Author |
Message |
scottb
Star Trek XI
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:50 pm Posts: 354 Location: Cleveland, OH, USA
|
Zingaling wrote: Nice charts, scottb! =D>
Thanks :wink:
_________________ All time North American box office.
1. Titanic - $600.8m
2. Star Wars - $461.0m
3. Shrek 2 - $441.2m
4. E.T. the Extra Terrestrial - $435.1m
5. The Phantom Menace - $431.1m
6. Spider-Man - $403.7m
7. Revenge of the Sith - $380.3m
8. Return of the King - $377.0m
9. Spider-Man 2 - $373.6m
10. The Passion of the Christ - $370.8m
|
Sat Jun 25, 2005 10:56 pm |
|
 |
Snrub
Vagina Qwertyuiop
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:14 pm Posts: 8767 Location: Great Living Standards
|
scottb wrote: Yeah but you can compare 2005 to 2004 which also had DVD, and VOD. If you look here http://www.entdata.com/charts/seasonal.html you can see 2005 is only down 7% from last year at this point. Thats not a number that can't be overcome later in the year its not like 2004 is blowing 2005 out of the water. 2004 had the Olympics in the fall and an ok holiday slate so its very possible that 2005 still ends up higher then last year.
According to that chart, this year is only $267 million down on last year. If you take away Passion of the Christ - which could be considered a bit of an anomaly, BO-wise - then last years box office comes to 3741, and 2005 is actually up on last year by $103 million.
|
Sun Jun 26, 2005 8:39 am |
|
 |
Bodrul
All Star Poster
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 4694 Location: Cambridge, England.
|
Snrub wrote: scottb wrote: Yeah but you can compare 2005 to 2004 which also had DVD, and VOD. If you look here http://www.entdata.com/charts/seasonal.html you can see 2005 is only down 7% from last year at this point. Thats not a number that can't be overcome later in the year its not like 2004 is blowing 2005 out of the water. 2004 had the Olympics in the fall and an ok holiday slate so its very possible that 2005 still ends up higher then last year. According to that chart, this year is only $267 million down on last year. If you take away Passion of the Christ - which could be considered a bit of an anomaly, BO-wise - then last years box office comes to 3741, and 2005 is actually up on last year by $103 million.
But, this year is not up on last year though 
|
Sun Jun 26, 2005 9:07 am |
|
 |
Snrub
Vagina Qwertyuiop
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:14 pm Posts: 8767 Location: Great Living Standards
|
hans wrote: Snrub wrote: scottb wrote: Yeah but you can compare 2005 to 2004 which also had DVD, and VOD. If you look here http://www.entdata.com/charts/seasonal.html you can see 2005 is only down 7% from last year at this point. Thats not a number that can't be overcome later in the year its not like 2004 is blowing 2005 out of the water. 2004 had the Olympics in the fall and an ok holiday slate so its very possible that 2005 still ends up higher then last year. According to that chart, this year is only $267 million down on last year. If you take away Passion of the Christ - which could be considered a bit of an anomaly, BO-wise - then last years box office comes to 3741, and 2005 is actually up on last year by $103 million. But, this year is not up on last year though 
Not if you include Passion of the Christ's numbers, no. But the fact that the deficit between this year and the last can be wiped out completely by removing the box office of one film - one film that brought out a large number of people that rarely venture to theatres, and for multiple repeat viewings, no less - would indicate that maybe we're overreacting a tad when we start predicting doom and gloom for the future of the box-office.
Prospects are also high for the remainder of the year. Last year at this point, Harry Potter 3 had already made the bulk of its $245 million gross, inflating totals for the year somewhat, whereas this years Harry Potter film isn't due for release until November.
|
Sun Jun 26, 2005 9:20 am |
|
 |
Bodrul
All Star Poster
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 4694 Location: Cambridge, England.
|
Snrub wrote: hans wrote: Snrub wrote: scottb wrote: Yeah but you can compare 2005 to 2004 which also had DVD, and VOD. If you look here http://www.entdata.com/charts/seasonal.html you can see 2005 is only down 7% from last year at this point. Thats not a number that can't be overcome later in the year its not like 2004 is blowing 2005 out of the water. 2004 had the Olympics in the fall and an ok holiday slate so its very possible that 2005 still ends up higher then last year. According to that chart, this year is only $267 million down on last year. If you take away Passion of the Christ - which could be considered a bit of an anomaly, BO-wise - then last years box office comes to 3741, and 2005 is actually up on last year by $103 million. But, this year is not up on last year though  Not if you include Passion of the Christ's numbers, no. But the fact that the deficit between this year and the last can be wiped out completely by removing the box office of one film - one film that brought out a large number of people that rarely venture to theatres, and for multiple repeat viewings, no less - would indicate that maybe we're overreacting a tad when we start predicting doom and gloom for the future of the box-office. Prospects are also high for the remainder of the year. Last year at this point, Harry Potter 3 had already made the bulk of its $245 million gross, inflating totals for the year somewhat, whereas this years Harry Potter film isn't due for release until November.
