Jump to content

pieman

Free Account+
  • Posts

    731
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by pieman

  1. 4 minutes ago, MCKillswitch123 said:

     

    It'll squeak past 100M if remotely lucky. There's a possibility it won't even, given how its OD was on par w/Tomorrowland's. And for all people shit on Tomorrowland, its WOM was Godlike compared to Alice 2's (at least as of right now).

     

    People hated Tomorrowland. I actually think Alice will hold up better in that regard. Families on the weekend might also help more.

  2. I was surprised by how much I enjoyed this. It's a lot of fun, fast-paced, and actually less CGI based than the first one. In fact the whole movie is much better than the first one, partially because this one has a discernible plot. It's unfortunate to see the critics ganging up on it but it's probably because there is nothing less hip than Johnny Depp and Tim Burton at the moment, and let's face it, the first one just left a such a bad taste in people's mouths that it's carried over to the sequel. I really think audiences will enjoy it.

    • Like 2
  3. 3 hours ago, No Prisoners said:

    Been saying that for 20 years. Time to remake "Terms of Endearment " or "Ordinary people "? Nah, won't gross more than 30m these days. Where on the road to looking at a man's ass for 90 minutes for comic relief. Nothing you can do.

     

    Yep, we're all fucked and you guys will look back and realised that you let it happen.

  4. 3 hours ago, DeeCee said:

    Various articles from the New York Times at the time of release suggest the advanced screenings at the higher prices were from January 1940 to early October 1940 (It was at the Astor Theater on Broadway for 43 weeks up to Oct. 13).  There was an anniversary screening in Atlanta on Dec. 12 1940 and then it went into general release in January 1941.  So there was a gap of around 3 months between the first release and the second release unless it was being shown elsewhere in the US.

     

    I think these 2 releases should be separated due to the huge difference in prices charged.

     

    Well that proves my point. It was shown in New York and then went into general release in January 1941, why would that not be included in the first run. I also doubt that ticket prices changed astronomically between 1939 and 1941. I feel like you just want to make the argument that Star Wars TFA run is better than Gone with the Wind.

  5. 19 hours ago, Juby said:

    GONE WITH THE WIND (Budget $3.977 mln) ......... /ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION/ (ATP $8.34, Dec. 2015)

    1939 .......... $20,000,000 ...................................... /$695 mln/

    1941 .......... $11,000,000 ........... $31,000,000 ..... /$366.96 mln/

    1942 .......... $4,000,000 ............. $35,000,000 ..... /$123.56 mln/

    1947 .......... $???

    1954 .......... $???

    1961 .......... $???

    1967 .......... $???

    1974 .......... $???            ............ $189,523,031

    1989 .......... $2,403,316 ............ $191,926,347 .... /$5.05 mln/

    1998 .......... $6,750,112 ............ $198,676,459 .... /$12 mln/

    ALL  ........... $198,676,459 .................................... /$??/

     

    Over $1.2 mld DOM adjusted only from 6 of 10 releases! Mojo has wrong data, adjusted number for Gone with the Wind should be more than $1.7 mld, and today average ticket price is $8,61 not $8,34 when I calculate this!

     

    1941 and 1942 are still part of the first run release. It was just released in new areas i.e. outside of New York and Los Angeles.

  6. 23 minutes ago, terrestrial said:

    ....with only a small percentage of available screens in comparison.

     

    And that's only 1 out of a lot of details to take into consideration too

     

     

     

    And about half the population of America at the time. It also didn't have 10+ re-releases because you're counting it's expansion out of the large movie houses in New York and Los Angeles as a re-releases. Not to mention that adjusted for inflation that it's going to gross about twice as much as TFA.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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