Jump to content

Premium and Gold members please go to this thread:

 

http://forums.boxofficetheory.com/topic/24403-paid-perks/

 

Copper and Silver Accounts please PM me if you have paid past August 1st and care about the "Custom Avatar" (or really larger avatar) perk.

baumer

Titanic | James Cameron | Pretend it's 1997 all over again (The pure awe of Titanic's run)

Recommended Posts

setna    210

Thanks Baumer for create this thread, for sure is my favourite here!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DAJK    10,221

I would really LOVE to get the chance to see this in a theater. The 3D re release came out only weeks before I got into movies so I just missed it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
franfar    16,243

So apparently Apple is coming out with this thing called the "iPod" for music. Why bother when we have Walkman? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
titanic2187    729

except for avatar, which directed by the same director, never had a movie break titanic's record, they dont make it in term of nominal, let alone adjusted figure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Barnack    2,182
3 hours ago, titanic2187 said:

except for avatar, which directed by the same director, never had a movie break titanic's record, they dont make it in term of nominal, let alone adjusted figure

 

With the re-release I imagine ?

 

Titanic made 1,84 billion on is initial theatrical run, it took  Force Awaken (2.07b) to beat it in term of nominal, but it was not that close of Titanic 2.75 billion adjusted for inflation in 2015/2016 money (not ticket price, just purchasing power)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
baumer    80,266
10 hours ago, Barnack said:

 

With the re-release I imagine ?

 

Titanic made 1,84 billion on is initial theatrical run, it took  Force Awaken (2.07b) to beat it in term of nominal, but it was not that close of Titanic 2.75 billion adjusted for inflation in 2015/2016 money (not ticket price, just purchasing power)

 

Titanic came out in a different era too.  No internet, no streaming, no apple tv no android boxes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Barnack    2,182
2 hours ago, baumer said:

 

Titanic came out in a different era too.  No internet, no streaming, no apple tv no android boxes.

 

No China market (and much smaller world cinema market) at the same time, Titanic made 145 million in China in it's 2012 re-release  while people had bluray of the movie available and easily could have find it online before it's release, who knows how it would have done last year... In 2012 Titanic was almost number one in the China market, ended #2 not far from the top, that is probably not far from a 400 million performance today in 2017 China market.

 

Avatar was in that different era and still made a crazy amount, every other movie in the 90's was in the same era of Titanic, none came close to Titanic not even Star Wars.

 

Not saying that Titanic would have made 2.75 billion in 2015/2016 and I fully understand your point about how hard it is to translate performance over different era and those lighting in the bottle positive loop are probably full of chaos, but Titanic world market share was at a special level and dominate is contemporary competition pretty much at the same level as the first Star Wars, Gone With the Wind, E.T., it is at the very top level.

Edited by Barnack
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
setna    210
On 18/4/2017 at 2:21 AM, vc2002 said:

 

Ha yes Kabul "the Titanic City". The story behind it is amazing.

 

`Titanic' fever rose in Kabul after the Taliban sank

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2003-04-21/features/0304210029_1_postcards-of-indian-stars-titanic-or-titanic-hair-large-cucumbers-and-potatoes

 

Afghanistan: 'Titanic' sinks beneath waves of humanity

http://reliefweb.int/report/afghanistan/afghanistan-titanic-sinks-beneath-waves-humanity

 

Titanic cut clampdown in Kabul

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1136013.stm

 

 

Yeah, it´s amazing!!

Thanks for the posts, are very very interesting and it talks how big phenomenon Titanic is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
baumer    80,266

That article is fascinating.  I've just spent the last half hour reading about Sherry Lansing and her trials and tribulations in the business.  Read the stuff about Fatal Attraction.  Amazing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
75live    9,448
17 hours ago, baumer said:

That article is fascinating.  I've just spent the last half hour reading about Sherry Lansing and her trials and tribulations in the business.  Read the stuff about Fatal Attraction.  Amazing!

