water Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 i always wonder what big budget cgi blockbusters would make in, say, the 70s, if they were magically transported back in time and stayed exactly the way they are today. i feel like it would be HUGE considering the literally unbelievable effects for those times, not to mention movies are much more exciting today. i think audiences back then would be made speechless by today's movies tbh 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 (edited) Would 94 be the only year we had two 600m+ movies adjusted for inflation? I wonder if SW/TA2 can replicate the feat next year. 1956 had TEN COMMANDMENTS ($1,063m) and AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS ($524m). 1959 had SLEEPING BEAUTY ($590m) and BEN-HUR ($795m). 1965 had THUNDERBALL ($607m), DR. ZHIVAGO (1,007m) and SOUND OF MUSIC ($1,165m). Goddamn....! 1967 had THE JUNGLE BOOK ($598m) and THE GRADUATE ($694m). 1973 had AMERICAN GRAFFITI ($533m), THE STING ($723m) and THE EXORCIST ($898m). edit: beaten by various people for some of these Edited November 13, 2014 by Telemachos 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MovieMan89 Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Those 1965 films probably did it through 3 or 4 runs though. Not to diminish their successes but in terms of single run films. I kinda thought so, but it's weird that BOM doesn't show either of them as having multiple releases. Is it cause they were "re-released" in quick succession after they first came out? Like 3 runs spread out over the whole year or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 I kinda thought so, but it's weird that BOM doesn't show either of them as having multiple releases. Is it cause they were "re-released" in quick succession after they first came out? Like 3 runs spread out over the whole year or something? A single release would last well over a year in those days. Re-releases would be in later years. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harpospoke Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 China has a chance to eventually pass U.S. domestic numbers for major blockbusters. Other stuff too....like just about everything. Interstellar is doing okay though. It's not like it's a bomb or anything. I know Nolanites expected more at the box office but the truth is it will make some money eventually and go into the books as a solid effort all around. I think people do care to see it. Just not in the numbers that drive blockbusters into the 100s of millions of dollars stratosphere. If nothing else, I now appreciate Leo more as a box office draw. I could have been convinced that Nolan was a draw after Inception. I'll need to see him come up big without Leo or Batman now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lordmandeep Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Woh why was Dr. Zhivago that big of a hit. The main actor was not even that well known at the time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mango Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 1956 had TEN COMMANDMENTS ($1,063m) and AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS ($524m). 1959 had SLEEPING BEAUTY ($590m) and BEN-HUR ($795m). 1965 had THUNDERBALL ($607m), DR. ZHIVAGO (1,007m) and SOUND OF MUSIC ($1,165m). Goddamn....! 1967 had THE JUNGLE BOOK ($598m) and THE GRADUATE ($694m). 1973 had AMERICAN GRAFFITI ($533m), THE STING ($723m) and THE EXORCIST ($898m). edit: beaten by various people for some of these Kind of sad but none of those movies would make a fourth of what they made if released today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfirebird2008 Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 I kinda thought so, but it's weird that BOM doesn't show either of them as having multiple releases. Is it cause they were "re-released" in quick succession after they first came out? Like 3 runs spread out over the whole year or something? Yes, all of the older movies were re-released repeatedly through the years. There was no home video back then, so there was a lot of potential for good ticket sales on re-releases. Star Wars benefited big time from that. Gone With The Wind as well. E.T. is another. This is why Titanic is by far the most incredible box office performance ever. It didn't have any of the bullshit help that we've seen with so many others through the decades. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MovieMan89 Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 A single release would last well over a year in those days. Re-releases would be in later years. Right, but were there re-releases of 'Sound' and 'Zhivago'? Are those gross for them mainly over the original releases? Like I know all the old Disney movies had tons of re-releases and that's why they're way up there adjusted for inflation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harpospoke Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 i always wonder what big budget cgi blockbusters would make in, say, the 70s, if they were magically transported back in time and stayed exactly the way they are today. i feel like it would be HUGE considering the literally unbelievable effects for those times, not to mention movies are much more exciting today. i think audiences back then would be made speechless by today's movies tbh The problem with that is that later movies that were huge...like Star Wars and ET would have not been nearly as big because it would not have the same impact. Not to mention that today we would still look back at the 70s and say the exact same thing. "Yeah...those CGI effects looked brand new back then, but today's immersive 3D environment movies would really make everyone in the 70s speechless!" No matter what you do, every movie exists in its own time. The "impressive" movies of today will be quaint decades from now. We may be seeing the "been there done that" effect with the Hobbit movies. Is that what LOTR would make today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 I don't think there's an easy way to track old releases, short of getting your hands on corporate data from the time (any numbers announced to the public back then were domestic rentals only, not actual grosses). In the vast majority of cases, though (Disney perhaps excepted), I'd wager that a majority of the money came from the first-run release. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MovieMan89 Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 Yes, all of the older movies were re-released repeatedly through the years. There was no home video back then, so there was a lot of potential for good ticket sales on re-releases. Star Wars benefited big time from that. Gone With The Wind as well. E.T. is another. This is why Titanic is by far the most incredible box office performance ever. It didn't have any of the bullshit help that we've seen with so many others through the decades. So BOM lists the original Star Wars as making 307m in its original run (they have an '82 re-release as having made 15m). Would that first run have included other re-releases between 77-82? Cause if not that's gotta be a more successful single run than Titanic even. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mango Posted November 13, 2014 Share Posted November 13, 2014 So BOM lists the original Star Wars as making 307m in its original run (they have an '82 re-release as having made 15m). Would that first run have included other re-releases between 77-82? Cause if not that's gotta be a more successful single run than Titanic even. I've read anything from $221 million to $307 being the gross of SW first run. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harpospoke Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Woh why was Dr. Zhivago that big of a hit. The main actor was not even that well known at the time? Sounds like Star Wars. ....And LOTR. ...And Titanic. ...And Avatar. Yes, all of the older movies were re-released repeatedly through the years. There was no home video back then, so there was a lot of potential for good ticket sales on re-releases. Star Wars benefited big time from that. Gone With The Wind as well. E.T. is another. This is why Titanic is by far the most incredible box office performance ever. It didn't have any of the bullshit help that we've seen with so many others through the decades. If audiences continued to want to see certain movies for decades....over several generations....I find that to be incredibly impressive. Note that very few movies were able to do that. It's not like every movie could go back into theaters and have people flock to see it. If you can sell a ticket to someone who wasn't even born when the movie was first released...I'm impressed! 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MovieMan89 Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Hey I just realized something. The two movies with the biggest single runs came in '77 and '97. Does that mean we're due for another attendance mammoth in '17? If the Ten Commandments had been '57 instead of '56 the pattern would extend back to Snow White in '37. Every 20 years we get a box office behemoth perhaps? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Hey I just realized something. The two movies with the biggest single runs came in '77 and '97. Does that mean we're due for another attendance mammoth in '17? If the Ten Commandments had been '57 instead of '56 the pattern would extend back to Snow White in '37. Every 20 years we get a box office behemoth perhaps? Wouldn't you know... another Avatanic is scheduled for release in 2017. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mango Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Hey I just realized something. The two movies with the biggest single runs came in '77 and '97. Does that mean we're due for another attendance mammoth in '17? If the Ten Commandments had been '57 instead of '56 the pattern would extend back to Snow White in '37. Every 20 years we get a box office behemoth perhaps? Doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoolioD1 Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Hey I just realized something. The two movies with the biggest single runs came in '77 and '97. Does that mean we're due for another attendance mammoth in '17? If the Ten Commandments had been '57 instead of '56 the pattern would extend back to Snow White in '37. Every 20 years we get a box office behemoth perhaps? I'm betting heavy on Captain Underpants. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MovieMan89 Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Wouldn't you know... another Avatanic is scheduled for release in 2017. I'm sure Avatar 2 would have a better chance at it in 2016 than Avatar 3 in 2017. But it shouldn't be a sequel that does it anyways going by the history books. Then again, all the big studios are scheduling are sequels now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lordmandeep Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Sounds like Star Wars. ....And LOTR. ...And Titanic. ...And Avatar. If audiences continued to want to see certain movies for decades....over several generations....I find that to be incredibly impressive. Note that very few movies were able to do that. It's not like every movie could go back into theaters and have people flock to see it. If you can sell a ticket to someone who wasn't even born when the movie was first released...I'm impressed! I agree if film can sell tickets 5,10-40 year after release. This is not something to knock a film down on, it shows its true impact. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