Silence, you fool.
|
Sun Jun 26, 2005 9:27 am |
|
 |
Snrub
Vagina Qwertyuiop
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:14 pm Posts: 8767 Location: Great Living Standards
|
hans wrote: Silence, you fool.
Fine!
*sulks*
|
Sun Jun 26, 2005 9:29 am |
|
 |
Michael.
No Wire Tampons!
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 12:27 am Posts: 23283
|
If the money hadn't gone to the passion - it would have been dispersed amoungst other films. Hollywood analysts that say this shit are stupid.
_________________ I'm out.
|
Sun Jun 26, 2005 9:52 am |
|
 |
Snrub
Vagina Qwertyuiop
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:14 pm Posts: 8767 Location: Great Living Standards
|
Michael wrote: If the money hadn't gone to the passion - it would have been dispersed amoungst other films. Hollywood analysts that say this shit are stupid.
Pffft! So you're saying that if The Passion had never been released, Church groups would've organised weekly trips to see, what - Agent Cody Banks 2: Destination London?
|
Sun Jun 26, 2005 10:15 am |
|
 |
Bodrul
All Star Poster
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 4694 Location: Cambridge, England.
|
Snrub wrote: Michael wrote: If the money hadn't gone to the passion - it would have been dispersed amoungst other films. Hollywood analysts that say this shit are stupid. Pffft! So you're saying that if The Passion had never been released, Church groups would've organised weekly trips to see, what - Agent Cody Banks 2: Destination London?
Precisely. The Passion killed Agent Cody Banks 2: Destination London potential to become the 3rd highest grossing flick of the year.
|
Sun Jun 26, 2005 10:31 am |
|
 |
Snrub
Vagina Qwertyuiop
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:14 pm Posts: 8767 Location: Great Living Standards
|
hans wrote: Precisely. The Passion killed Agent Cody Banks 2: Destination London potential to become the 3rd highest grossing flick of the year.
If it had had a graphic scene or two of Frankie Muniz being "scoured", I would've organised my own weekly group trips to see it.
|
Sun Jun 26, 2005 10:37 am |
|
 |
Bodrul
All Star Poster
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 11:21 am Posts: 4694 Location: Cambridge, England.
|
Snrub wrote: hans wrote: Precisely. The Passion killed Agent Cody Banks 2: Destination London potential to become the 3rd highest grossing flick of the year. If it had had a graphic scene or two of Frankie Muniz being "scoured", I would've organised my own weekly group trips to see it.
:laugh:, the guy in your avater has a rather large cock, or something similar
Last edited by Bodrul on Sun Jun 26, 2005 10:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
|
Sun Jun 26, 2005 10:39 am |
|
 |
Anonymous
|
One thing's for sure, that's a huge cock.
|
Sun Jun 26, 2005 10:39 am |
|
 |
Animosity Reigns
Indiana Jones IV
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 8:41 pm Posts: 1777 Location: The Dirty South
|
I personally liked Shrek 2 and was happy to see a kids type movie make it toward the top instead of a fanboy FX type movie ( I love those as well) just nice to see a change, same deal with Titanic..
and actually working at a theatre this year yes has been slower than 2004, but it has still been super busy about as busy as say 2002 or 2003... It drives me crazy when we have to be better than the year past...the exact same thing happened in 2000 after the huge 1999 year...people need to understand that the BO is alot like the stock market, some years it will be way up and some years it will be down FROM THE PREVIOUS YEAR...it doesnt mean its down all together, yes we are down from 2004 but its not like we are all the way back to like 1992 or anything...last year was a fluke with Passion and Shrek, it happens and will happen again one of these years and then again the next year when there is not a suprise break out everyone will be making these posts again saying how the BO is sucking... an endless cycle
|
Sun Jun 26, 2005 10:41 am |
|
 |
Snrub
Vagina Qwertyuiop
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:14 pm Posts: 8767 Location: Great Living Standards
|
loyalfromlondon wrote: One thing's for sure, that's a huge cock.
YOU'RE a huge cock!
And thanks! :grin:
|
Sun Jun 26, 2005 11:08 am |
|
 |
jb007
Veteran
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:47 pm Posts: 3917 Location: Las Vegas
|
Animosity Reigns wrote: I personally liked Shrek 2 and was happy to see a kids type movie make it toward the top instead of a fanboy FX type movie ( I love those as well) just nice to see a change, same deal with Titanic..
and actually working at a theatre this year yes has been slower than 2004, but it has still been super busy about as busy as say 2002 or 2003... It drives me crazy when we have to be better than the year past...the exact same thing happened in 2000 after the huge 1999 year...people need to understand that the BO is alot like the stock market, some years it will be way up and some years it will be down FROM THE PREVIOUS YEAR...it doesnt mean its down all together, yes we are down from 2004 but its not like we are all the way back to like 1992 or anything...last year was a fluke with Passion and Shrek, it happens and will happen again one of these years and then again the next year when there is not a suprise break out everyone will be making these posts again saying how the BO is sucking... an endless cycle
Post of the week. =D> =D> =D>
_________________ Dr. RajKumar 4/24/1929 - 4/12/2006 The Greatest Actor Ever. Thanks for The Best Cinematic Memories of My Life.
|
Sun Jun 26, 2005 11:15 am |
|
 |
Anonymous
|
The week just started.
|
Sun Jun 26, 2005 11:17 am |
|
 |
Snrub
Vagina Qwertyuiop
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:14 pm Posts: 8767 Location: Great Living Standards
|
loyalfromlondon wrote: The week just started.
