Titanic Discussion Thread
Author |
Message |
Box
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 12:52 am Posts: 25990
|
 Titanic Discussion Thread
We keep coming back to the greatest of box office successes time and time again. Maybe it would be good to actually have a thread devoted to it entirely.
This spring marked a decade since the film passed A New Hope, and it looks like it will stay at the top for the remainder of the decade. I believe ET stayed at the top for 14 years, 1983-1997, when A New Hope passed it due to the huge re-release. Could Titanic match it again?
There was a great deal of competition between ET and Titanic during spring of 1998; at issue was the record of longest #1 streak. ET still holds this title; it was #1 for 16 nonconsecutive weeks, of which only 6 were consecutive. Titanic broke the consecutive weekend record, handily, but at 15 weeks at #1, it remained one weekend shy of matching ET.
I guess, by way of another tidbit: Adjusted for inflation, Titanic's gross this year will be $910m. Globally, given the weakness of the dollar, I think the film's gross, if one had to adjust it, would be at least double the original, so around $2.5B, maybe $3B.
So, for a film to have the same impact globally as Titanic did, it would have to gross $3.4-$3.9B worldwide.
_________________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/
Last edited by Box on Sun Jun 08, 2008 10:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
|
Sun Jun 08, 2008 10:43 am |
|
 |
Dr. Lecter
You must have big rats
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm Posts: 92093 Location: Bonn, Germany
|
 Re: Titanic Discussion Thread
Heh, maybe you should have waited until my list is over 
_________________The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!
|
Sun Jun 08, 2008 10:44 am |
|
 |
Box
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 12:52 am Posts: 25990
|
 Re: Titanic Discussion Thread
Nah...this is entirely on its own.
_________________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/
|
Sun Jun 08, 2008 10:46 am |
|
 |
Nazgul9
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 12:32 pm Posts: 11289 Location: Germany
|
 Re: Titanic Discussion Thread
box-2004 wrote: Maybe it would be good to actually have a thread devoted to it entirely. Another one? Every year one springs up. Anyway, amazing box office for an amazing movie. Cameron is the shit. 'nough said.
_________________
|
Sun Jun 08, 2008 10:49 am |
|
 |
Box
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 12:52 am Posts: 25990
|
 Re: Titanic Discussion Thread
Nazgul9 wrote: box-2004 wrote: Maybe it would be good to actually have a thread devoted to it entirely. Another one? Every year one springs up. Anyway, amazing box office for an amazing movie. Cameron is the shit. 'nough said. I start one every year  I can't say enough about this film.
_________________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/
|
Sun Jun 08, 2008 10:51 am |
|
 |
Rev
Romosexual!
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 3:06 am Posts: 32634 Location: the last free city
|
 Re: Titanic Discussion Thread
it will remain #1 for 20 years....at least.
_________________ Is it 2028 yet?
|
Sun Jun 08, 2008 11:25 am |
|
 |
Box
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 12:52 am Posts: 25990
|
 Re: Titanic Discussion Thread
Rev wrote: it will remain #1 for 20 years....at least. Nah. By the middle of the next decade, ticket inflation will be such that you will only need a film to break out a la Spider-Man or Pirates or Shrek to beat Titanic. So, not a massive phenom on ET's or Titanic's level, but a second tier breakout success. Ticket prices by 2015 will be $9-10. Using the admissions for Spider-Man, that would be $620-630m. A Shrek 2-sized hit would make $640-720m in 2015 with the same admissions. Titanic: $1.2-1.3B 
_________________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/
|
Sun Jun 08, 2008 11:39 am |
|
 |
billybobwashere
He didn't look busy?!
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 3:59 pm Posts: 4308
|
 Re: Titanic Discussion Thread
And this insane rise in inflation really makes me feel like it's completely unfair to ever look at box office without adjusting it. I mean, if a film breaks Titanic's record in 2015, everyone will call it the most successful film of all-time, but really, it'll only have half the number of viewers that Titanic had. And that's kinda lame for the "highest-grossing movie of all-time" if you ask me.
I think there should be a point where adjusted box office becomes the one people track; the only problem is, records would never again be broken and it would make the box office less interesting, so that will never happen.
