James

I really liked this one. I've seen it a few times already and then I found out that it's based on a novel. It reminded me of 'Tunnels' by Roderick Gordon & Briand Williams which is one of the best thriller-adventure book series ever. I really hope Relativity will adapt it soon since they bought the rights for it for a few years now and the books are very successful. Anyway, A.

I really hope he comes back. I don't want another director. I don't give a shit what people say about him, man is a genius. No one can make spectacle like he does.

You are confusing two movies. Favreau's 'Jungle Book' distributed by Disney comes out Oct. 9, 2015. The 2016 adaptation, 'Jungle Book: Origins' will be distributed by WB and directed by Andy Serkis. That comes out Oct. 21, 2016.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_(film)

Oh. I didn't know that

Nah, I really like it. Peter Jackson has yet to do a truly bad movie.

No way. 'Rodrick Rules' is so fuckin awesome!

Yeah, it added a lot of money in 1997: Lifetime Gross: $460,998,007 05/25/1977 Star Wars $307,263,857 08/13/1982 Star Wars (Re-issue) $15,476,285 01/31/1997 Star Wars (Special Edition) $138,257,865

Well, it made 189 od it's 198,5M gross during it's first release in 1939. A 200M grosser 75 years ago is kinda out of this world.

The list is from Box Office Mojo and all of them except for 'The Sound of Music' had mltiple releases and that's taken into account. http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

I think it's this one:

I'm now watching the Chicago fight in TF3. It's probably one of the most nicely done and awesome spectacle scenes ever. I can't really find an equivalent to it, not even the megadistruction in MOS. The way it's filmed is just incredible.

You should read these boards more carefully (The Depp hate is close to the level of Bay hate LOL). And yeah, it's fuckin amazing!!

Well of course this list will be biased. Everyone has their favourites. But there are a few that are so big that people are automatically associating their personna with Hollywood: Pitt, Cruise, Depp, DiCaprio, Hanks (maybe) and yes, Jolie. They are easily the most recognizable movie figures on the planet. My folks aren't movie buffs, but they know and love them. Of course there are a lot of big franchises out there but I don't think it's as much about how huge some of them are, but about the popularity of the actor. For exemple Chris Evans has CA2 that grossed higher WW than Pitt's WWZ (his highest grossing movie), but no one in their right mind would say Evans is more popular than Pitt. I don't really know why, but some actors/actresses got this almost legend status (again, the actors mentioned above).

I'm not criticising your predictions or anything. I'm just too lazy to make a list of my own

Haha, I'm so good at lovin movies everyone else hates. TF,'The Hobbit' and POTC are my favourite franchises atm, at least until 'Fantastic Beasts' arrives in 2016. I loved 'Transcendence', '2012'; MOS is probably my fav SH movie ever with the exception of 'X-Men: The Last Stand'. Oh, and my fav SW movie is ROTS so....

Nice numbers for both Also, I don't know if this is what you're looking for, but: http://boxofficemojo.com/showdowns/chart/?id=2014openers.htm

If SW makes around 550M DOM then I think it has a good shot at taking down the last Potter (1,34B). That's giving it 800M OS which is TF/POTC level, the biggest OS franchises atm except for Avengers/Potter. Regarding Disney's marketing, yeah, of course it will matter, but it's nothing comparable to brand recognition itself. Potter/LOTR/TF/POTC all had years of building their audience through beloved movies, books, toys, successful TV shows and A LOT of TV reruns etc. Even with a mighty marketing push getting SW close to those levels will be very very hard, because right now we're not talking just movie lovers, we're talking GA. My dad, who doesn't go to movies, went to the last POTC because he liked the first three when he saw them on TV, where they are showing them a few times a year. The main mistake Lucas or whoever marketed these movies made was to trust that US audience will always be the primary force for all movies, but nowadays OS markets are just massive. Of course non of them are comparable to the US (China aside), but look at all the franchises I mentioned above. The last Potter, TF4, POTC 4 - in all of their cases their OS share of the totall gross was between 71-77%. That's just insane. Comparing it to SW, the biggest OS ration belongs to ROTS with 55%. I believe that the next SW movies have room to improve OS, but getting close to 1B some are predicting or expecting for the first one seems just unresonable. Edit: also, an interesting point to make: I couldn't find data for TPM (although I think the ratio is similar), but for ROTS on it's OW, 48% of it's audience was 25 years or younger. That almost half and no matter how badly received were the prequels it's going to show you that younger audiences played an important part in getting that gross. ROTS was released in 2005 so the 25 and younger were the 80's generation. Now 10 years will have passed when SW 7 hits. The ratio will probably be kinda the same and the 25 years and younger will be the 90's kids a.k.a. my generation. And most of my generation prefers the prequels over the OT simply because they were a thing while we were alive and they look good or at least decent (we proved this is important to us countless times: TF, POTC and the list could go on and on) Another thing is that from all the people I met and asked of this during my highschool and college time only two have seen the OT. That's certainly not the case in the US, but still, even there the things are probably the same (regardin preferences) and that's because we are young, most of us like what's new and cool most of us don't like watching old movies especially when they don't look good next to the new ones. I made this point to underline two things: First, because of the reasons I presented above you should see why (especially OS) prequals are the thing to compare SW7 to, not the OT. Second, Disney is a family friendly studio and they will try to appeal to young audiences, but bringing back the original cast of a trilogy most of the young people have never even seen won't bring us in the theatre. Will it have an impact on older audiences, mainly in the US? Of course. But people seem to bet on the fact that just because the original cast is back this is going to destroy most popular brands today. Mind you, I don't say it's impossible. If it's one thing I've learned my quarel with Baumer about this that is to have an open mind. I just say it's highly unlikely.

DOM? Of course! No one was arguing with that. But OS? It's not about the marketing, it's about the brand. SW is simply not that big outside of the US.

POA came out only 5 years later and even with a 3D re-release TPM barely caught on (and I took it as an exemple just because it is the lowest grossing Potter). But if you want to talk about years, HP: SS came out in 2001, two years later, and it made 657M. So...

It's pretty random, but HP8 made 61M (or at least that's what Mojo says) in China in 2011, when the market wasn't as big as today. How's Potter's popularity in China? Do you think there's any chance 'Fantastic Beasts' beats that?

I hope that too. I liked the trailers and I'm a sucker for disaster movies.

I like Ed's ''...''. It's like the calm before the storm.

The fuck...?!!!

Let's just admit we're all a little biased and move on, shall we?