A Look at The Biggest Box Office Stories from 1972-present (THABOS: The History of Amazing Box Office Stories) | IT'S FINALLY COMPLETE!!!!!!!

[baumer]

4 hours ago, narniadis said:

By the way, Baumer this really is a fantastic thread. But I love history recaps, one reason I love gurus website and all those reports going back 20+ years. 

 

Yes, absolutely!  My favourite part of his site is the Titanic recap after it had been out for about 8 months, actually when it passed 600 million.  I'll be using some of his stuff to recap Titanic.  I don't want to ruin it, but 1997 is at least 2 weeks away in this thread, so for those of you who have never read Guru's recap of Titanic, here it is:

 

http://www.boxofficeguru.com/titanic600.shtml

 

I swear, reading it again just triggers tears.  It's such a Pavlovian response.  I read something beautiful about Titanic and it just makes me shed some tears.

[Fancyarcher]

Great write-up Baumer, one mild correction about Henry Fonda though. Technically On Golden Pond wasn't his last role, since he did a TV movie called Summer Solstice, that also dealt with old-age that was released at the end of the year, but yes On Golden Pond is a very good film, and a good way to end his theatrical film career on.

 

5 hours ago, Chaz said:

Mommie Dearest was supposed to be Paramount's big prestige picture that year. Everyone involved thought that they were making a great film. The sets were massive and expensive, Dunaway had done a lot of work to get Crawford down and the studio had a lot of faith in the production. The end result was one of the worst movies ever made.

 

Mommie Dearest is actually one of my dad's favorite films, non-ironically, because of that and having seen it a few times, I'd hardly consider it one of the worse films ever made. There are a hella lot worse films I've seen anyway. Mommie Dearest is at least competently made on the production side of things, it just has a lot of really silly sequences.

 

And it wasn't really sorely Mommie Dearest that killed Dunaway's career, but also her follow-up choices like Supergirl that did a lot of damage to it as well.

Edited April 23, 2017 by Fancyarcher

[Plain Old Tele]

6 hours ago, Eevin said:

The Donner Cut >>>>>> Theatrical

 

I worked briefly with the editor who put it all together (and who was actually the producer/primary driving force for creating the Donner Cut). He was a nice guy -- a bit full of himself, though. 

[baumer]

@Fancyarcher...I guess On Golden Pond was Fonda's last feature film, so not including TV.

 

@Tele Came Back....what did you work on with the egomaniac?  

[Chaz]

1 hour ago, Fancyarcher said:

Great write-up Baumer, one mild correction about Henry Fonda though. Technically On Golden Pond wasn't his last role, since he did a TV movie called Summer Solstice, that also dealt with old-age that was released at the end of the year, but yes On Golden Pond is a very good film, and a good way to end his theatrical film career on.

 

 

Mommie Dearest is actually one of my dad's favorite films, non-ironically, because of that and having seen it a few times, I'd hardly consider it one of the worse films ever made. There are a hella lot worse films I've seen anyway. Mommie Dearest is at least competently made on the production side of things, it just has a lot of really silly sequences.

 

And it wasn't really sorely Mommie Dearest that killed Dunaway's career, but also her follow-up choices like Supergirl that did a lot of damage to it as well.

I enjoy Mommie Dearest too, but only because of how outrageous it is, in the same vein as Rocky Horror. It's just a terrible film. 

 

Mommie Dearest was the film that put the Razzies on the map.

[Fancyarcher]

14 minutes ago, Chaz said:

I enjoy Mommie Dearest too, but only because of how outrageous it is, in the same vein as Rocky Horror. It's just a terrible film. 

 

Mommie Dearest was the film that put the Razzies on the map.

 

Well the Razzies aren't exactly consider to be all that good, though they actually started a year before Mommie Dearest. Their first worst best picture was the awful WTF musical film Can't Stop The Music actually. A very deserving winner, might I add.

[Plain Old Tele]

4 hours ago, baumer said:

@Fancyarcher...I guess On Golden Pond was Fonda's last feature film, so not including TV.

 

@Tele Came Back....what did you work on with the egomaniac?  

 

I was post coordinator on a nature docu-reality show, he was one of the editors. 

[baumer]

Will get this going again tonight....1982 on deck.

[baumer]

1982

The year we all phoned home

 

As everyone knows, Titanic did things at the box office, people hadn't seen before.  It just kept going and going, like the Energizer Bunny.  It was putting up record numbers for months and months until it finally broke the 600 million mark.  Fifteen years before Titanic, another movie did pretty much the same thing.  E.T. The Extra Terrestrial took North America and the world by storm.  Not only did E.T. break Star Wars all time domestic record, it (to the best of my research) also had the record for the highest grossing Hollywood film internationally.  E.T. was the Titanic of the 80's.  It stayed at number one 6 weeks in a row and then fluctuated for the rest of the year between number one and two before finally hitting number one for the last time in December.  

 

It spent 19 weeks at number one or two.  This began with the June 11th release date and it finally fell outside of the first two spots on October 22nd, when it landed in fourth. Then six weeks later it expanded by 350 theaters and spent another two weeks at number one.  When ET was finally pulled from theaters, almost a year later, the lowest it ever dropped was to number 13.  E.T. was unlike anything anyone had ever seen.  It was that emotional tear jerker about a boy and his only friend, who found each other and helped each other through difficult times.  I'll get to more of the plot in a moment.  