_________________ Retroviral VideosA film-based project created for the purpose of helping raise awareness about HIV/AIDS, specifically in South Africa.
|
Sun Jun 08, 2008 12:06 pm |
|
 |
Jiffy
Forum General
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 2:27 pm Posts: 6152 Location: New York
|
 Re: Titanic Discussion Thread
1930s - Gone With the Wind 1940s - Fantasia 1950s - The Ten Commandments 1960s - The Sound of Music 1970s - Star Wars 1980s - E.T. 1990s - Titanic 2000s - Shrek 2 One of these things is not like the other. 
|
Sun Jun 08, 2008 12:37 pm |
|
 |
BJ
Killing With Kindness
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:57 pm Posts: 25035 Location: Anchorage,Alaska
|
 Re: Titanic Discussion Thread
Shrek 2 is a flaming POS, I wish the film would just vanish.
_________________The Force Awakens
|
Sun Jun 08, 2008 1:55 pm |
|
 |
BJ
Killing With Kindness
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:57 pm Posts: 25035 Location: Anchorage,Alaska
|
 Re: Titanic Discussion Thread
Rev wrote: it will remain #1 for 20 years....at least. 12 years, Avatar is going to make crush Titanic.
_________________The Force Awakens
|
Sun Jun 08, 2008 1:56 pm |
|
 |
Webslinger
why so serious?
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:24 pm Posts: 4110 Location: Stuck In A Moment I Can't Get Out Of
|
 Re: Titanic Discussion Thread
Shrek 2 gets way too much hate. It's not even close to the best movie of the decade (or even its most memorable), but it's not like we're talking about friggin' Alvin and the Chipmunks or something of that variety being the decade's biggest earner.
As for Titanic, what is there to say that hasn't been said over the last ten years? We never see anything stay in the top ten for three and a half months anymore, much less stay at #1 for that amount of time.
_________________ This Post Has Brought to You by Your Friendly Neighborhood Webslinger.
|
Sun Jun 08, 2008 2:01 pm |
|
 |
BJ
Killing With Kindness
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:57 pm Posts: 25035 Location: Anchorage,Alaska
|
 Re: Titanic Discussion Thread
Webslinger wrote: Shrek 2 gets way too much hate. It's not even close to the best movie of the decade (or even its most memorable), but it's not like we're talking about friggin' Alvin and the Chipmunks or something of that variety being the decade's biggest earner.
As for Titanic, what is there to say that hasn't been said over the last ten years? We never see anything stay in the top ten for three and a half months anymore, much less stay at #1 for that amount of time. most definitely not.
_________________The Force Awakens
|
Sun Jun 08, 2008 2:07 pm |
|
 |
Bradley Witherberry
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 1:13 pm Posts: 15197 Location: Planet Xatar
|
 Re: Titanic Discussion Thread
billybobwashere wrote: And this insane rise in inflation really makes me feel like it's completely unfair to ever look at box office without adjusting it. I mean, if a film breaks Titanic's record in 2015, everyone will call it the most successful film of all-time, but really, it'll only have half the number of viewers that Titanic had. And that's kinda lame for the "highest-grossing movie of all-time" if you ask me.
I think there should be a point where adjusted box office becomes the one people track; the only problem is, records would never again be broken and it would make the box office less interesting, so that will never happen. I agree. Of course, the same goes for the all-time BO champion Gone With The Wind - - with a BO of almost $1.4 billion, representing gawd knows how many tickets in 1939 admission prices...
|
Sun Jun 08, 2008 2:26 pm |
|
 |
MadGez
Dont Mess with the Gez
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 9:54 am Posts: 23386 Location: Melbourne Australia
|
 Re: Titanic Discussion Thread
billybobwashere wrote: And this insane rise in inflation really makes me feel like it's completely unfair to ever look at box office without adjusting it. I mean, if a film breaks Titanic's record in 2015, everyone will call it the most successful film of all-time, but really, it'll only have half the number of viewers that Titanic had. And that's kinda lame for the "highest-grossing movie of all-time" if you ask me.
I think there should be a point where adjusted box office becomes the one people track; the only problem is, records would never again be broken and it would make the box office less interesting, so that will never happen. Agreed. Thats what makes Titanic so impressive. Back in the 90s we used to look at the adjusted list and biggies like Jurassic Park and Forrest Gump were huge - but were nowhere near GWTW, Ten Commandments, Star Wars, etc. Then Titanic came along and actually matched them or came close adjusted. You'd need a $750m+ grosser to do that today but with the DVD/internet age - that aint happening.
