Looks like ROTS will be the 2005 BO king.

Harry Potter 4 is only $90 million away from catching up to Sith as far as worldwide grosses go. And Harry Potter has only been out nearly a month and a half! Perhaps the boost it got was during the holiday season, and it'll slow down soon. But I fear Sith will be overtaken worldwide..

 

Harry Potter 4 is only $90 million away from catching up to Sith as far as worldwide grosses go. And Harry Potter has only been out nearly a month and a half!

But look at the weekends gross for HP, it really fell off. I dont think it will have as long as a run as ROTS did.

 

no, NO KONG WILL DIEEEEEEEEEEE

 

i dont see king kong doing much of anytihng in theaters but something could happen because think of it holiday season and everybody has alot of girftcards to the theaters and everybody is busy because of chirstmas and new years. and i could see possibly the first week of jan where king kong could gang some momentum since everybody is calm down and able to see it.

 

It don't matter, remember that the star wars movies will be re-released again in 3-D in the future. That means more opprotunities to pad the stats and run up the box-office score.

Harry Potter most likely will be the number #1 movie in the international box-office. There's a lot of kids, adults, and families that really like those movies/books. Its something that is unavoidable.

King Kong was not a bad movie, it already made over what it costs...If you count the international grosses.

Yes, ROTS has broken records and all that jazz that we star wars fans here on this site talk about with so much rave and faun. But, ......King Kong will be the 1999 version of the Matrix. King Kong will probably make half of the total gross at the box-offcie (domestic and international)from what ROTS did, but it will take the trophy home for special effects. Just like the Matrix movie did to the TPM. That particular movie made almost 1 billion dollars unadjusted, and was beaten by the Matrix that made only 450 million. That also included the international take. This movie may not even make a pimple to dent the box-office take of ROTS, but it is already guranteed a victory at the Oscars for the special effects. King KOng had some good stuff, and when you compare it to the rest of the pack..........As Yoda says in the ROTS novel, The Avatar of light relaizes that he never had it. The special effects in King Kong were very good, and there is nothing that the rest of the pack has that can really compete to what I saw in the Kong movie, and the Academy people will most certainly agree. Wait till next year, and you'll see. The prequels will go down as not having won an oscar for special effects, a trademark of the OT and the two Ewok movies. In the end, how much a movie makes, dosen't gurantee it success, but the same can be said that just becuase a movie wins awards. It dosen't mean that the movie was either succesful or any good to the movie watching public. What a quagmire if you ask me.

 

You're completely right. It only took less than a year for folks to re-write history and proclaim the Matrix as the biggest hit of the year and the "Star Wars of this Generation." It didn't matter that it didn't make half as much as PM, it didn't matter how popular it was. The same is happening all over again. By this time next year, the average movie fan will come to believe that the biggest hit of 2005 was March of the Penguins.

 

Roland, you make a mistake in assuming that box office totals correspond to popularity. The Matrix didn't make the money TPM made but you cannot seriously argue that TPM has the same reputation among the general public that The Matrix has.

Nutty Professor II made more money than Pulp Fiction but only a fool would argue that it was more popular

 

In the long run, its not about the money a movie makes.

Its the memories of the people.

After all these years, Wizard of Oz is a beloved movie for several generations.

So will the SW movies.

I recall reading a few years ago, if Gone With the Wind profits were adjusted to account for inflation, etc over the years it would be right up there...in the top 3.

 

Why would you label my comments as absurd and allude that anyone having a differing opinon from yours is a fool. That's considered baiting where I come from.

Revisionist history aside for the moment, The Phantom Menace was hugely popular regardless of it's financial intake. Exit polls were resoundingly positive and the movie was the buzz of 1999. The Matrix on the other hand did not make a blip on the radar until it gained popularity on DVD. Critics who were angry that SW was (and continues to be) immune from their scathing reviews, and disenfranchised fanboyz all glommed on to Matrix as the movie that Episode I should have been. These people did everything in their power to attack Lucas and his films and eventually make people believe that PM was a flop and the Matrix was a huge success. And look here, it certainly worked on you.