 

 

 

 

It premiered at the 1982 Cannes Film Festival's closing gala, and was released in the United States on June 11, 1982. It opened at number one with a gross of $11 million (not a record)

 

In 1983, E.T. surpassed Star Wars as the highest-grossing film of all-time, and by the end of its theatrical run it had grossed $359 million in North America and $619 million worldwide. Box Office Mojo estimates that the film sold more than 120 million tickets in the US in its initial theatrical run. Spielberg earned $500,000 a day from his share of the profits, while The Hershey Company's profits rose 65% due to its prominent use of Reese's Pieces.  An interesting story behind this is that Universal approached M&M's to be the candy used in the film and they declined it because they felt that E.T. was too ugly and that it would repulse audiences.  Hershey jumped all over the chance to have their chocolate candy featured in a film by Spielberg and the results exceeded their expectations.  It's often said that just as Freddy launched New Line, ET launched Reese's Pieces.  

 

The film was re-released in 1985 and 2002, earning another $60 million and $68 million respectively, for a worldwide total of $792 million with North America accounting for $435 million. It held the global record until it was surpassed by Jurassic Park—another Spielberg-directed film—in 1993, although it managed to hold on to the domestic record for a further four years, where a Star Wars reissue reclaimed it. It was eventually released on VHS and laserdisc on October 27, 1988.  VHS sales came to $75 million. In 1991, Sears began selling E.T. videocassettes exclusively at their stores as part of a holiday promotion. It was reissued on VHS and Laserdisc again in 1996. The Laserdisc included a 90-minute documentary.

 

 

The film was nominated for nine Oscars at the 55th Academy Awards, including Best Picture. Gandhi won that award, but its director, Richard Attenborough, declared, "I was certain that not only would E.T. win, but that it should win. It was inventive, powerful, [and] wonderful. I make more mundane movies." It won four Academy Awards: Best Original Score, Best Sound, Best Sound Effects Editing, and Best Visual Effects.  But still, no best director for Spielberg and no best picture.  It's my opinion that once again, Spielberg's success at such a young age is what plagued his Oscar chances.  To lose to Annie Hall in 1977 was silly, although the best picture and director that year should have gone to Star Wars and Lucas.  But then to be snubbed again in 1981 and lose to the dry and slow but somewhat half decent Chariots of Fire, was downright criminal.  I know @Tele Came Back will disagree with all of this but Chariots of Fire is good, it's not iconic the way Raiders is.  And again, with Gandhi, very good movie, but E.T. is a generational film.  It's irresponsible and just plain egregious that Spielberg would have to wait another 11 years before he did his "serious" film before he would win everything.  And just to illustrate even more that was jealousy and acrimony towards him, in 1985, the Color Purple was nominated for 11 Oscars (this is Spielberg's first "serious film") and yet Spielberg was not nominated for best director.  There was obviously something going on behind the scenes.  Conversation for another time.  Back to E.T.

 

In a Californian forest, a group of alien botanists land in a spacecraft, collecting flora samples. When government agents appear on the scene, they flee in their spaceship, leaving one of their own behind in their haste. At a suburban home, a ten-year-old boy named Elliott is spending time with his brother, Michael, and his friends. As he returns from picking up a pizza, he discovers that something is hiding in their tool shed. The creature promptly flees upon being discovered. Despite his family's disbelief, Elliott leaves Reese's Pieces candy to lure the creature to his bedroom. Before he goes to sleep, he realizes it is imitating his movements. He feigns illness the next morning to stay home from school and play with it. Later that day, Michael and their five-year-old sister, Gertie, meet it. They decide to keep it hidden from their mother, Mary. When they ask it about its origin, it levitates several balls to represent its solar system and then demonstrates its powers by reviving a dead plant.  

 

E.T., the film is about loneliness.  The extra terrestrial is all alone on a planet that is billions of light years away from his planet.  Elliot is from a broken home.  His parents just recently divorced and he is living with his mother and two siblings, his brother Michael and sister Gertie.  E.T. and Elliot quickly bond.  They become friends and they, along with Gertie and Michael, hatch a plot so that E.T. can phone home.  Using a Speak and Spell (look it up, very cool toy and learning instrument from the 80's), some garage tools and some other technology that E.T. comes up with, they manage to create a device to contact E.t's family.  But then of course the big bad government knows he is around somewhere and they come looking or him.

 

E.T. touched people.  He and Elliot were the Jack and Rose of 1982.  There's a scene where it looks like E.T. dies and on my mother's ashes, there's never a dry eye in the house when watching that scene.  The ending when he finally gets to go home and he has to say bye to Elliot still gets to me to this day.  The theme of the film is friendship, loneliness and finding comfort in those who you love.  We've all experienced loss.  We've all had to say good-bye to someone we love, whether it's because of death or or other circumstances.  E.T. conveyed the feelings of loss and of love better than most films and it touched a generation of movie goers.  And it did it so well that it managed to stay in theaters for almost a full year.  

