Australia Australian Box Office | ....

[RthDeadWov]

Here is the history of the MIB FranchiseMen in Black (1997) - ??* / 22,789,539 (#3 for Year)Men in Black II (2002) - 5,353,291 / 17,617,086 (#12 for Year)* Men in Black opened to approx 855k tickets sold. Also of note it was on a then record 359 screens at the time!PS - i think someone got their wires acrossed above. the 22.7m should be MIB not MIB2

MIB 6,232,420 / 22,790,356 3.111mMIB2 5,353,291 17,619,149 1.816m

[Robertron]

Don't you mean just MIB?Also, I wish screen Australia would rank the top 50 just by year of release not the gross in the calender year. It's stupid.

It's ridiculous.It was released in that year, therefore it's total should be on a chart for releases in that year.Only movies released prior to November or December would have any real chance of topping the chart then. Yes, later releases could still top the next years, if they are able to top NA Summer releases, but it's as if Screen Australia would say this:"The Number One movie of 2010 was Avatar.... which was released in 2009.. "WTF?!?!

[Robertron]

MIB 6,232,420 / 22,790,356 3.111mMIB2 5,353,291 17,619,149 1.816m

Correct me if I'm wrong, but would $23m in 1997 be one of the highest ever at the time?

[RthDeadWov]

It's ridiculous.It was released in that year, therefore it's total should be on a chart for releases in that year.Only movies released prior to November or December would have any real chance of topping the chart then.Yes, later releases could still top the next years, if they are able to top NA Summer releases, but it's as if Screen Australia would say this:"The Number One movie of 2010 was Avatar.... which was released in 2009.. "WTF?!?!

Actually totally get the BO in year of release, there are two types of charts one that BO in year of releases (which goes to match yearly BO & Market shares etc, i.e. if BO in 2011 (1/1-31/12) is X what actually made up X) which also includes what is the overall BO so X earned Y in 2009 and overall BO is now up to Z. then theres the based on year of release regardless of what time period BO fell (so a 2009 film doesn't appear in 2010).If you go to BOM site and look at yearly BO, two of the options I described above are available for example if you looked at BOM calendar Yearly in 2009 Avatar is #5 and in 2010 its #1, Sherlock Holmes in 2011 is #19 and so far in 2012 is #15.In Australia 2009 Avatar is #3 in 2009 and #1 in 2010, HP DH pt1 in 2010 is #3 and in 2011 is #89The by calendar is the most common because when they say in 2009 the BO was 1.087bil (avatar contributed 40.278m to it and ranked 3) and in 2010 1.128bil (avatar contributed 75.3mil to the total #1 for the year and #1 for Fox for the year)Another example take the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) annual report for 2011 look at page 17, Top 25 films US/Can 2011 it based on BO within the year and includes 2010 titles, there is no BO chart in the report that is just based on films only released in 2011http://www.mpaa.org/...ff6fb5455a9.pdf Edited May 23, 2012 by Rth

[lab276]

It's ridiculous.It was released in that year, therefore it's total should be on a chart for releases in that year.Only movies released prior to November or December would have any real chance of topping the chart then.Yes, later releases could still top the next years, if they are able to top NA Summer releases, but it's as if Screen Australia would say this:"The Number One movie of 2010 was Avatar.... which was released in 2009.. "WTF?!?!

I prefer it, it's a more true representation of the yearly box office.

[RthDeadWov]

MIB 6,232,420 / 22,790,356 3.111mMIB2 5,353,291 17,619,149 1.816m

Correct me if I'm wrong, but would $23m in 1997 be one of the highest ever at the time?

Yeah about #14, In 97 it was also #1 for year, #2 Liar Liar #3 Lost World (Full Monty 97 only BO ranked #5)

[RthDeadWov]

I prefer it, it's a more true representation of the yearly box office.

Actually its not because if your talking about BO for say 2011 you don't include the BO component for a title thats in 2012 because the money was earned in 2012 not 2011 and doesn't go towards that priors years overall total Edited May 23, 2012 by Rth

[lab276]

Also, it would be very time consuming for the MPDAA to keep updating a particular movie's run especially if it plays for months, like Avatar.

[lab276]

Actually its not because if your talking about Bo for say 2011 you don't include BO for a title thats in 2012 because the money was earned in 2012 not 2011

I know, I meant that I prefer the calendar gross thing.

[RthDeadWov]

I prefer it, it's a more true representation of the yearly box office.

Actually its not because if your talking about BO for say 2011 you don't include the BO component for a title thats in 2012 because the money was earned in 2012 not 2011 and doesn't go towards that priors years overall total

I know, I meant that I prefer the calendar gross thing.

Sorry when I first read your reponse I thought you meant you prefered it the other way

[Robertron]

Yeah about #14, In 97 it was also #1 for year, #2 Liar Liar #3 Lost World (Full Monty 97 only BO ranked #5)

Yeh, I took a look through the historical charts at Screen Australia and was shocked to find that it was actually a huge huge success.It'd adjust to around $40m or so now wouldn't it?And with the charts, I guess I prefer the more BOM-style chart as it shows a movie once, on one years list, but I completely understand now as soon you mentioned market share for that year, etc.Each to his own I guess.

[RthDeadWov]

Actually if you look at BOM it also includes by calendar year BO, it just when you go to Yearly section the default (or 1st tab) is by year of release the last tab is BO by calendar year. when you read their end of year report and where they mention titles its based on BO in the year (not titles released in year), so when they say that 30 movies grossed 100mil+ in 2011 and 25 in 2010 it includes titles from prior years crossing over if the statement was based on releases for the year it would have said 28 in 2011 and 23 in 2010. its all to qualify what the actually BO was for the year in question.A number of times in the past on BOM forums in aus section, I use to correct statements on when someone said X is the #1 for 2010 and I'd be like no its not its #3 because Z amount is in the following year.

Edited May 23, 2012 by Rth

[lab276]

Is it possible to get the 2004 list corrected? It's all wrong.http://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/research/statistics/wctopfilms.asp#Rab11311

[RthDeadWov]

Is it possible to get the 2004 list corrected? It's all wrong.http://www.screenaus...ms.asp#Rab11311

From memory its been brought up before but as yet they haven't corrected it.

[Totem]

4.4m/12.0m

[Robertron]

4.4m/12.0m

MIB3?!?!

[Totem]

MIB3?!?!

Yeh, not seeing any genuine interest at all.Will open below the Dictator imo

[RthDeadWov]

week top 3 Actuals1-TD 346 6,415,545 7,215,9672-TA 607 4,320,766 -34% 44,723,9683-DS 369 2,736,255 -42 7,484,480

Edited May 24, 2012 by Rth

[Robertron]

Yeh, not seeing any genuine interest at all.Will open below the Dictator imo

That would be horrible for Smith, regardless of the content. I'll guess we'll just have to wait and see.

[Robertron]

week top 3 Actuals1-TD 346 6,415,545 7,215,9672-TA 607 4,320,766 -34% 44,723,9683-DS 369 2,736,255 -42 7,484,480

Will pass LOTR2 and TDK (YAY ) this weekend for all-time NUMBER EIGHT!Fantastic to see it dropping so little from such huge numbers.