Movie Boxoffice, adjusted grosses and such.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

As some of you know I do not believe in using adjusted grosses.

There is no formula that can account for these. But it does give certain film haters a lift so that they can say that Titanic isn't the real boxoffice champion.

Some of you say that well with inflation...blah blah blah, but really tell me do you understand it. Lie to me and say yes.

Also if you use Movie Times Boxoffice, vs Boxoffice Mojo they each use a different formula, with one making the adjusted grosses even higher.

First off in the year 2004, movie prices vary significantly around the country. Here in the Rock we pay 6.75 and 7.00 for a evening first run film showing. In 1977 I paid 1.50 to see Star Wars at a matinee showing. Are all prices of thing roughly 4 times what they were in 1977. NO. TVs are much cheaper. Air Travel is much cheaper. Gas is about 3 times, Cars about 5. Basically I'm saying that the formula must be difficult.

rationally if you look at the list of adjusted Grosses you see Gone With the Wind at #1 with 1.1877 billion dollars in grosses. In actually grosses it has 198.7 million. Even this cannot be correct.

In 1975 Jaws became the very first film to pass the Hundred Million Dollar mark. Yet when I look at the top 25 adjusted gross films, I find films like Sound of Music at #3 with 824.1 million, and 163.2 million in actual grosses. When did it pass the 100 million dollar mark? Its not had a nationwide release since 1975. Other pre Jaws films include the Jungle Book, Doctor Zhivago, One Hundred and One Dalmations, the Sting, Mary Poppins, the Exorcist, the Graduate, and the Godfather.

So when did all these films pass the 100 million dollar mark, let alone take into account their adjusted grosses?

for those who get off on the fact that GWTW is the adjusted grosses leader, I find it rather petty. The film didn't make 1.1877 billion dollars( or 1.218 billion by the other formula), didn't even come close, but for those of you who insist, I'd say Titanic did pretty well considering that GWTW had a 58 year head start.

[A24 4,355]

How can we say we understand it if they don't say what formula they're using. But, good formula or not, it's a no- brainer that in 1000 years, when tickets costs $100.000.000 a piece, you only gonna need one visitor to pass that $100.000.000 mark. Only a handfull of people are needed to break your Titanic record.

What if it's based on actual ticket prices? I'm sure they know exactly what tickets were costing when Gone with the Wind premiered.

How do we know they added all the reruns of Star Wars or Gone with the Wind together? Even if they did, so what? Titanic had the advantage of being showed in a lot more theaters. And also, the population has grown significantly since 1939. More people means more ticket sales.

That actual figure from the Sound of Music is wrong.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[JoeinAR 1,949]

That actual figure from the Sound of Music is wrong.  

its symptomatic, the whole system is wrong.

Titanic made its money in dollars based on it being the #1 movie for 15 straight weeks. And for being in the top 10 for 26 weeks. ET spent 16 weeks at #1 and 44 weeks in the top 10.

And as you say Titanic did have the advantage of being in alot more theatre and people, its totals are real too.

[Rogue_Leader 2]

for those who get off on the fact that GWTW is the adjusted grosses leader, I find it rather petty. The film didn't make 1.1877 billion dollars( or 1.218 billion by the other formula), didn't even come close, but for those of you who insist, I'd say Titanic did pretty well considering that GWTW had a 58 year head start

That comment is fairly ridiculous Joe.

First of all in regard to GWTW not making those 1 billion plus figures. Ummmmm DUH! Ticket prices were much lower back in the day. There is no way in hell ANY movie could have ever made so much under such ticket prices. The idea is to give people an idea of roughly what kind of money that would be had the movie been released today. So by the adjusted scale (which is the only one that REALLY matters) GWTW is the most successful film followed by Star Wars. Someday a movie will come along and surpass Titanic's gross. What will the excuse be then? Oh well this is unfair because ticket prices are now so much higher? PLEASE! The adjusted list shows how successful a film was for its time. Thats what really matters.

Second, no one here has ever tried to belittle the accomplishment of Titanic. I personally felt that the movie was an overhyped, overrated, mediocre film which just his at the right time and under the right circumstances. However, even I cannot deny that 600 million is a tremendous achievement. It clearly shows that the movie managed to cultivate a incredible amount of interest back in 97. However, years later no one seems to think the movie is anywhere near as great as they were raving back then.