 

yeah I really enjoy the two articles, as well.  I may have to check out her book even if it's not all about Titanic :P 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Amy    12
1 hour ago, 75live said:

 

yeah I really enjoy the two articles, as well.  I may have to check out her book even if it's not all about Titanic :P 

 

Hahaha same here :D 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vc2002    6,390
On 2017/4/22 at 1:53 AM, Barnack said:

 

With the re-release I imagine ?

 

Titanic made 1,84 billion on is initial theatrical run, it took  Force Awaken (2.07b) to beat it in term of nominal, but it was not that close of Titanic 2.75 billion adjusted for inflation in 2015/2016 money (not ticket price, just purchasing power)

 

This is interesting. I did some research and this 2.75BN is not exactly based purchasing power as a whole. Precisely speaking, it's adjusted simply based on USA CPI inflation, and basically it means if you had 1.8BN in USA 1997, you would be able to buy the same amount of commodities (like food or clothes) as you could with 2.7BN in USA 2016.

 

But this websites shows much more detailed purchasing power inflation.  https://www.measuringworth.com/ppowerus/

 

Using that calculator on the right, you get a detailed explaination of how much $1 from 1997 is worth in 2015 (they dont have date for 2016 yet).

 

The best measure of the relative value over time depends on if you are interested in comparing the cost or value of a Commodity , Income or Wealth , or a Project . For more discussion on how to pick the best measure, read the essay "Explaining the Measures of Worth."

 

If you want to compare the value of a $1.00 Commodity in 1997 there are four choices. In 2015 the relative:
real price of that commodity is $1.48
real value of that commodity is $1.61
labor value of that commodity is $1.52 (using the unskilled wage) or $1.69 (using production worker compensation)
income value of that commodity is $1.78


If you want to compare the value of a $1.00 Income or Wealth , in 1997 there are five choices. In 2015 the relative:
historic standard of living value of that income or wealth is $1.48
contemporary standard of living value of that income or wealth is $1.61
labor earnings of that commodity is $1.52 (using the unskilled wage) or $1.69 (using production worker compensation)
economic status value of that income or wealth is $1.78
economic power value of that income or wealth is $2.10


If you want to compare the value of a $1.00 Project in 1997 there are four choices. In 2015 the relative:
historic opportunity cost of that project is $1.41
contemporary opportunity cost of that project is $1.61
labor cost of that project is $1.52 (using the unskilled wage) or $1.69 (using production worker compensation)
economy cost of that project is $2.10

 

So, it depends on how you look at a film's boxoffice. With 1997's $1.8BN, you could buy $2.7BN worth of commodities in USA 2015, but when it comes to "economic power", you'd be sharing $3.7BN of USA GDP in 2015. The number varies a lot depending on which term you use.

 

So the real question is which of these terms does the best job of representing what a film's boxoffice means for the studio, the industry and the country.

 

For internet flame wars, I'm sure we all agree ticket price inflation is the best one, and Titanic is no doubt worth a hell lot more than 2.7BN in 2015. :whip:

 

 

 

 

Edited by vc2002
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Rambo    119

This is gonna BOMB! You cannot expect a masterpiece from pretty faces casted in this romantic drama!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noodlebug    156
On 4/18/2017 at 8:01 AM, DAJK said:

I would really LOVE to get the chance to see this in a theater. The 3D re release came out only weeks before I got into movies so I just missed it

 

My gf at the time saw the 3D edition with me and we both bawled our eyes out at the end. It's definitely more powerful in a cinematic setting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
baumer    80,266
On 18/05/2017 at 1:54 AM, John Rambo said:

This is gonna BOMB! You cannot expect a masterpiece from pretty faces casted in this romantic drama!

 

We're kinda passed this point in its run. :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Barnack    2,182
On 5/18/2017 at 4:54 AM, John Rambo said:

This is gonna BOMB! You cannot expect a masterpiece from pretty faces casted in this romantic drama!

 

Both actor were academy award nominee (Kate Winslet was a Bafta winner) and had received critical acclaim for more than a performance in their career before Titanic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.