I'm not attacking your opinion. If you didn't like PM, that's just fine because anyone can take or leave films and music as they see fit. But the popular claim that Phantom Menace was a bomb and is universally hated is completely absurd. Personally, I'm tired of the lies.

 

Roland, I'm sorry but you're wrong. Go outside this board, talk to people, ask 1000 random people on the street what they think of TPM and what they think of the first Matrix and you will get an overwhelming response in favour of the Matrix. It's not even close. It's not even a contest. This has nothing to do with "bashing" or the likes. I'm not bashing SW. I'm talking reality. Forget exit polls, it's immaterial what people said they thought of TPM in 1999. TPM's reputation got worse and worse over time while the Matrix grew and grew in stature. This is not my opinion, it's fact

 

I didn't say you were bashing anything. Having an opinion doesn't make you a basher. And while I do believe that you believe everything you're posting, it's only proof that the media won. Phantom Menace was not universally hated, the Matrix was not the greatest movie of all time. We were told these lies and eventually these lies became the truth. Hell, my wife thinks PM bombed at the box office back in 1999, and why shouldn't she? Entertainment Weakly, and other entertainment outlets told her it did.

 

No, TPM was not universally hated and The Matrix is not the greatest movie of all time. But the latter is still more popular than the former. Anyway, let's agree to disagree )

What interest would the media have in brainwashing people into believing nobody likes SW? Why would they do it? What possible purpose would this serve?

 

Please see the RotS in the Media thread where we are currently addressing these very questions.

 

RolandofGilead, you make some very good points and what could very well be very accurate observations.

Obviously, STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE did extremely well. Nothing will change that.

 

TPM's reputation got MUCH better as years went by and the hoopla settled down. The reputation of The Matrix, however, was sullied by its sequels, just like with RoboCop and Highlander (maybe not to the same degree, but close).

 

I wasn't around here in 2002, but was there any threads:
"Looks like Spiderman will be 2002 BO King."

Just wondering?

 

wasn't around here in 2002, but was there any threads:
"Looks like Spiderman will be 2002 BO King."

Just wondering?




Huh ??? Why would there be ? This is a Star Wars forum.

 

To show how unbelievable a SW film for the first time in history was going to get beat by another movie in the box office. To me that was the shock of the century that summer cause I always thought no other movie would ever come close to a SW movie when it was released in a year.

 

I believe there were a few threads in here talking about AotC losing to Spiderman. It's much the same as it is today. Some lamenting that it just wasn't fair, some rubbing the fans noses in it and claiming that Spider-man showed how movies should be done. And still more claiming that we just had to wait until Jackson's Two Towers came out in December to see a real Sci-fi director in action.

Nope, some things never change.

 

Nope, Gone with the Wind would be #1.

TOP 5 FILMS OF ALL TIME AJUSTED FOR INFLATION:

Gone with the Wind $1,293,085,600
Star Wars A New Hope $1,139,965,400
The Sound of Music $911,458,400
ET:The Extra-Terrestrial $907,867,700
The Ten Commandments $838,400,000


Look, no Titanic. (Acually, Titanic's #6). To me, This is how to compare films grosses. Is it fair to compare a film that 1 ticket is $7.50 to a film in 1939 Where a ticket was $.50 or 1977 when it was $2.50.

For everyone wondering, here's where the Star Wars Films Fall:

2. A New Hope
12 The Empire Strikes Back
14 Return of the Jedi
19 The Phantom Menace
55 Revenge of the Sith
81 Attack of the Clones

 

Most BO is not compamred by inflation. It is compared to how well it did that year in real numbers. THat what I go by. inflation comparisions give me a headache. And the real way to compare is by ticket sales. Music does it by units sold , broadway does it by tickets sold. Why does the movie industry count $$$$ when you do have inflation and tickets cost differently at different theatres and they cost different at different times, i.e matinee shows and night time showings?? Tickets sold should be the way. But I am just going by what the industry looks at and the is the BO it made that year in real money.

