The original Amityville Horror $280,990,100.

Gremlins is probably the most successful movie to never rank #1 (at least post-1982), due to the fact that it opened the same weekend as Ghostbusters. No matter how well it did, GB was so phenomenally successful that it always made more.

The fact that it stayed at #2 for 6 weeks just shows 1.) how big Spielberg was at the time, even as just an executive producer; 2.) how popular it was that it could remain the "second choice" for so long; 3.) the power of controversy as WOM (I wasn't alive in '84, but from what I've heard, the gremlin exploding in the microwave was one of those moments that basically singlehandedly sold a shitload of tickets, up there with Sharon Stone uncrossing her legs, and Anthony Hopkins feeding Ray Liotta a piece of his own brain).

I remember thinking Casper could make $200m and being disappointed with $100m it made. It adjusts well though.

Congo was also released in 95 and it made $188m adjusted as well. Not many people remember Congo!!

Congo is another supposed "flop" that wasn't. Its poor reputation (among those who still remember it) is mostly due to the absolute flogging it received from critics. It must have had negative initial WOM too, because it had a very steep (for the time) second-weekend drop (BOM says 57%, but an AP article from '95 says 53%), but that was also coming off of the biggest OW of the year to date, which would end up being the 3rd biggest of the summer, and the 6th biggest of the year.

Even though it was eclipsed by Batman Forever and Apollo 13, and it didn't have very good legs, Paramount seemed to regard it as a hit (it only cost $50m, and they got money from the large-scale tie-in deals). With a WW gross of $150m, it definitely made a profit for them, even if only a modest one. But if anybody still remembers Congo, they seem to be under the impression that it was a total dud, and treat it as a Godzilla '98-like cautionary tale about overmarketing, studio hubris and audience backlash.

It probably didn't make as much as Paramount was expecting, but it was certainly no Judge Dredd (another film which looks no better after adjustment - still only $65m or so).

I actually went to see Congo when it came out. It was after mid year high school exams that a friend of mine asked me to go.

To be honest the film flew under the radar so the $25m OW was surprising and seen as a minor success. (I mistakenly thought it made 180m adjusted though its more like $150m). A week later Batman Forever opened and broke the OW record. So Congo never had a chance.

Spot on about Dredd. It was a huge flop and the beginning of Sly's fall from grace (Assassins also tanked in 1995 as well).

And on the topic of 1995 -

Ace Venture When Nature calls was huge. Adjusts to $70m OW and $200m total. The OW blew everyone away. Jim Carrey was extremely popular.

While you Were Sleeping was an April release and Bullock's first hit as a solo star (off her success in Speed). She followed it up with The Net which adjusts to $95m.

Nine Months adjusts to $130m - all on the back of Hugh Grant's infamous run in with Divine Brown.

Clueless adjusts over $100m - a good number but doesn't match the pop culture impact the film had back then.

It was (BO wise anyway and maybe a little quality wise) - hence my 5 year slump contention that I have bored everyone with over the years!

Another "flop" that might not have been: Dick Tracy. $200 million adjusted.

Its production budget still adjusts to under $100 million, it did eventually end up in the black, but it was absolutely considered a disappointment at the time. Like with Godzilla '98, I believe the major reason was how much was spent on marketing, and how heavily it was hyped. Disney expected it to be their Batman, but its domestic gross was only about 40% of Batman's.

I've also heard a story that the General Cinema theater chain lost a bunch of money that year because GCC corporate also expected it to be the next Batman, booked it in nearly all their theaters, locations hired extra staff for the anticipated crowds, they passed up other films for Dick Tracy, and apparently had to pay Disney more money than the film took in. So theaters may have been hit harder than the studio was.

The production budget was about $46-47 million, but in an interview Jeffrey Katzenberg said that total costs including marketing came to about $100m - which adjusts to something like $178m. So perhaps it did have a net loss at the end of its first run (though tie-in deals may have covered the deficit), but with video sales I think it did end up bringing in a modest profit. Disney certainly didn't have to take a writedown on it (at least to my knowledge). I know they did cancel a Dick Tracy ride that was in the works for their Orlando studio/theme park, so there was fallout.

The biggest problem with Dick Tracy was that it failed to meet the huge expectations set for it; the movie had no staying power, and was quickly forgotten. It's like Godzilla '98 without the infamy.

I love Dick Tracy. So wish it had a sequel. I remember it made a good amount of money, the majority of the budget was paid off with market tie ins and sponsorships (I believe DT held the record for quite sometime) The reason they never made a sequel was because of an issue with the rights.

I am still shocked about Basic Inctinct adjusting to over $230 million. Hell, even its unadjusted gross is impressive.

As I alluded to before, Basic Instinct's huge performance was due in no small part to three words: Sharon Stone's snatch.

The film was controversial, it broke taboos, it just struck a nerve in the cultural zeitgeist (kind of like Fatal Attraction did in '87 - just remembered Michael Douglas was in that too)

Did My Big Fat Greek Wedding make any cultural impact?