_________________
What's your favourite movie summer? Let us know @
http://worldofkj.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=85934
|
Sun Jun 08, 2008 3:34 pm |
|
 |
O
Extraordinary
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 1:53 pm Posts: 12197
|
 Re: Titanic Discussion Thread
Jiffy208 wrote: 1930s - Gone With the Wind 1940s - Fantasia 1950s - The Ten Commandments 1960s - The Sound of Music 1970s - Star Wars 1980s - E.T. 1990s - Titanic 2000s - Shrek 2 One of these things is not like the other.  We have 2 years left, there will be a MUCH better run than Shrek 2 I think before the decade is done!
|
Sun Jun 08, 2008 3:41 pm |
|
 |
Box
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 12:52 am Posts: 25990
|
 Re: Titanic Discussion Thread
MadGez wrote: billybobwashere wrote: And this insane rise in inflation really makes me feel like it's completely unfair to ever look at box office without adjusting it. I mean, if a film breaks Titanic's record in 2015, everyone will call it the most successful film of all-time, but really, it'll only have half the number of viewers that Titanic had. And that's kinda lame for the "highest-grossing movie of all-time" if you ask me.
I think there should be a point where adjusted box office becomes the one people track; the only problem is, records would never again be broken and it would make the box office less interesting, so that will never happen. Agreed. Thats what makes Titanic so impressive. Back in the 90s we used to look at the adjusted list and biggies like Jurassic Park and Forrest Gump were huge - but were nowhere near GWTW, Ten Commandments, Star Wars, etc. Then Titanic came along and actually matched them or came close adjusted. You'd need a $750m+ grosser to do that today but with the DVD/internet age - that aint happening. Actually, MadGez, Titanic is up to $910m unadjusted. $750m would put a film in the second tier, closer to Jurassic Park as to Titanic.
_________________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/
|
Sun Jun 08, 2008 3:46 pm |
|
 |
Box
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 12:52 am Posts: 25990
|
 Re: Titanic Discussion Thread
Bradley Witherberry wrote: billybobwashere wrote: And this insane rise in inflation really makes me feel like it's completely unfair to ever look at box office without adjusting it. I mean, if a film breaks Titanic's record in 2015, everyone will call it the most successful film of all-time, but really, it'll only have half the number of viewers that Titanic had. And that's kinda lame for the "highest-grossing movie of all-time" if you ask me.
I think there should be a point where adjusted box office becomes the one people track; the only problem is, records would never again be broken and it would make the box office less interesting, so that will never happen. I agree. Of course, the same goes for the all-time BO champion Gone With The Wind - - with a BO of almost $1.4 billion, representing gawd knows how many tickets in 1939 admission prices... No, it represents ticket sasles from 1939 to 1989. The film was in theatres here and there for decades. I think Gone With the Wind's estimated ticket slaes are around 208m or so. A New Hope is at 178m. Titanic is at 130m, and ET at 142m. No film in history sold as many tickets as quickly as Titanic did between December 1997 and May 1998. I think it's the only film to have sold more than 100m tickets in half a year.
_________________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/
|
Sun Jun 08, 2008 3:47 pm |
|
 |
O
Extraordinary
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 1:53 pm Posts: 12197
|
 Re: Titanic Discussion Thread
Just looking at Titanic's run to, its quite poetic as it stayed on top despite multiple close calls. It opened against a James Bond movie. In its 12th weekend, it was just $600,000 above U.S. Marshalls, then the now infamous estimated tie, and then beating The Man In The Iron Mask with Dicaprio in both in its 13th weekend. Then Grease taking the Friday spot, but losing the weekend in Titanic's 15th. And I just learned a new fact about Titanic 10 years later! It didn't reach its peak number of theaters until its 16th weekend, with 3,265!  It's the movie that keeps on giving box office feats! 
|
Sun Jun 08, 2008 4:08 pm |
|
 |
Box
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 12:52 am Posts: 25990
|
 Re: Titanic Discussion Thread
O wrote: Just looking at Titanic's run to, its quite poetic as it stayed on top despite multiple close calls. It opened against a James Bond movie. In its 12th weekend, it was just $600,000 above U.S. Marshalls, then the now infamous estimated tie, and then beating The Man In The Iron Mask with Dicaprio in both in its 13th weekend. Then Grease taking the Friday spot, but losing the weekend in Titanic's 15th. And I just learned a new fact about Titanic 10 years later! It didn't reach its peak number of theaters until its 16th weekend, with 3,265!  It's the movie that keeps on giving box office feats!  MBFGW didn't until its 26th weekend, with 2,016 theatres 
_________________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/
|
Sun Jun 08, 2008 4:11 pm |
|
 |
O
Extraordinary
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 1:53 pm Posts: 12197
|
 Re: Titanic Discussion Thread
box-2004 wrote: O wrote: Just looking at Titanic's run to, its quite poetic as it stayed on top despite multiple close calls. It opened against a James Bond movie. In its 12th weekend, it was just $600,000 above U.S. Marshalls, then the now infamous estimated tie, and then beating The Man In The Iron Mask with Dicaprio in both in its 13th weekend. Then Grease taking the Friday spot, but losing the weekend in Titanic's 15th. And I just learned a new fact about Titanic 10 years later! It didn't reach its peak number of theaters until its 16th weekend, with 3,265!  It's the movie that keeps on giving box office feats!  MBFGW didn't until its 26th weekend, with 2,016 theatres  Yes, but that was expanding, it is expected that a film expanding will reach a peak a number of weeks later (ex. Oscar season when it'll start in a small # of theaters in say October and a slow run, and then have a wide release in January, or even March when the Oscars were then. Titanic started wide, and still added theaters even 16 weeks later. Ex. American Beauty didn't reach its peak # of theaters until its 29th week.