 

If you are comparing movies in the same year then the real numbers are fine. , but if you are comparing between different years (i.e. 1977 Star Wars to 2005 King Kong) then you need to go by inflation because otherwise it's not fair. The ticket prices are not the same. Inflation bring the money up to an even level, or if you want divide it by the current price of a ticket, and then you get how many tickets are sold.

Titanic is considered the Box Office champ, but more people have seen Star Wars A New Hope.

 

"If you are comparing movies in the same year then the real numbers are fine. , but if you are comparing between different years (i.e. 1977 Star Wars to 2005 King Kong) then you need to go by inflation because otherwise it's not fair. The ticket prices are not the same. Inflation bring the money up to an even level, or if you want divide it by the current price of a ticket, and then you get how many tickets are sold.

Titanic is considered the Box Office champ, but more people have seen Star Wars A New Hope. "

Even if you adjust for inflation it is still a flawed comparison as there are a number of other factors such as multiple re-releases, TV, video, home theaters, the relative prize of a movie ticket etc.

Movies have gotten more expensive, I've seen tables of average disposable income compared with the prize of a movie ticket and it was much cheaper to see a film in the 30's and 40's compared with the 70's and that was still cheaper compared with today.
I've seen this myself, in the mid 80's it was more expensive to rent a videofilm than to go to the movies, today you can rent 2-3 films for the prize of one movie ticket.

Both Gone with the wind and ANH could be rereleased many times and stay in theaters for years which is not really doable these days. Also they had much less competition from Video and the like.

Ulitmately the numbers are flawed as they seem to be implying that ANH would make 1.2 M$ domestic if it was released today, which I do not think is realistic.

Bottomline, comparing movies more than 10-15 years apart would be a fairly flawed comparison as there are more factors involved that just the ticket prize.

Regards
Nordom

 

As you mentioned, there are other factors beyond inflation to factor in: piracy and home theaters. If there was no such thing as piracy, and no home theaters, I suspect ROTS would have made at least 500 million in the US. As each year goes by, more and more people get turned off by the cinema and look to new viewing options, and that directly impacts the BO take of films.

So rather than counting dollars vs dollars, or people vs people, you'd need to figure out some new metric that also accounts for the era the film was released in. Something like:

Pre-TV Era
Early-TV Era
VCR Era
Cable TV Era
DVD Era
Internet Piracy Era

For example, I don't think it is fair to compare ROTS to Titantic because the market has completely changed in that short time period due to widespread piracy, rapid DVD release, and advancements in home theater technology. If any film in the top 5 adjusted all-time was released today it wouldn't have the time in theaters to rake in what it did years ago. Gone With the Wind and Star Wars would not have been re-released countless times, and Titanic wouldn't have sat in theaters for months making steady income.

(Nordom...I think I started typing my message before your message showed up and I realize now you already said much of what I just typed...DOH!)

 

For example, I don't think it is fair to compare ROTS to Titantic because the market has completely changed in that short time period due to widespread piracy, rapid DVD release, and advancements in home theater technology. If any film in the top 5 adjusted all-time was released today it wouldn't have the time in theaters to rake in what it did years ago. Gone With the Wind and Star Wars would not have been re-released countless times, and Titanic wouldn't have sat in theaters for months making steady income.

I sort of agree with that it isn't totally fair to compare today movies because you absolutely know that a movie is coming out on DVD in 6 months.

But in saying that, Star Wars Episode IV: SE was rereleased in the theaters and made 138 million, even though we all had the originals on VHS at the time. Sure there were changes, some I hate but that is another subject, but for a movie that came in 1977, and has been on HBO, CBS, TBS, SciFi, and every fan had the VHS tapes to still gross 138 million, I don't think any re-release will ever top that. I think the ET re-release made 15 million in 2002? That is why the original SW is a truly remarkable phenemenon that we should never forget.