Yeah...there is a reason why I placed it #1 on my lost of the most impressive box-office stories ever. However, everyone here remembers how huge it was and what a surprise it was. With films like Double Jeopardy...not even box-office.buffs really remember its run. And it was a terrific one.

I'll throw out another baffling one.

Big Momma's House adjusts to $178 million.

I wonder if anyone has successfully explained the run of Greek Wedding. Nia Vardolos said that there was some massive email campaign and it got circulated through churches and whatnot. That film proves to the ultimate degree how much it matters what demographics love the film.

MBFGW's word-of-mouth was like a perpetual-motion machine. People heard about the movie from a friend/coworker/etc., then saw it, then told their other friends/coworkers/etc.

I was in high school, I was basically dragged into it because my mom said she heard it was good. I wouldn't have ever seen it but for the WOM, because I thought it was going to be either a pretentiously quirky ethnic comedy (it was released by IFC, after all), or a generic trying-too-hard-to-be-quirky rom-com (which is what the marketing campaign, especially the TV spots, made it out to be), but I was surprised at how much I enjoyed it. Seeing it was one of the biggest spontaneous laugh-out-loud cinema experiences I've ever had, probably only eclipsed by Borat.

I still don't know exactly how my mom heard about it - she's a dentist, it might have been from a patient, or one of her staff? However she heard about it, the point is that I would not have seen it but for the absolutely viral WOM it had.

And as far as it not having a lasting cultural impact, I wouldn't exactly say it didn't have ANY. "He don't eat no meat? It's OK, I make lamb!" is still frequently quoted in my family.

Your family must be REALLY boring.

How about pure and simple: a fluke.

Boring? Far from it.

I was exaggerating about "frequently", it is quoted on occasion, but nowhere near as often as other movies that get quoted, some of which include The Princess Bride, Ghostbusters, Back to the Future, Jurassic Park, Clerks, Office Space, Pulp Fiction, Tropic Thunder, The Santa Clause, Caddyshack, The Odd Couple, Get Shorty, Idiocracy, Galaxy Quest, Big Trouble, Joe Versus the Volcano, Drop Dead Fred - a wide variety of stuff. It all depends on the context of the conversation, it's not like we just quote stuff to amuse each other.

My point is, we fondly remember MBFGW, even if we haven't SEEN it in who knows how long. It wasn't a masterpiece, it wasn't a game-changer, it wasn't an "experience," it was just a good movie that did abnormally well. As previously stated, a fluke.

I also believe that, though not completely, Shrek 2's performance was a lucky coincidence. It had a lot going for it, yes. But think of this: it adjusts to $580 million.

Toy Story 3 adjusts to $426 million, Aladdin to $428 million and Finding Nemo to $503 million. I'd argue that those were bigger "events" as far as animated films are concerned.

There is no reason as to WHY Shrek 2 should have outperformed them so significantly, basiclaly obliterating all previous animated records (only The Lion King adjusts higher and that was arguably the biggest animated event of the past 50 years). Sure, beloved predecessor, good release date, empthy market. That all should have been good for a $350-380 million gross. But Shrek 2 getting to $441 million unadjusted (and still not beaten by any animated film, nine years on) - the fluke-factor MUST have played a role there.

I, too, have no idea why Shrek 2 did so damn well. I certainly didn't see it, I wasn't interested. Why the heck was everyone else? Anybody who was there, can you remember anything that might explain why Shrek 2 had admissions on par with The Dark Knight?

Another one which boggles my mind in retrospect, especially with how poorly parody movies are regarded these days, and how mediocre their numbers are. The adjusted gross for the original Scary Movie? $237 million.

LOL, never noticed that Nemo was the only CG-animated film in 2003. Crazy!

But why did The Incredibles, with even better reviews, the holiday season and the popular superhero theme could still not even hit $300 million back then?

Incredibles came out before the superhero boom, I'm guessing. If it came out in, say, 2009?

Should've easily crossed $300 mil.

Thanks to inflation, yes. Not thanks to the superhero boom. The boom was actually huge back then. Spider-Man, X-Men, X2, Spider-Man 2 ensured that. That's the only reason why even Daredevil made more than $100 million back then.

Looking at the Top 100 adjusted on BOM some adjusted levels are just crazy particularly considering how they don't have the "classic" standard attached to them such as other films in the Top 100 adjusted.

Examples...

Love Story (1970)- $571,184,900 adjusted, #35 all-time, $106,397,186 unadjusted
The Robe (1953)- $534,109,100 adjusted, #45 all-time, $36,000,000 unadjusted
The Bells of St. Mary's (1945)- $512,000,000 adjusted, #51 all-time, $21,333,333 unadjusted
Duel in the Sun (1946)- $416,326,500 adjusted,#92 all-time, $20,408,163 unadjusted
House of Wax (1953)- $412,340,400 adjusted, #95 all-time, $23,750,000 unadjusted

I guess I've just seen far more film discussion/appearances on television about films such as Blazing Saddles, Bridge Over the River Kwai, My Fair Lady, Rear Window, Smokey and the Bandit, West Side Story, and more older films on the list than the ones I listed in my post above.

I've never heard of any of them.