Lastly about that comment where you said GWTW having a 58 year head start. WHAT 58 year head start? Its not like GWTW was playing in theatres wide for all those years. Basically the movie opened, went through its theatrical run and then was out of theatres. Apparently the film did show in a theatre or two every now and then over the years, however the grosses from these performances isn't counted to the overall gross of GWTW as shown on sites like boxofficemojo. Mmainly because they were isolated performances and they happened in the time before VCR's were around. So its not like those 58 years make any real difference.

[Lurker 5]

The real number's should show movie theater attendance and not dollars.

Neil

[A24 4,355]

Joe, listen to Rogue. He makes sense. Actual grosses are much further from the truth.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[Rogue_Leader 2]

The real number's should show movie theater attendance and not dollars.  

Well the adjusted numbers realistically do represent attendance.

The adjusted numbers show the dollar gross for a movie inflated for today's standards by comparing ticket prices of then to now.

This in essence gives you a fairly clear idea of how many tickets were sold back when the movie was released. Clearly in GWTW and Star Wars's case it was ALOT more than the number of tickets sold to Titanic.

Not to mention its also unfair to compare Titanic to GWTW because when GWTW opened the population of the United States was around HALF of what it was when Titanic opened. There were also FAR LESS theatres nationwide and most of them only played one or two or at most three movies at a time. Not like the multitheatre megaplexes of the current era.

Now in all fairness GWTW does have the advantage that back in that time there was no Television but there WAS radio and thnat was like the TV of its time.

The bottom line is that GWTW and Star Wars achieved a level of sucess that even Titanic cannot match.

[A24 4,355]

Maybe Titanic has a special place in Joe's heart? Maybe Joe wants Titanic to be #1? The more succes, the better a movie? :spiny:

-----------------

Alex Cremers

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Joe, listen to Rogue. He makes sense. Actual grosses are much further from the truth.  

No Alex he doesn't. Adjusted grosses do not account for attendence.

International grosses adjusted for inflation, make no sense since there is no uniform price, or uniform inflation formula for the rest of the world

I do love Titanic, and I don't care if its #1, but I find it funny that those who hate it, find and use any means, they can to say its not #1. The more success doesn't mean its a great film, nor does the reverse apply.

Just because something is successfull doesn't mean its bad. Otherwise we could talk about ET being successful, so it cannot be a good film. That is the flaw in your comment.

William is wrong when he discounts the rereleases GWTW had over those 58 years. The film had major reissues along the line of Star Wars. Those figures are added into the totals of GWTW, they did add up. This is something new films will never have a true luxury of, except for the next Star Wars Superduper, Fantasmagoric, Ultimate, babalicious, edition. Still as I said GWTW hasn't had any major releases since 1975 that would allow it to make well over 100 million dollars. The numbers are wrong.

Something else you mention but don't understand that movie attendence back in the 30's, 40's, and 50's, as a percentage of the population was significantly higher than it is today. As is mention film had only radio as the competition, and since it was the only visual medium, it was much more popular. Today, a large percentage of the population refuses to go to the movies because they can stay at home watch it on cable, or pay per view, vhs, and dvd.

Neither of you can account for the differences between one system and another. It means that they are flawed as I have said. Neil is the only one who made any sense, and mentions actual attendence, while once again I will point out the William is quite wrong in his assumption that adjusted shows actuall attendence. It doesn't.

GWTW was a phenomenon, so was Star Wars, though Williams hasn't a real clue just how huge, so was E.T., and so was JP, and then Titanic. This centuries only similar event was Spiderman, and maybe Return of the King. As I said E.T. was in the top 10 for 44 weeks, that means alot of people went to see it. Titanic was in the top 10 for 26 weeks, also alot of people, regardless of ticket prices.

[A24 4,355]

Of course, it's not accurate to the penny, but it gives an idea on how succesful the old blockbusters would be if they showed them today. And that's what counts. That's why I have a thousand times more respect for the adjusted list than for the actual grosses list. IMO, by adjusting the actual grosses, one respects the attendence much more. Remember, in the future, only a handful of people are needed to break Titanic's record. How would you like it if some future youngsters went like: "Hey look, grandpa Joe, Porky's 13 broke your beloved Titanic record in one lousy night!"

At least, "adjusting" reminds some people that movies are 4 times more expensive as they were in the late 70s. And if more people went to the movies in the 30s then it's not a surprise that Gone with the Wind is the all-time king.

My comment was accompanied by a winkie so don't accuse it too rapidly for being flawed. My comment was even right on the money. You DO like Titanic!!! Well, whaddaya know?!

----------------

Alex Cremers

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Once again, how the hell do you people conclude the adjusted shows attendance, sorry but if you believe that well,...

