That Liar Liar number is INSANE.

In the 90s, you really could sell a film based solely on the star.

I already brought up Jerry Maguire's insane $277m adjusted gross in connection with the modern trend of films not doing too well if their title consists solely of the protagonist's name. I surmised that the reason it's such an exception is because the film was sold almost entirely on the basis of Tom Cruise when he was The Biggest Movie Star In The World. (The same applies to Tom Hanks and Forrest Gump, or Robin Williams and Patch Adams - which coincidentally had the same director as Liar Liar, and adjusts to an almost as shocking $233 million.)

Tom Shadyac also made Bruce Almighty and The Nutty Professor.

Nothing too surprising about Liar Liar - Carrey was still huge back then and the premise combined with the release date created a perfect storm.

A Time to Kill was huge because Grisham wa the best selling author of the time (Don't forgt The Client and The Pelican Brief did similar numbers. It also had a big name cast outside of the lead (which is a story unto itself) and steamrolled through the weak late summer which was impacted by Atlanta.

Maguire just hit a chord with Audi. Big star coming off his biggest hit, Oscar buzz and one of the biggest catch phrases of the 90s. Still it over performed big time.

Btw - same Christmas and Travolta's Michael makes 170m! Following Phenomenons 190m!

Still, no star, no combination of stars and no director could push a straight-up comedy to $320+ million nowadays. That just doesn't happen.

The Fugitive: $362,282,100


Lol Imagine a film like that doing numbers like that today impossible.

True. It really did explode - the premise was just too strong and it attracted families, teens, adults so the appeal was wide but that is a huge number. Especially coming off the 'disappointment' that was The Cable Guy.

Jan-April 1997 probably deserves a thread on its own. The studios really tried to turn this period into Summer at the BO. Big budget films and star vehicles littered the schedule to very mixed results. In the end the top 2 ended up being Liar and Star Wars - combining to well over half a billion adjusted.

The mid 90s also was dominated by some big stars - notably Cruise, Hanks, Carrey, Ford and Travolta. Roberts had been reached by Bullock until her comeback in 97. Will Smith was on the rise as well.

That's the first film I was allowed to see in a theatre with friends and not parents. Huge event for me back then and kick started my love for movies. It was a monster at the BO!

Same year - what about Mrs Doubtfire! Adjusts to 424m!

You don't really get two big leads playing against each other anymore either. Ford was ridiculous then, and the marketing was great. The last one I can really think of is Mr. and Mrs. Smith. People do want to see those type of films still. I think something like Will Smith vs. Tom Cruise in an action film would be absurdly huge, even despite their recent stumbles.

TLJ became huge as a result, (Client, Batman Forever, Men in Black, Natural Born Killers, Under Seige, US Marshals, even Volcano) By the time DJ, Rules of Engagement, and Space Cowboys came out TLJ was the biggest he had ever been anchoring hits on his own and in ensembles.

I know this is kind of older but Eddie Murphy Raw is still insane. And the fact that it adjusts to over 100 million leading adjusted and unadjusted. People get excited when a comedy concert makes over 10 million now. Eddie Murphy in the 80s, and Carrey in the 90s are easily the most amazing modern box office successes.

Ahh, so much fun talking about the box-office of yesteryears.

http://worldofkj.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=66079&hilit=streaks

A must bump, I always love talking adjusted numbers.

Yes, the premise provided a fantastic marketing hook.

Indeed love it!

Yep, the thread is a good read.

Still, the very same film wouldn't do nearly as much today, not even $120 million.

The one that always gets me is Staying Alive at $168m. It was a huge success back in 1983, yet people always think of it as a failure solely because it didn't reach the enormous heights of Saturday Night Fever ($331m).

Oh, and then there's Spy Kids 3D: Gameover at $151m.

Action movies dont make much as in the past unless they appeal to younger audiences.

Like Transformers.

Yes, this is true, which is why we get fed a load of shit nowadays. The Expendables was a breath of fresh air, then The Expendables 2 had to go and ruin it (and look at that, it was made for younger audience, and it made LESS ).

There is a reason I am not bringing up films like Shrek 2, My Big Fat Greek Wedding or Fahrenheit 9/11 here. Everyone knows they are huge and surprising success stories.

This is more about those forgotten box-office-runs, at which you look back and think WTF?? It actually happened?!

Like...Mr. Holland's Opus, which made $150+ million adjusted. The hell?

Major crowdpleaser.

Of course, the same movie starring Richard Dreyfuss isn't going to make $150M in 2013. But 1996 is a different story.

Also, a film like Indecent Proposal, no matter what cast, would never make $210 million nowadays. Or Basic Instinct $231 million.

I remember Double Jeopardy being the only film my Mother talked about and wanted to see.It had a great trailer and the tv spots featured Ashley Judd confronting her "dead" husband saying " I could shoot you in the middle of Mardi Gras and they can't touch me".

Home Alone adjusts to 552 million, lol.

While not astronomical, I find JFK's run very impressive. It adjusts to around 140 million. I s'pose it was the perfect combination of star power and controversy, but bringing so many people to the theatre to watch a three-and-a-half-hour political drama is still amazing. I do not believe it could be done today, 22 years later.