Top 10 US Films of All-Time

Not really. It boosts the IMMEDIATE numbers, as movies rake in megabucks right away. It doesn't affect the long-term productivity, though. If anything, it makes it tough for them to stick around in the long run. It's not like the old days when you might be unable to see a movie opening weekend because it sold out - if you can't get into "Spidey 2" opening weekend, you're doing something wrong.

Oh, I agree that $400 million+ will be unlikely, but I think it's possible in this case. As I mentioned, the first flick enjoyed lots of goodwill - it wasn't something that made its bucks all in one weekend (ala "The Hulk") but got bad notes after that. Anyway you look at it, I look forward to it - I thought the first "Spidey" was possibly the best comic book movie ever made.

 

Actually, "Titanic" clocked in around $1.8 billion worldwide total.

I think it made a little more than a hundred bucks!

And the same went for "Lion King". Box office receipts named "Forrest Gump" as 1994's champion, but "LK" clearly sold more TICKETS - not a lot of under-12s going to "Gump"!

 

"Titanic hater"??? "Attack the flick"??? I don't see those comments in my own post. I merely said I thought there were better movies out there than Titanic, and I wondered why it was up at the #1 spot. I was trying to spark some comments such as "teenagers make the bulk of box-office receipts", "Titanic was a world-wide phenomena", "special effects were the best"...

I mean, I think you are trying to read something in my post that just isn't there.

 

A very cool site. Thanks!

 

Oh, uh, yeah... ahem. Well, you see, out here in Hollywood we often drop the "million" part of the numbers since it's so, uh, unnecessary. Yeah, that's it...

 

Sorry if I impugned you in my note. I thought your post veered into traditional "Titanic"-bashing territory, as it seems obvious why the movie's in the #1 spot: it made more than any other.

 

Well, yeah. But Titanic, to me, was a phenomena. I don't see any film topping it in the near future, and I really can't understand why it's on the top spot.

For example: Star Wars. It has been released, re-released, it had a trilogy created for it and a pre-trilogy. It supposedly could be the highest grossing film of all time, but it isn't.

Why? I say - teenagers. Who is able to watch a movie repeatedly? I'd say kids and Disney movies , but they can't pay to go to a movie theatre. That leaves us with teenagers - and female ones, at that. I don't think many 12-18 males were dying to watch Leonardo di Caprio die on the icy seas (maybe I'm wrong...), but I bet many young girls were.

 

Some movies work in a similar fashion to pop songs: not necessarily the best in the world, but it has enough elements to appeal to a wide base of people. Titanic unfairly gets regulated to the teen market as part of the backlash, but has stuff for everyone: history, effects, stars, romance.

Even if you think it's a "chick flick," it at least has a lot of eye candy and death. I'd rather sit through that than Beaches.

 

Same like Pearl Harbour... but a waste of time

 

I have no problem with Titanic being on top. It is light years better than Pearl Harbour.

Titanic has some great acting especially the two leads and recreates the only voyage of the Titanic very well. I saw the movie 3 times in the theater because it was such a good big screen spectacle that only Hollywood can do so well. That final scene when the camera pans a dead ship that all of a sudden is alive once again and all the characters are waiting for Rose (her spirit) to arrive by the Grand Staircase gets me every time.

I also attended a seminar on the Special Effects of Titanic held by the man behind the effects Rob Legato of Digital Domain at FIT College in NYC. A fascinating evening of movie magic.

We need a Titanic SE on DVD!!

 

It's a fallacy to imply that teen girls are the reason "Titanic" made so much money. Many advance this argument - all are wrong. No movie makes $600m US because of one demographic, unless that demographic is "human". "Titanic" appealed to MANY demographics - young, old, male, female. Did a lot of teen girls see it? Yup, but a lot of EVERYBODY saw that movie.

Why do some people find it so tough to accept that a lot of different people REALLY liked "Titanic"???

And BTW, the original "Star Wars" WAS a bigger hit than "Titanic" - adjusting for inflation, it made more money.

 

Looks like "Passion" had a great Easter weekend at 17M (354M total) and has now passed LOTR (Two Towers) and is only a few bucks away from #7 Jurrasic Park at 357M.

Not many movies have had this kind of life well after their opening weekend (Titanic may have been the last one or My Big Fat Greek Wedding).

So it ends up that Finding Nemo only lasted one year in the Top 10.

 

Titanic was probably one of the last films that saw engagements in a theater in excess of 6 months. I remember when ET played for 8 months even here in Poughkeepsie and films like Star Wars played for over a year in the same theater in Albany.

 

Oh man.........that's just begging for a good come back line....but it's Easter...better resist temptation!

 

"Star Wars" lasted so long they even ran a newspaper ad to celebrate its first anniversary! It was great: a birthday cake with the 12 action figures then available. That's never gonna happen again...

 

Do you have some actual factual numbers as to what part of the demographic saw the movie? Or are you just making a supposition that you are stating as fact?

 

Make that two: I won't watch it...have no use for that kind of girlie movie. Or most other films made in the past 20 years, for that matter. But it's always been apparent from these "top grossing" lists that quality doesn't equal box office sales.