Post of the week! =D> =D> =D>
|
Sun Jun 26, 2005 11:19 am |
|
 |
Anonymous
|
Snrub wrote: loyalfromlondon wrote: The week just started. Post of the week! =D> =D> =D>
I agree.
|
Sun Jun 26, 2005 11:20 am |
|
 |
El Maskado
Arrrrrrrrrrgggghhhhhhhhhh!
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 8:17 pm Posts: 21572
|
http://www.imdb.com/news/sb/2005-07-01/
Even sales for Shrek 2 and The Incredibles are almost in a slump now so I think that Shrek 2 may of won the box office war but due to way too many repeat viewings by kids in the theaters, they are tired of the green old monster that they wont even buy the dvd to see it. I think the same thing happened to the Incredibles. So Im guessing too many repeat viewings in theaterse= less dvd sales. Thats the price you pay I think
|
Sat Jul 02, 2005 1:31 pm |
|
 |
Box
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 12:52 am Posts: 25990
|
El_Masked_esteROIDe_user wrote: http://www.imdb.com/news/sb/2005-07-01/
Even sales for Shrek 2 and The Incredibles are almost in a slump now so I think that Shrek 2 may of won the box office war but due to way too many repeat viewings by kids in the theaters, they are tired of the green old monster that they wont even buy the dvd to see it. I think the same thing happened to the Incredibles. So Im guessing too many repeat viewings in theaterse= less dvd sales. Thats the price you pay I think
Eh, what? That's ridiculous. Both Shrek 2 and The Incredibles were huge successes on DVD. They are both among the top DVDs ever released.
_________________In order of preference: Christian, Argos MadGez wrote: Briefs. Am used to them and boxers can get me in trouble it seems. Too much room and maybe the silkiness have created more than one awkward situation. My Box-Office Blog: http://boxofficetracker.blogspot.com/
|
Sat Jul 02, 2005 1:37 pm |
|
 |
zingy
College Boy Z
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:40 pm Posts: 36662
|
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/?vi ... ate&p=.htm
It's an interesting chart. This year is behind 2004, 2003, and 2002, though not by a whole lot. We're starting to catch up, I think.
|
Sat Jul 02, 2005 6:25 pm |
|
 |
COMICGUY
Indiana Jones IV
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 2:11 am Posts: 1649 Location: NOVA SCOTIA,CANADA
|
Zingaling wrote: 2005 is still in the game to beat 2004. The fall and winter line up is strong this year, which should make up for the big loss in the Spring and potentially, a small dropoff for the summer.
This year is still almost down 9.5% from the same time last year.The fall and winter are going to have to be kick ass or this will be the first year in a long time where the box office decreased. #-o
_________________ Jeff N
|
Sun Jul 03, 2005 3:36 pm |
|
 |
MGKC
---------
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:42 pm Posts: 11808 Location: Kansas City, Kansas
|
COMICGUY wrote: Zingaling wrote: 2005 is still in the game to beat 2004. The fall and winter line up is strong this year, which should make up for the big loss in the Spring and potentially, a small dropoff for the summer. This year is still almost down 9.5% from the same time last year.The fall and winter are going to have to be kick ass or this will be the first year in a long time where the box office decreased. #-o
If I remember correctly, only 2 movies in the fall/winter made $200 million (Incredibles & Meet the Fockers). There were 7 $100 million films (Aviator, Million Dollar Baby, Lemony Snicket, Ocean's 12, National Treasure, The Polar Express, and The Grudge). I think 2005 can beat that.
|
Sun Jul 03, 2005 5:04 pm |
|
 |
zingy
College Boy Z
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:40 pm Posts: 36662
|
Yeah, I also think 2005's fall lineup can beat 2004. I mean, look at the month of September. I don't think I've ever seen such a strong lineup for such a terrible month for movies.
|
Sun Jul 03, 2005 5:25 pm |
|
 |
MGKC
---------
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:42 pm Posts: 11808 Location: Kansas City, Kansas
|
Box wrote: El_Masked_esteROIDe_user wrote: http://www.imdb.com/news/sb/2005-07-01/
Even sales for Shrek 2 and The Incredibles are almost in a slump now so I think that Shrek 2 may of won the box office war but due to way too many repeat viewings by kids in the theaters, they are tired of the green old monster that they wont even buy the dvd to see it. I think the same thing happened to the Incredibles. So Im guessing too many repeat viewings in theaterse= less dvd sales. Thats the price you pay I think Eh, what? That's ridiculous. Both Shrek 2 and The Incredibles were huge successes on DVD. They are both among the top DVDs ever released.
Some more about it:
Shrek 2 & Incredibles Sales
Interesting that 80% of the total discs sold for a movie are sold in the first 2 weeks.
|
Sun Jul 03, 2005 5:58 pm |
|
|