Tuesday Numbers: Jumanji 10.2, TLJ 7.9 (Asgard)

[IronJimbo]

4 minutes ago, Brainbug said:

 

Be fair here: Titanics run was and is legendary but winter/spring 1998 was barren as f*ck. It was a perfect storm for Titanic.

yeah can't see a sws film taking advantage of that storm. Ain't no one seeing the last jedi in march.

[baumer]

3 hours ago, Brainbug said:

 

Be fair here: Titanics run was and is legendary but winter/spring 1998 was barren as f*ck. It was a perfect storm for Titanic.

 

Titanic was also partially responsible for that.  Those five months were perceived as being barren because everyone still had a burning interest in Titanic.

[George Parr]

Titanic was clearly the biggest run of the modern era, but it is true that there was very little competition during its time. And that most definately wasn't the case because everyone was scared of Titanic, as no one thought it would have such a huge run. In fact, there was lots of talk about how big of a flop it could be due to its huge costs. It's not like that kind of talk completely died down with its opening weekend either, which wasn't anything particularly special.

 

It's only when the movie kept the same level for weeks on end that people realised how huge this was going to be.

 

Like baumer mentions though, there is indeed a good chance that Titanic kept some movies lower than they could have been if Titanic hadn't delivered in such a big way.

Edited January 4, 2018 by George Parr

[redfirebird2008]

25 minutes ago, Brainbug said:

 

Be fair here: Titanics run was and is legendary but winter/spring 1998 was barren as f*ck. It was a perfect storm for Titanic.

 

That doesn’t mean much. I can think of other films that faced weak competition and ran out of gas much faster. 

Edited January 4, 2018 by redfirebird2008

[Brainbug]

4 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

yeah can't see a sws film taking advantage of that storm. Ain't no one seeing the last jedi in march.

 

@JonathanLB

 

4 minutes ago, baumer said:

 

Titanic was also partially responsible for that.  Those five months were perceived as being barren because everyone still had a burning interest in Titanic.

 

I dont really think so. If one looks at the movie slate of early 1998, its just sad. Nothing really seemed like it could really be a big hit. Today, you have the first blockbusters coming in February (Fifty Shades in 2015, Deadpool in 2016, this year its Black Panther). That just wasnt the case for 1998.

[Brainbug]

3 minutes ago, redfirebird2008 said:

 

That doesn’t mean much. I can think of other films that faced weak competition and rsn out of gas much faster. 

 

Its all theoretical because Titanic did what it did. The practically non-existent competition for nearly 2 months was just one (small, imo) factor for Titanic chugging along. Everything went right for it.

[George Parr]

1 minute ago, redfirebird2008 said:

 

That doesn’t mean much. I can think of other films that faced weak competition and rsn out of gas much faster. 

I think the whole argument was about something else though. It was an answer to the comment that Titanic slayed the competition, which wasn't really the case, because there wasn't much of a competition to begin with.

 

After all, there is a difference between amassing huge totals and causing movies that should have been big to not be big. Titanic did the former, and it may have caused some movies that could have been semi-big to not even reach that level, but it didn't truly wipe out big competition because there was no such comeptition in the first place.

 

That isn't "blaming" Titanic. After all, the movie can't be held responsible for the period having no big starts. It's just that there is no need to make up claims about Titanic wiping away the competition, when its box office run in itself is already the biggest accomplishment of the modern era.

[a2k]

Only in hindsight do things look barren during Titanic's run. People might have thought it's not wise to open against a Bond film then. I remember Chamber of Secrets releasing a week earlier than the pre-Thanksgiving weekend to likely not clash with a Bond film. Wonder Woman was also not supposed to do well around Potc5, TF5, Mummy. But that period looks barren due to not much else making money. Somehow Wonder Woman did make a ton. And Titianic did that a by many degrees more.

 

Good Will Hunting, Tomorrow Never Dies, As Good As It Gets, Scream2 all crushed 100m easily while Titanic was #1.

[FantasticBeasts]

Most impressive runs post 1995 Worldwilde;

1.)Titanic

2.)Avatar

3.)The Force Awakens

4.)Jurassic World

5.)Return of the King

 

That's a personal take and I admit it was done without too much research so I am not that confident about it.

[FantasticBeasts]

But telling that Titanic "slayed the competition", I guess you mean that it was the most dominant film ever compared to the other successful films released within 5 years prior and after it.

[Brainbug]

Just now, FantasticBeasts said:

Most impressive runs post 1995 Worldwilde;

1.)Titanic

2.)Avatar

3.)The Force Awakens

4.)Jurassic World

5.)Return of the King

 

That's a personal take and I admit it was done without too much research so I am not that confident about it.

 

Ranking time!

 

Post 1995:

 

1) Titanic, there really is no question about it

2) Avatar, especially OS
3) Jurassic World
4) The Force Awakens, especially DOM and UK
5) Frozen, especially Japan

[a2k]

Guessing -50% for J for 5.1m and -45% for TLJ for 4.35m.

[FantasticBeasts]

Just now, Brainbug said:

 

Ranking time!

 

Post 1995:

 

1) Titanic, there really is no question about it

2) Avatar, especially OS
3) Jurassic World
4) The Force Awakens, especially DOM and UK
5) Frozen, especially Japan

Why would Jurassic World be more impressive than TFA? I think this should be 100% objective without taking into account how much you expected the film to do. And since both competed in the same year....

