include the money earned from re-releases in their specified period.
Matlock said:
:lol She was all the rage back then...I think I had a crush on her that year. It's hilarious how every year sees a new "IT" actor and actress.
I saw the Hush DVD for cheap a few days ago...was half tempted to get it since Jessica Lange is (or at least was) a MILF.
And yeah, swath of destruction indeed...no real competition for Titanic there. I bet Lost In Space only beat Titanic because people were finally getting tired of seeing the boat sink after four months. And I guess seeing Mimi Rogers in a tight suit was a nice bonus.
Yeah, I mean, there will never be a method of comparing these films' and the miriad of factors that affected their box office performance, but at least we'd have something that wasn't factually incorrect. I just can't stand when the studios and media come out and flatout lie. At least with inflation adjusted grosses or even ticket sales we'd have direct comparisons that were valid, if only part of the picture.
Of course, that'll never happen because the industry thrives on the appearance of having a healthy growth every year.
Of course, that'll never happen because the industry thrives on the appearance of having a healthy growth every year.
Eh, 20 mill wasn't that bad back then. I think 40 million was regarded as a huge opening weekend a decade ago. Which is what made Titanic's run all the more remarkable after opening up at just 28 mill.
Anyway, I do agree with you Dan...they should be doing inflation adjusted comparisons, if not exclusively then at least as an aside.
Anyway, I do agree with you Dan...they should be doing inflation adjusted comparisons, if not exclusively then at least as an aside.
Two things to chime in (being everyone else has).
Star Wars both beat spider-man and had no chance of beating spider-man. Star Wars beat Spider-Man's first day mark, single day mark, it's first two day mark, first three day mark, and first foud day mark. As others have said, because Star Wars' first day was on Thursday, there is no way in hell Star Wars could beat the Friday-Sunday. I am floored that it did as well as it did. The fact that it raised from Friday-to-Saturday as much as it did is actually good news as far as it's legs go (for a summer move flick).
As for Titanic, as others have said, there are two things for titanic, neither of which I see mentioned here. First of all, it got MAJOR repeat buisness from the female demographic. That repeat business is a huge thing. Normally it is only males in general who will provide repeat dollars, who surely bought a few tickets each to see Winslet's breasts and pubes, oh, and watch the awesome FX of the last half of the movie. But it was the girls providing the same level of repeat business that was really uncommon. Girls don't do that. They see a movie in the theater (in general) once or twice and then wait for video. So yes, it really was pre-pubescent girls seeing it five or six times which they typically don't do for other movies. I'm not saying it wouldn't have been huge without them or that the guys didn't go to see it tons also, but it really was the girls who pushed it up to $600M. Though even without the girld it still would have easily made $300-400M.
The second thing that nobody has touched on is the fact that it had very little competition at the time as far as quality goes. It was able to succeed in the theater all the way up to summer because it was literally the best thing up to the summer. and then with oscar wins it only kept going. it is VERY rare for a movie to hit its 26th week of release in the theaters these days. DVD release windows are typically 4 months or less. This is usually no more than 16 weeks TOPS for a movie to finish its first and second runs.
Star Wars both beat spider-man and had no chance of beating spider-man. Star Wars beat Spider-Man's first day mark, single day mark, it's first two day mark, first three day mark, and first foud day mark. As others have said, because Star Wars' first day was on Thursday, there is no way in hell Star Wars could beat the Friday-Sunday. I am floored that it did as well as it did. The fact that it raised from Friday-to-Saturday as much as it did is actually good news as far as it's legs go (for a summer move flick).
As for Titanic, as others have said, there are two things for titanic, neither of which I see mentioned here. First of all, it got MAJOR repeat buisness from the female demographic. That repeat business is a huge thing. Normally it is only males in general who will provide repeat dollars, who surely bought a few tickets each to see Winslet's breasts and pubes, oh, and watch the awesome FX of the last half of the movie. But it was the girls providing the same level of repeat business that was really uncommon. Girls don't do that. They see a movie in the theater (in general) once or twice and then wait for video. So yes, it really was pre-pubescent girls seeing it five or six times which they typically don't do for other movies. I'm not saying it wouldn't have been huge without them or that the guys didn't go to see it tons also, but it really was the girls who pushed it up to $600M. Though even without the girld it still would have easily made $300-400M.
The second thing that nobody has touched on is the fact that it had very little competition at the time as far as quality goes. It was able to succeed in the theater all the way up to summer because it was literally the best thing up to the summer. and then with oscar wins it only kept going. it is VERY rare for a movie to hit its 26th week of release in the theaters these days. DVD release windows are typically 4 months or less. This is usually no more than 16 weeks TOPS for a movie to finish its first and second runs.
borghe said:
This is undocumented, speculative hype. "Titanic" did NOT owe a large part of it's success to a single demographic (the pre-pubescent girls, as you say) seeing the movie over and over and over again. This is an excuse to take away to how much of an impact this movie was over ALL demographics.
If your argument were correct, ever single click-flick romantic-comedy/drama would be pushing $500 million. Unless this theory can be backed-up, I will continue to call bullshit.
"Star Wars" on the other hand, is an entirely different story. It's absolutely safe to say that the numbers that "Episode III" are seeing is due largely to, for the lack of a better description, 'Star Wars geeks' seeing the movie dozens of times and lining up hours and days in advance to it's opening (which was documented via the extensive news coverage). This is the ONLY reason why "Episode III" is breaking all of these records...it's because of what we saw with our own eyes: people dressed as the various characters, waiting in packs, hours in advance of its debut.
I completely disagree with the "little competition" argument. People didn't say, "Oh there's nothing good in theatres...let's keep seeing 'Titanic' until something else comes out." Word of mouth plus the fact that it was an outstanding film (hence its 11 Oscar wins) led to its continued box office domination.
The reason women get the credit for pulling Titanic over the top is because the teen-male demographic can be counted on to see pretty much any blockbuster over and over again. They are who makes the hits and they're pretty easy to get into theater seats.
Titanic did so much money because it delivered both the typical blockbuster audience, and tapped into some kind of DiCaprio-loving, romance hungry zeitgeist.
The arguement that romantic comedies should be huge is a poor one, because the market that consumes romantic comedies just don't go to the movies that often. But when they get their panties in a bunch over a movie, like the aforementioned Pretty Women, they go alot.
Titanic did so much money because it delivered both the typical blockbuster audience, and tapped into some kind of DiCaprio-loving, romance hungry zeitgeist.
The arguement that romantic comedies should be huge is a poor one, because the market that consumes romantic comedies just don't go to the movies that often. But when they get their panties in a bunch over a movie, like the aforementioned Pretty Women, they go alot.
- Status