 

Yeah, especially with Lucas at the helm. The next SW flick will be lucky to last one MONTH in the theaters if it's as bad as the last two.

I agree though--not many films will ever capture the public like Star Wars did. Seems the general public has a much shorter attention span these days...one viewing and they want to move on to the next popular flick.

There's also one other reason that some of those old films, when adjusted for inflation, still remain in the Top 10: home video...but now how you'd think. Even back in 1977 when Star Wars was released, people did not automatically assume a movie would be out on video within a year of the film being released. They'd go into a theater thinking that unless they bought a ticket, they'd never see the film unless it were re-released to the theaters. When TV came along, the films were of course shown on the tube, but still, it was at the broadcaster's whim that the film would be shown. The video era brought us instant gratification: if we want to see "Casablanca" now, we don't have to wait for an obscure, grungy little art theater to show it on a classic movie night, or wait for a local TV station to play an old, scratchy print of it: we just walk into the other room and grab it off of our video shelf.

In the pre-TV era, someone who was so enamored of "Gone With The Wind" would probably have gone to the theather a few times since they would never know if they'd ever be able to see it again anytime soon. Nowadays, why go back to the theater and dump $40-$50 more to take the family to see a movie a second time? You'll be able to buy the DVD for $15 in about six months.

 

I think you are approaching the issue in a wrong way. I didn't hate Titanic. I kinda liked Titanic. I just didn't like it *that* much. I thought the SFX were outstanding. The story could have been a lot shorter, though. I watched it once, didn't watch it again because of its length.

It just seems strange (to me) the movie is on the top spot. I'm not bashing your choice.

 

Can I produce ticket stubs with the names and addresses of everyone who saw "Titanic" and reveal charts and graphs with their ages, gender, etc.? No, of course not - there is no such data.

So yes, I suppose I've technically made a supposition, but I don't see how anyone can dispute that it IS a fact. Movies simply can't make $600 million based on one demographic. And think about it this way: if you ask 100 people on the street if they've seen the film, do you think it'll only/mainly be the teen girls who say yes? No - you'll get a very broad cross-section of people.

It's simply absurd to think that "Titanic" owes all/most of its success to teen girls. Do they pick the Oscars?

 

It's not "my choice". I didn't make it the biggest grossing movie ever, unless the four tickets I bought (2 for me, 2 for then-girlfriend) cost $150 million each. I don't think it's the greatest movie ever made, though I do like it a lot.

I responded to your last post because I felt you strongly implied teen girls made "Titanic" the #1 grossing film. I approached the issue from the viewpoint that this wasn't the case. And it does seem that a lot of people DO hate the fact it was such a big hit - the movie's endured a lot of beating over the last six years, most of which I feel is petty.

 

I don't agree with that notion. Not many films EVER caught the imagination like "Star Wars" - that's why it's the second biggest film ever when adjusted for inflation. Most movies in all eras are seen as pretty disposable, so I don't think it's an attention span issue. When a movie hits big, it clearly inspires some folks to take in multiple viewings - that definitely helped the "Lord of the Rings" movies.

Really, the number of people who see a movie more than once is relatively small. Depends on the movie, of course, but there are plenty of folks who are one and done - I've met many people who don't understand the concept of owning DVDs since they'd never want to watch a movie twice.

But it's also apples and oranges due to release patterns, which I'll address in my next post...

 

Well, some people see it more than once in theaters for the big screen experience, but you're right that home video means less of a market for second/third/whatever screenings theatrically.

The whole system has changed a lot over the last 25 years. As mentioned, home video means that fewer people bother with theatrical screenings - why spend $10 to see something that sounds iffy when you can rent it for $3 four months later?

On the other hand, folks still really like to head out to the big screen. It remains an experience potentially difficult to replicate at home, and it makes movies feel like more of an "event". Hollywood always fears for its future, but I don't think theaters are going anywhere anytime soon.

One other factor that helps many of the adjusted for inflation hits: re-releases. Because of home video, that very rarely happens anymore, but a lot of the biggies made it so high because of umpteen theatrical re-releases. How many times has "Snow White" been reissued theatrically since 1937 - 8? 9? A lot. "Star Wars" got a bunch, and the last one in 1997 added something like $130 million to its coffers! Flicks like "Titanic" will likely never have that extra revenue, whereas I'd bet that every pre-1980 movie in the top 10 adjusted enjoyed substantial cash from re-releases.

The only way to have remotely fair "biggest hit" charts would be to compare a) actual numbers of tickets sold (not grosses), and b) figures from initial theatrical runs only, without re-releases. Even then, the home video factor and other issues would interfere. It's like sports stats - it's very tough to compare across generations due to many complications...

 

Colin is correct on just about all counts...

 

I've always felt bad about the rap Titanic got from some of the Press...calling it a "girlie" film because of the popularity of Leonardo at that time.

Yes he was a heart throb to many girls but he did do an amazing job in that movie.

Any movie with the great Kate (Kate Winslet) in it plus Top-Of-The-Line special effects is alright with me.

Cameron deserved his Oscar.