Weekend Estimates: Minions - 115.2M; JW - 18.1M; Inside Out - 17.1M; Gallows - 10M; Self/Less - 5.4M; MMXXL - 9.6M; T5 - 13.7M

[grey ghost]

I get the admission talk, I use it myself but that only applies for films within the same decade. Titanic was a different era, there weren't as many releases than today. It's impossible these days to remain on top more than a month. Then again Titanic didn't have 3D and etc. JW is victorious by passing TA in my book whether it passes Titanic really doesn't matter.

But it was still hard to make 658 m back in 1997.

Especially when you consider ticket prices.

[jb007]

But it was still hard to make 658 m back in 1997.

Especially when you consider ticket prices.

Actually it was $600.3 in 1997.

[Ozymandias]

Admissions talk will happen, a lot.

 

Lol no it won't.  JW vs Titanic in admissions isn't like Shrek 2/TDK/Avatar.

[KATCH-2D2]

Admissions talk will happen, a lot.

 

When I was a young girl I didn't give a damn when some oldies tried to bring up GWTW adjusted number to belittle Titanic's legendary run. Different era, different people, different world.

 

THAT young girl would call me a hypocrite if I start giving a damn right now.

 

.

Edited July 12, 2015 by KATCH 22

[The Futurist]

The "it was a different era back then" argument doesn't hold.

 

Titanic sold 120m tickets because it was Titanic. It s not like 120m ticket sellers, hell even 100m tickets, were a regular occurrence in the 90's because the "era was different".

Admissions mean something.

Dollar is a relative concept that allows Hollywood to shout  "Biggest whatever of all time record" broken every six months.

Edited July 12, 2015 by The Futurist

[redfirebird2008]

But it was still hard to make 658 m back in 1997.

Especially when you consider ticket prices.

 

It made 600, not 658. Titanic's original run sold 128 million tickets. JP4 will end up around 70 million, which is nearly 60 million tickets behind Titanic's original run. The two are not even in the same ballpark and it's kinda silly to even mention them together, lol. We'll never see another Titanic run to 125m+ admissions IMHO.

[The Futurist]

It made 600, not 658. Titanic's original run sold 128 million tickets. JP4 will end up around 70 million, which is nearly 60 million tickets behind Titanic's original run. The two are not even in the same ballpark and it's kinda silly to even mention them together, lol. We'll never see another Titanic run to 125m+ admissions IMHO.

 

Preach.

[TServo2049]

GWTW holds the all-time ticket sales record, but I think Titanic absolutely holds the first-run record. GWTW's original roadshow/general run did not sell as many tickets, even in proportion to the smaller population of the time I don't know if it was AS insanely popular as Titanic was. (Since people went to the movies much more often, it didn't dominate the market in the same way.) It was huge, to be absolutely sure but I'm not sure it was "MOTHER OF GOD" epic like Titanic was. (It was probably the closest equivalent though, along with The Sound of Music, Star Wars, and E.T.'s original runs.)

Also, initial roadshow runs of films like GWTW and The Sound of Music were priced in proportion to normal ticket prices about the equivalent of paying $30-40 for a movie ticket today. I'm not sure whether the 200 million lifetime admissions estimate for GWTW takes this into account?

Edited July 12, 2015 by TServo2049

[The Dark Alfred]

My point is that Titanic wouldn't make 600m today. Probably JW wouldn't have made 600m in 1997. Different times, different era. Can't wait for SW to get into the mix this year too.

[KATCH-2D2]

The "it was a different era back then" argument doesn't hold.

 

Titanic sold 120m tickets because it was Titanic. It s not like 120m ticket sellers, hell even 100m tickets, were a regular occurrence in the 90's because the "era was different".

Admissions mean something.

Dollar is a relative concept that allows Hollywood to shout  "Biggest whatever of all time record" broken every six months.

Of course it means something. It means more people actually went to the cinemas to see movies back then.

 

It's like comparing athletes/sport teams from different eras.

[TServo2049]

Hey, redfirebird, how much would Star Wars' $221 million first run translate to? You say BOM doesn't properly adjust, and I know they incorrectly lump $86 million of re-release grosses in with the original run.

Edited July 12, 2015 by TServo2049

[vc2002]

I get the admission talk, I use it myself but that only applies for films within the same decade. Titanic was a different era, there weren't as many releases than today. It's impossible these days to remain on top more than a month. Then again Titanic didn't have 3D and etc. JW is victorious by passing TA in my book whether it passes Titanic really doesn't matter.

 

Avatar remained on top almost two months (7 consecutive No.1 wknds). But you're still correct tho, because Avatar did the impossible.

Edited July 12, 2015 by vc2002

[DAJK]

Rank the BOT Forum Weekend Threads.

1. Jurassic World

[The Dark Alfred]

Avatar remained on top almost two months (7 consecutive No.1 wknds)

Meant summer, two months is the absolute top and that only happens if the film is winning awards. I doubt we'll see a film being #1 for more than 6 weeks for a long time.

[redfirebird2008]

Hey, redfirebird, how much would Star Wars' $221 million first run translate to? You say BOM doesn't properly adjust, and I know they incorrectly lump $86 million of re-release grosses in with the original run.

 

I assume you mean adjusted for 3D/IMAX/PLF. Based on the 1977 average price of $2.23 and your $221m figure, it sold 99 million tickets. It's around $900m adjusted for inflation and when account for all of the premium steroids. Titanic's original run is around $1.175 billion.

[The Panda]

Titanic was a huge hit, but that type of hit wouldn't be possible in today's market. Even Avatar (the closest thing to it) needed a massive 3d and premium share to get close to the adjusted gross.

The market has more movies, more competition than before, and people are using digital media (streaming and pirating) much more than before.

We are also in a franchise market which broadens and limits the audience at the same time. (You'll get a consistent audience as long as you make X-Men films that don't disappoint, but each film in the franchise is limited because only so many people will be interested in the franchise)

It's hard to compare a movie from 2015 to one from 2 decades ago, but you can still admire the fact only one movie has been able to top its unadjusted run in the last 20 years.

[The Futurist]

Of course it means something. It means more people actually went to the cinemas to see movies back then.

 

It's like comparing athletes/sport teams from different eras.

 

NOPE.

[The Futurist]

So you re basically all saying that 90, 100m ( or more) ticket sellers will never happen again ?

 

Maybe.

[kowan]

It made 600, not 658. Titanic's original run sold 128 million tickets. JP4 will end up around 70 million, which is nearly 60 million tickets behind Titanic's original run. The two are not even in the same ballpark and it's kinda silly to even mention them together, lol. We'll never see another Titanic run to 125m+ admissions IMHO.

JP4 should come close to 80m admissions(BOM). 

[redfirebird2008]

So you re basically all saying that 90, 100m ( or more) ticket sellers will never happen again ?

 

Maybe.

 

The closest we've seen was over 43 million tickets behind Titanic (the equivalent of Furious 7 or American Sniper's entire run by the way).

 

Phantom Menace most hyped movie of all-time and reached 85m tickets. Question is could it have possibly done better? Some would say yes since there is a lot of bad WOM these days on that movie, but you look at the legs and they were phenomenal...seemed to have strong WOM in 1999.