But of course I am. I never said 'overall popularity', just popularity as measured by a film's theatrical success. Casablanca is probably more popular than Gone With the Wind by now, yet it made a fraction of its theatrical gross. And as I said, those Disney films, they're formidable.



Well, going from my comments above, popularity as determined solely by a film's initial theatrical success can be quantified. I have the GWTW initial gross data somewhere, but I'm not willing to dig through hundreds of files right now. I remember the NYT, in its reviews, however, indicating that around 40-50m people in the US wanted to watch the film. 129m saw Titanic in North America, 100m or so if you discount repeat viewings.

Based on my own calculations of Titanic's overseas admissions, conservatively, some 500m people saw it in theatres worldwide (tickets in India cost 15 cents, and not much more in China, yet the film grosses millions there alone; more than 20m+ people saw it in the UK, Germany, France, and Japan each). The figure could possibly be above 600m or even 700m.

The US population in 1939 was around 131m. Unless 99% of Americans saw Gone with the Wind, it's unlikely it attracted as many people in the same time frame as Titanic did (slice it by half to 65m for an extreme for repeat viewings).

Also, its difficult to throw in pop'n figures as how many people wanted to see the film. 1939 had alot of big things going on in the world, while I'm sure everyone that wanted to see Titanic could have in 1997, the same might not have been able to be said about GWTW. The comparisons are just far too complicated.

The US data you just supplied prima facia demonstrates GWTW was seen by a far larger portion of the US population than did Titanic, not the other way round.

I'm not talking about hypothetical grosses. This is not a "what if" scenario.


The question simply put is whether Gone With the Wind's initial gross in 1939/40 rendered it more popular than Titanic in 1997/1998. Unless 100m or so individuals (so around 70-75% of North America's population) packed theatres in 1939 and 1940 to watched GWTW, the answer is no.

Yes, but can't we say other $100 m films of the 90's might have been able to get higher admissions more quickly than Gone With The Wind could have with its slower release, and rereleases? So should I say that Disney's Hunchback of Notre Dame initial gross was more popular in 1996, than GWTW was in its early release? By your reasoning, the answer is yes, because it was able to make more initially as it was accessible to everyone. There are SO many films that in the 90's, and 00's, I'm sure made more than Gone With The Wind in initial release. But things were also MUCH, MUCH different than. You can't judge popularity based on how quickly people rush to a movie. If that's the case, than 2004's The Village was more popular than Gone With The Wind opening day in 1939. This makes no sense, but more people may have been able to see the Village opening day than Gone With The Wind, so where do we draw the line?

Had Titanic not been released, Star Wars would still be the #1 film of all time :-o All those years since its 1997 re-release, and no film has been able to catch it since.

And, in 1999, the Star Wars franchise would have had the top 2 films of all time :-o

ROTK would be #1 Worldwide


But I love Titanic, so I'm glad it's number one on both fronts.


Btw, I think it will be much easier for a film to take its #1 domestic crown than its #1 international or worldwide title.


I expect there to be 3-5 years of difference between a film beating it domestically and another beating it worldwide. $1.845B is so much bigger than anything else out there.

The most popular film of alltime is the wizard of oz, sure, its theatricle #s were average but along the years it became the most recognizable film ever.

Let's tackle this a different way since you seem to be adverse to logic when it doesn't mesh with your Titatinic-centric view.

How about just going by number of admits?

Gone with the Wind had 200,000,000 admits. The population at release was about 130 million. That's 1.53 viewings per person. Titanic had 130,000,000 admits. The population at release was 275 million. That's .47 viewings per person.

This is inflation-neutral.

I'd imagine the worldwide numbers show a bit of a better showing for Titanic versus Gone with the Wind, but still behind. I doubt there is any way to determine for certain.

I still think Star Wars will take the title back, in the next couple years. It made 140 mil in 97, it just needs to match that in it's next re-release and Titanic is finished. With Lucas enhancing his movie once again, lots of crazy Star Wars fans out there, and inflation, I think it can be done.