BTW, Titanic is a great film.

[Adam 1]

It seems uncontroversial that adjusted tells us more about attendance than straight dollar numbers. That's presumably why the adjusted formulas are used. As Alex stated, "it's a no- brainer that in 1000 years, when tickets costs $100.000.000 a piece, you only gonna need one visitor to pass that $100.000.000 mark."

There's also the more fundamental question of whether we should be looking to box office numbers to validate our opinions on movies. Its the kind of thinking that would lead people to conclude that Britney Spears "writes" better music than John Williams.

As people have alluded to, lots of factors contribute to the success of a movie besides its intrinsic worth as art, whatever opinion we happen to have on that.

- Adam

[Rogue_Leader 2]

Titanic is mecriocre IMO.

Believe what you want Joe.

No Alex he doesn't. Adjusted grosses do not account for attendence.  

International grosses adjusted for inflation, make no sense since there is no uniform price, or uniform inflation formula for the rest of the world

I was talking about demostic gross exclusively. Worldwide gross is unfair to compare because back in GWTW's days movies never got such wide releases as they get today.

Hell, back in GWTW's time movies would play in VERY few markets outside the U.S.. Its not like the 100+ countries they play in today. So its unfair to make such a comparison.

GWTW never had the luxury of opening in countries like China back when it came out.

[Guest]

GWTW never had the luxury of opening in countries like China back when it came out.

I don't think luxury is quite the right word. Luck could be more accurate.

[Peio 0]

GWTW never had the luxury of opening in countries like China back when it came out.

you think so?

Shanghai, China (from "Empire of the Sun"):

sorry, i couldn't avoid it...

[Morlock 11]

BTW, Titanic is a great film.

I totaly agree. It deserved most of the oscars it won (although L.A. Confidential was by far the most deserving of best picture IMO. I think it's one of the best movies ever- I like it more than Chinatown).

I hope that with time all the negativity towards the film will drop, as it is an amazing achievment, and I think a joy to watch. It's three hours are so rich that the movie really feels like a journey.

Morlock1- who is not just a Cameron/DiCaprio/Winslet fan

Morlock2- who thinks anything with David Warner is worth watching, even Ninja Turtles 2

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I remember someone in the Entertainment biz, saying that once the furor over Titanic dies down, people will come to there sense and LA Confidential will win best picture. I am glad he is wrong. LA Confidential was no better than a 2 to 2-1/2 star film. Crowe is horrible miscast.

[Morlock 11]

Well, I totaly disagree, but tere's no point in arguing here.

I think that Titanic was the third best movie of the year after L.A. Confidential and Wag The Dog.

[A24 4,355]

Cameron's Titanic is a real sinker. It's Hollywood at its worst. What a terrible movie! And one that deserved each phony Hollywoodian Oscar it has gotten. If they handed out awards for phonyness, Titanic wouldn't be big enough to harbour them. Everything is as bad as it could be. I really had to pursuade myself not to turn it off at various different moments. It was Cameron's end as a good director if ever he was one.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[Rogue_Leader 2]

Lets also try and remember that they gave oscars to such "actresses" as Mira Sorvino and Marisa Tomei.

Both actresses are pretty pathetic and they both won for roles that by no streth of the imagination could be described by the term "Oscar-wrothy".

[Morlock 11]

Marisa Tomei may have won for a role that is by no strength of imagination "oscar worthy", but she is far from pathetic. She deserved to win for the very "oscar worthy" In The Bedroom.

Plus she was on Seinfeld.

[Rogue_Leader 2]

Marisa Tomei may have won for a role that is by no strength of imagination "oscar worthy", but she is far from pathetic. She deserved to win for the very "oscar worthy" In The Bedroom.

Meh! I was In The Bedroom and was far from impressed with her performance.

Sissy Spacek was the real star of that show.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Cameron's Titanic is a real sinker. It's Hollywood at its worst. What a terrible movie! And one that deserved each phony Hollywoodian Oscar it has gotten. If they handed out awards for phonyness, Titanic wouldn't be big enough to harbour them. Everything is as bad as it could be. I really had to pursuade myself not to turn it off at various different moments. It was Cameron's end as a good director if ever he was one.  

yet you like crap like Blade Runner, well to each his own.

[Justin 2]

The real number's should show movie theater attendance and not dollars.

Ditto ditto and ditto.

Justin

[Guest]

Ditto, ditto, ditto and ditto.

[Justin 2]

One Mole of ditto's.