|
Sun Jun 08, 2008 4:13 pm |
|
 |
Bradley Witherberry
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 1:13 pm Posts: 15197 Location: Planet Xatar
|
 Re: Titanic Discussion Thread
box-2004 wrote: Bradley Witherberry wrote: billybobwashere wrote: And this insane rise in inflation really makes me feel like it's completely unfair to ever look at box office without adjusting it. I mean, if a film breaks Titanic's record in 2015, everyone will call it the most successful film of all-time, but really, it'll only have half the number of viewers that Titanic had. And that's kinda lame for the "highest-grossing movie of all-time" if you ask me.
I think there should be a point where adjusted box office becomes the one people track; the only problem is, records would never again be broken and it would make the box office less interesting, so that will never happen. I agree. Of course, the same goes for the all-time BO champion Gone With The Wind - - with a BO of almost $1.4 billion, representing gawd knows how many tickets in 1939 admission prices... No, it represents ticket sasles from 1939 to 1989. The film was in theatres here and there for decades. I don't believe that Gone With The Wind made a significant percentage of it's BO in later re-releases, and beyond being released in an entirely different era, it had an unusual initial release strategy: Quote: The film premiered in Atlanta, Georgia, on December 15, 1939... [and from] December 1939 to June 1940, the film played only advance-ticket road show engagements at a limited number of theaters, before it went into general release in 1941. - Wikipediabox-2004 wrote: I think Gone With the Wind's estimated ticket slaes are around 208m or so. A New Hope is at 178m. Titanic is at 130m, and ET at 142m. There's the number to beat! box-2004 wrote: No film in history sold as many tickets as quickly as Titanic did between December 1997 and May 1998. I think it's the only film to have sold more than 100m tickets in half a year. Heh. If you wanna get into very specific records like that, it just cheapens the whole thing. It's like the record for the tallest building on top of a mountain in the SW region of North Dakota...
|
Sun Jun 08, 2008 4:45 pm |
|
 |
baumer72
Mod Team Leader
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:00 pm Posts: 7087 Location: Crystal Lake
|
 Re: Titanic Discussion Thread
BTW...according to the Numbers.com, Titanic has now,over the last few years added another 3 mill to it's WW total.
_________________ Brick Tamland: Yeah, there were horses, and a man on fire, and I killed a guy with a trident.
Ron Burgundy: Brick, I've been meaning to talk to you about that. You should find yourself a safehouse or a relative close by. Lay low for a while, because you're probably wanted for murder.
|
Sun Jun 08, 2008 4:46 pm |
|
 |
Bradley Witherberry
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 1:13 pm Posts: 15197 Location: Planet Xatar
|
 Re: Titanic Discussion Thread
baumer72 wrote: BTW...according to the Numbers.com, Titanic has now,over the last few years added another 3 mill to it's WW total. I'd go see a re-release on the big screen in a heartbeat! I've been waiting...
|
Sun Jun 08, 2008 4:49 pm |
|
 |
baumer72
Mod Team Leader
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:00 pm Posts: 7087 Location: Crystal Lake
|
 Re: Titanic Discussion Thread
Bradley Witherberry wrote: baumer72 wrote: BTW...according to the Numbers.com, Titanic has now,over the last few years added another 3 mill to it's WW total. I'd go see a re-release on the big screen in a heartbeat! I've been waiting... I'd be first in line.
_________________ Brick Tamland: Yeah, there were horses, and a man on fire, and I killed a guy with a trident.
Ron Burgundy: Brick, I've been meaning to talk to you about that. You should find yourself a safehouse or a relative close by. Lay low for a while, because you're probably wanted for murder.
|
Sun Jun 08, 2008 4:49 pm |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 95 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|