[Joel M]

7 minutes ago, Brainbug said:

 

Be fair here: Titanics run was and is legendary but winter/spring 1998 was barren as f*ck. It was a perfect storm for Titanic.

 

49 minutes ago, JonathanLB said:

I don’t think anyone would do that. It was one of the most impressive box office runs ever. That’s a separate thing from saying it “slayed” the competition though. There wasn’t any.

 

Titanic's competition that opened or went wide til the end of January '98 adjusted

 

As Good as it gets  282,9 mil.

Good Will Hunting  263,6

James Bond          240,3

Mouse Hunt          118,4

Amistad                  84,7

Wag the Dog           82

Jackie Brown           75,7

 

TFA's competition that opened or went wide til end of January '16 adjusted

 

Revenant          191,9  mil.

Daddy's Home   155,6

Kung Fu Panda  149,3

Ride Along 2      94,9

Sisters              89,9

Alvin 3              88,6

The Big Short    72,8

 

Yeah Titanic didn't have a Deadpool to face in February but it also didn't have 4000+ theatres and breathless 12-month marketing so it can gross 80% of its total in the first 20 days. The market and the release patterns were very different but there were other movies making serious money during Titanic's run, just like TFA, and in both cases competition just didn't matter.

 

[titanic2187]

1) Titanic

2) Avatar

3) TFA

4) Frozen

5) Harry potter 1

[redfirebird2008]

6 minutes ago, George Parr said:

I think the whole argument was about something else though. It was an answer to the comment that Titanic slayed the competition, which wasn't really the case, because there wasn't much of a competition to begin with.

 

After all, there is a difference between amassing huge totals and causing movies that should have been big to not be big. Titanic did the former, and it may have caused some movies that could have been semi-big to not even reach that level, but it didn't truly wipe out big competition because there was no such comeptition in the first place.

 

That isn't "blaming" Titanic. After all, the movie can't be held responsible for the period having no big starts. It's just that there is no need to make up claims about Titanic wiping away the competition, when its box office run in itself is already the biggest accomplishment of the modern era.

 

It destroyed a James Bond movie that opened the same weekend. That Bond film was the next one after a very popular GoldenEye. 

 

That Bond film had the same schedule as Titanic and finished at $125m while Titanic finished at $600m. This isn’t some totalitarian country. There was no law that forced people to keep seeing Titanic. They chose to keep seeing it while other movies like Bond ran out of gas much sooner. 

Edited January 4, 2018 by redfirebird2008

[a2k]

3 minutes ago, Brainbug said:

 

Ranking time!

 

Post 1995:

 

1) Titanic, there really is no question about it

2) Avatar, especially OS
3) Jurassic World
4) The Force Awakens, especially DOM and UK
5) Frozen, especially Japan

- I would like to throw in F7 somewhere in there. China was insane especially, and stayed big for F8.

- Zootopia doing 230m+ in China is also pretty mind-numbing. Something even Coco will miss by 45-50m despite growth in that market. 60-70m more than KFP3 and DM3.

Edited January 4, 2018 by a2knet

[Brainbug]

Just now, FantasticBeasts said:

Why would Jurassic World be more impressive than TFA? I think this should be 100% objective without taking into account how much you expected the film to do. And since both competed in the same year....

 

JW came out of nowhere. Most people didnt even consider it making more than 700-800M worldwide (look at past predictions for it). The fact that it came close to JP adjusted DOM and matched the first in Worldwide numbers (roughly adjusted) is astonishing. TFA was expected to break all the records, JW was not.

[JonathanLB]

5 minutes ago, George Parr said:

I think the whole argument was about something else though. It was an answer to the comment that Titanic slayed the competition, which wasn't really the case, because there wasn't much of a competition to begin with.

 

After all, there is a difference between amassing huge totals and causing movies that should have been big to not be big. Titanic did the former, and it may have caused some movies that could have been semi-big to not even reach that level, but it didn't truly wipe out big competition because there was no such comeptition in the first place.

 

That isn't "blaming" Titanic. After all, the movie can't be held responsible for the period having no big starts. It's just that there is no need to make up claims about Titanic wiping away the competition, when its box office run in itself is already the biggest accomplishment of the modern era.

Perfectly put. I rank Titanic the best box office run of all time, especially domestic, in the modern era and I’m not so sure it’s not just the best ever period. Gone With the Wind made its money over a huge number of releases and time. Not to detract from what it accomplished but just for me I think Titanic is as impressive as it gets.

 

As you said it’s not Titanic’s fault that crap movies opened against it or that studios ignored the entire first quarter of the year until relatively recently. Who is to say Titanic wouldn’t have made just as much money no matter what opened against it? I am not arguing that, for the primary reason that I find any such arguments silly as they can’t ever be determined. It’s obvious to say if zero movies opened for 3 months except, say, Transformers 8, it would probably make more money but only up until a point. People who don’t want to see something still won’t go see it. People wanted to check out Titanic and they did, all of them, and many multiple times. 

[Brainbug]

2 minutes ago, a2knet said:

- I would like to throw in F7 somewhere in there. China was insane especially, and stayed big for F8.

- Zootopia doing 230m+ in China is also pretty mind-numbing. Something even Coco will miss by 45-50m despite growth in that market. 60-70m more than KFP3 and DM3.

 

FF7 would be number 6 or 7. Its OS run and especially China were incredible.