Justin

[King Mark 3,631]

Second, no one here has ever tried to belittle the accomplishment of Titanic. I personally felt that the movie was an overhyped, overrated, mediocre film which just his at the right time and under the right circumstance.

.

So is every movie to some extent.You really think E.T. would be as succesfull if it were released for the first time today?

[Rogue_Leader 2]

Second, no one here has ever tried to belittle the accomplishment of Titanic. I personally felt that the movie was an overhyped, overrated, mediocre film which just his at the right time and under the right circumstance.

.

So is every movie to some extent.You really think E.T. would be as succesfull if it were released for the first time today?

Well some movies are hurt by the time they are released in.

Titanic just happened to seemingly hit the perfect moment.

Anyway, its come and gone now. It wont remain number 1 foreever. I just hope the next movie to hit number 1 is truly worthy of that spot, unlike Titanic.

How much you want to bet when that happened the 3 remaining fans of Titanic will be like "WAIT! Titanic still has more in adjusted gross!". 8O

[Morlock 11]

Marisa Tomei may have won for a role that is by no strength of imagination "oscar worthy", but she is far from pathetic. She deserved to win for the very "oscar worthy" In The Bedroom.

Meh! I was In The Bedroom and was far from impressed with her performance.

Sissy Spacek was the real star of that show.

I anyone it's Tom Wilkinson.

(I'm not a Spacek fan. Although she's not as overrated as Meryl Streep is)

[A24 4,355]

Joe, wake up! Saying Titanic is great is the same as saying Pearl Harbour is great. Taste has nothing to do with it. Sometimes things are so wrong that you really don't need any taste to see it. Titanic is too clean, too smooth and it had, just like Pearl Harbour, too many uninteresting phony characters. It's too Coca Cola, too Hollywood. Titanic is THE Mother movie of every bad movie that's being released too quickly these days. All shine and glitter but nothing really deep. It's an acknowledged fakie that you seem to hold dear for some dark incomprehensible reason.

BTW, what kind of tactic is this? Attacking me with Blade Runner? Are you planning on doing this each time I you don't agree with me? Is this the level of discussion that I can expect from you? Do I attack you with "Titanic bashing" every time you share your opinions with us?

----------------

Alex Cremers

[Rogue_Leader 2]

Joe I have to agree with Alex on the Blade Runner thing. Let it go dude. Not only is that tired. Most people disagree with you on Blade Runner. At least most sci-fi fans.

Not to mention you are flaming Alex which is a loathsome action on a usually civilized forum such as this one.

This is really a pretty pointless discussion.

The facts remain: There have been SEVERAL movies more successful than Titanic released in the past and there will be more films that will surpass Titanic's gross in the future. Years from now I doubt anyone will remember this film that fondly.

[Morlock 11]

Well, I disagree. It's as deep as most classic epics (I'm not calling it a classic). And to compare it to Pearl Harbor is extremely unfair. Pearl Harbor is one of the most ridicules excuses for a movie I've seen. It has no characters, just caricatures. I honestly couldn't believe what they did with Cuba Gooding Jr.

Titanic is no more shallow than Ten Commandments or Ben Hur.

You Titanic is conclusively a bad movie is your opinion. I say the same of English Patient, but there are those who disagree with me. That it's 'so wrong' is debatable.

Why is it the mother of every movie released too quickly? there was the same crap before it came out, and it was a huge production, and nothing about it implies that it was done quickly or rushed.

It is cisualy amazing, I think it is as convincing in it's effects as any movie. And maybe there are alot of phony characters- but when the're played by David Warner, Kathy Bates, Billy Zane, Victor Garber, Bernard Hill, Jonathan Hyde and Bill Paxton- I think they're made very interesting. I love every scene with Warner and Garber.

And to quote Roger Ebert, who gave it a very intelligent and I think correct 4 star review: "If its story stays well within the traditional formulas for such pictures, well, you don't choose the most expensive film ever made as your opportunity to reinvent the wheel"

And I always as a boy was fascinated by the Titanic, and by the image of the ship hitting the iceburg, and the movie fulfilled my fantasy of being able to some how see it. I liked the love story. I thought it was very well done, and how Cameron uses the ship to such a great extent. And you know what? I like DiCaprio. He's a very good actor, and he's just right for Jack, just like he was in Gilbert Grape and Catch me if you can.

I do not see anything about the movie that's so wrong that you really don't need any taste to see it.

[Rogue_Leader 2]

The love story was definately the weakest element of Titanic. It was ridiculously cliche'd and predictable as hell. I would have rather seen a movie about the various stories of people on board the ship itself rather than some hammy nonsense.