 

 

E.T. is my second favourite film.  JAWS will never be usurped but E.T is a very close runner up.  Like Titanic, it's the relationships that makes it so appealing and endearing to so many, myself included.  E.T. is a special film and it is the best film of the 80's imo.  It also crushed all the competition in 1982 to be the easy number one film of the year.

 

 

 

 

[75Live]

I had so much E.T merchandise back then that it was nuts.  I even had the board game and Atari game which I still know how to beat  

 

One of my fav pure 80s shirt I had, was E.T. on a stool paying Pac-man  

Edited April 26, 2017 by 75live

[Premium George]

Are there any good articles on spielberg and academy thing?

[baumer]

3 hours ago, damnitgeorge08 said:

Are there any good articles on spielberg and academy thing?

 

It's all speculation on my part.  But there has to be something to it.  I remember reading an article in the 80's that quoted an anonymous academy member who said he could name 20 films in 82 thta were better than ET.  We all have opinions of course, but it just came off as spite, imo.

[75Live]

2 minutes ago, baumer said:

 

It's all speculation on my part.  But there has to be something to it.  I remember reading an article in the 80's that quoted an anonymous academy member who said he could name 20 films in 82 thta were better than ET.  We all have opinions of course, but it just came off as spite, imo.

 

oh the Spielberg stuff was definitely spite.  Such a shame that happens, but it does.

 

but yes I don't recall any specific articles about it, but I know it has been written about before.

[Premium George]

2 minutes ago, baumer said:

 

It's all speculation on my part.  But there has to be something to it.  I remember reading an article in the 80's that quoted an anonymous academy member who said he could name 20 films in 82 thta were better than ET.  We all have opinions of course, but it just came off as spite, imo.

For me spielberg is the best director of all time and I hate oscars, so this got me super curious.

[baumer]

Here's one good article on the snubs of Spielberg for The Color Purple and Jaws.

 

http://www.altfg.com/film/steven-spielberg-the-color-purple-oscar-snubs-44881/

[Plain Old Tele]

There's probably some jealousy there, for some of the members. But there's also a decent amount of people who've always found Spielberg to be cloying, overly sentimental, and very heavy-handed.

[baumer]

3 hours ago, Tele Came Back said:

There's probably some jealousy there, for some of the members. But there's also a decent amount of people who've always found Spielberg to be cloying, overly sentimental, and very heavy-handed.

 

Yes, it's too bad he makes or made films that entertained so many while at the same time making a flawless film with well established characters.  Saying that Spielberg is overly sentimental sounds to me like they just had to find something to justify their snubs and their jealousy.  It's ludicrous imo.

[Plain Old Tele]

6 minutes ago, baumer said:

 

Yes, it's too bad he makes or made films that entertained so many while at the same time making a flawless film with well established characters.  Saying that Spielberg is overly sentimental sounds to me like they just had to find something to justify their snubs and their jealousy.  It's ludicrous imo.

 

I completely get that attitude, for some of his movies. For the others (early in his career), generally speaking the Academy tends not to award young wunderkinds until they've amassed a bigger body of work (exceptions occasionally in the Actress and Supporting Actress categories). And there's always been a trend to ignore pop entertainment unless there's some deeper thematic roots. So Spielberg had the double whammy of being young with some giant pop hits, while his earlier dramatic stuff wasn't as well received. 

 

E.T. probably would've won most other years, it had the misfortune of going up against a well-made film about one of the most iconic and revered human beings ever. 

[baumer]

3 hours ago, Tele Came Back said:

 

I completely get that attitude, for some of his movies. For the others (early in his career), generally speaking the Academy tends not to award young wunderkinds until they've amassed a bigger body of work (exceptions occasionally in the Actress and Supporting Actress categories). And there's always been a trend to ignore pop entertainment unless there's some deeper thematic roots. So Spielberg had the double whammy of being young with some giant pop hits, while his earlier dramatic stuff wasn't as well received. 

 

Sure.  I get that.  But you and I have talked about this before and I know others have as well.  Just because you make a film that makes 100's of millions of dollars that people love and it's not about war or famine or prejudice or disease or growing old or have one left foot or what not, doesn't mean your films are silly or not worthy of recognition.  Jaws and Raiders and ET were all terrific films that although were monsters at the box office still dealt with a lot of human emotions, especially ET.  I've never understood or accepted that a film has to be about a certain subject or subjects in order for it to be recognized.  

[baumer]

3 hours ago, Tele Came Back said:

 

I completely get that attitude, for some of his movies. For the others (early in his career), generally speaking the Academy tends not to award young wunderkinds until they've amassed a bigger body of work (exceptions occasionally in the Actress and Supporting Actress categories). And there's always been a trend to ignore pop entertainment unless there's some deeper thematic roots. So Spielberg had the double whammy of being young with some giant pop hits, while his earlier dramatic stuff wasn't as well received. 

 

E.T. probably would've won most other years, it had the misfortune of going up against a well-made film about one of the most iconic and revered human beings ever. 

 

And for some reason I get the ET loss.  I don't agree with it but Gandhi was a very good film.