[Morlock 11]

Fine- but the movie had to have a love story to get the$200+ million, and I think it could've been a lot worse.

And I disagree with you- I think that in time, more and more people will like it, forgetting that it unjustly became the highest grossing movie and forgetting all the publicity and forgetting their senseless disliking of DiCaprio. His stock is already higher after CMIYC and GONY, and will get even higher after The Aviator.

But time will tell.

[A24 4,355]

It has no characters, just caricatures.

That's exactly what I think of Titanic. The roles were too cliché. Some storylines were; Oh no, there we go again! Dicaprio was there to please the very young girls. That's fine, but don't build a movie around it. There was nothing challenging in this movie and that's why the movie will not improve with age. It tells nothing new. There are no hidden layers to be discovered. Underneath the surface there's a big void.

Not all epic stories have shallow characters. Even Star Wars went a lot deeper than Titanic. Citizen Kane, The Magnificent Andersons, The Godfather, all movies with more interesting characters, I would say. I've been fascinated with the Titanic throughout my entire childhood too. Everyone on the face of this planet has been fascinated with that story or still is. That's the primary reason for its succes. Everybody wanted to "live it". They wanted to see THE dramatic event come to life. James Cameron is a smart man. Today, only mediocre films are able to reach #1 spots at the box office. That's why Titanic is the Mother of all films of the mediocre kind.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[Morlock 11]

I still disagree, and I still say it's a great movie.

[A24 4,355]

Director Cameron's greatness definitely ended with True Lies.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[A24 4,355]

Although some, like me, would say it ended sooner with The Abyss.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[Morlock 11]

Eh, it was fun. Our of the four I've seen, his best was with out a doubt T2. Never seen the Abyss or Aliens though.

[A24 4,355]

Terminator is, IMO, a classic. Terminator II is a very, very good sequel just like Aliens is a very, very good sequel. I liked Cameron for his different take on the "Alien" concept. It is different but it still is good cinema. If you watch the other "Alien" installments you're likely to think that Cameron is a genius. I liked Cameron for pulling off a decent sequel to Terminator. Again, if you watch Terminator III, it's easy to think that Cameron is a genius. The Abyss did put me back with my two feet on the ground. Cameron's "eye of the tiger" had diminished already.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

The love story was definately the weakest element of Titanic. (...) I would have rather seen a movie about the various stories of people on board the ship itself rather than some hammy nonsense.

Go see A Night To Remember. It chronicles experiences of people from all classes on that faithful night, and has an almost documentary feel to it.

- Marc

[King Mark 3,631]

While the it's hard to "proove" the adjusted groses figures is accurate(hey i'm no mathematician),it doesn't take much brain power to see that movie tickets cost much more than in 1977 and that the movies are released in much more movie theaters and countries,so the final gross will be higher today than in 77 no matter what the movie

K.M.

[King Mark 3,631]

[

Well some movies are hurt by the time they are released in.  

:

Wasn't Spacecamp released the summer after Challenger blew up?

k.M.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Alex, DiCaprio's fan base grew with Titanic, until this he had never had a true boxoffice hit, though he had some minor success.

You mention that T2 is a very good sequel. And it is, it doesn't surpass the original, while Aliens vastly surpases the original in all aspects. Its simply a much better film.

Comparing Titanic to Pearl Harbor is moronic, and stupid. Titanic came out first. Pearl Harbor tried to mimic Titanic and failed miserably. By your reasoning I must like Pearl Harbor, which I don't. However I don't hate it. Its a weak movie made by a terrible director, who actually succeeded more than he failed with the film.

The love story in Titanic is the core of the film, and it succeeds wonderfully. Of all the best picture winners of the 1990's only one film(Schindler's List) would likely beat it, and it would so undeservidly.

You don't like Titanic, and thats fine. I used Blade Runner simply because I need a counterpoint to show that you too like overrated films as well. Lets face it BR has never been embraced by anyone but a few fanatics. But if you like it fine.

You make an assine comment like only mediocre films can make the #1 spot. I think most critics and fans would disagree with you about Return of the King. I have no opinon since I haven't seen it. Before its said and done, ROTK will fall into the 2nd place spot behind Titanic. But it wont really belong because as you all say only the adjusted grosses count.

I will say you at least don't go with the standard, Titanic ony because succeeded because of the little girls, which was always totally untrue.

Joe, who thinks Titanic is a great film for the same reason that Morlock does. I liked Jack Dawson, and loved every scene with Garber as well.

[Morlock 11]

The love story in Titanic is the core of the film, and it succeeds wonderfully.  Of all the best picture winners of the 1990's only one film(Schindler's List) would likely beat it, and it would so undeservidly.

Undeservidly? I don't think it's better Schindler's List or Silence of The Lambs. And out of the deserving nominees IMO I don't think it should beat Goodfellas, L.A. Confidential, Fargo and Saving Private Ryan.

And out of all of the films of the 90's, It's much lower on the list. Definatley not in the top 25.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Titanic would beat every Best Picture winner of the 90's, except Schindlers List. I think Titanic is a better film that Schindler's List.

Thats just my opinion. We will never no. Fargo it would squash like the little worthless indy film it is. SPR(totally overrated film) wouldn't stand a chance against it. Goodfellas didn't even win, but then neither did SPR. We know LA confidential didn't win. Silence of the Lambs was a surprise winner, who knows. It would bitchslap the english patient into submission.

Once again just my opinion.

[Morlock 11]

I was not talking about what it would beat- I was talking about I think it should (or more like should not).

SPR would stand a chance if it were released in December. It for sure would've beaten Shakespeare in Love if it were released then.

[A24 4,355]

A few fanatics? You're funny, Joe. There are more fans of BR that you and me would like to know. You only have to view some pop poll lists to learn what you've said is absurd. Don't act too surprised when you find Blade Runner mentioned a little more than often. Sometimes it even ranks higher than Titanic.

On the other hand, it is not a mass product like Star Wars or LOTR. Its subject is far too complex and adult for kids to comprehend, let alone, play with Blade Runner figurines.

I can not help it but you always seem to pick blockbusters as your winners over the more artistic films that are out there. I never hear you talk about them, you know, the smaller films. It always Star Wars, Raiders, Jaws, Titanic. Big and loud! And I like them too (except for...you know which one) but these are all very commercial films, and very mainstream. I never hear you talk about the more subtle films. I am not saying that there aren't any, but you seldom speak about them and when they are being discussed here, you never give your reaction or even give an opinion, except for a negative one. Forgive me, I could be wrong and it's only based on you criticism, but could it be that you're a bit too mainstream-minded when it comes to film?

----------------

Alex Cremers

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Sometimes it even ranks higher than Titanic

I can not help it but you always seem to pick blockbusters as your winners over the more artistic films that are out there. I never hear you talk about them, you know, the smaller films. It always Star Wars, Raiders, Jaws, Titanic.

funny but Jaws,Star Wars, and Raiders were all unplanned successes. They weren't blockbusters by design. Star Wars was expected to be a bomb. Richard Dreyfus thought Jaws would turn out to be a big "turkey". Raiders was the first film for Spielberg after his boxoffice bomb 1941, and no one knew what to expect from it. This is a John Williams site, and when we discuss his films and music, we discuss movies that by and large were boxoffice hits and big successes.

Its unavoidable and inevitable. what small films do you want me to talk about. "Fargo" perhaps, it was a small indy film that won best picture. I think its a total piece of shit. E.T. was a small film that no one expected to be the mega blockbuster it became. Made on an 8 million dollar budget, who knew. But I guess it doesn't count.

And let me tell you something, there are few films you could mention here that are more "ARTISTIC" than Raiders, or Star Wars, or Jaws, and E.T. These are artistic films, and with the exception of Raiders, all were small budgeted films.

Titanic was made on a titanic budget. There were alot of problems during production. When the film didn't make the summer 1997 release schedule, it was assumed that the film was problematic. It was expected when it was released to be a bomb, and an artistic failure, it was neither. It was a critical and obviously a boxoffice success.

Since this thread is about Boxoffice hits, talking about small artistic films seems out of place. Now if you want to start a thread about small artistic films, be my guest. Somehow I suspect that most of the films I see fall more into that category than the blockbusters do.

[Rogue_Leader 2]

His stock is already higher after CMIYC and GONY, and will get even higher after The Aviator.  

But time will tell.

No it won't!

First off GONY was by NO MEANS a major hit. Its gross was fairly discouraging given all the hype the movie had. Plus his performance in the film was fairly well criticized and not well recieved by most critics.

As for CMIYC that was a modestly big hit, but its success is more attributed to Spielberg/Hanks rather than Dicaprio. Its easy to get box office results when you've got those names behind your film.

As for The Aviator the concept sounds uninteresting and I think it will alienate most audiences. The premise HARDLY screams box office gold.