Tired of hearing about record-breaking movies

[nick1091]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

And I have to say -- those of you who discount the success of TITANIC becuase it played to [I quote] "a certain demographic" -- what's the difference between young females flocking to Titanic and young males flocking to The Dark Knight?

The difference is that Titanic was a date/couples movie, so there were likely thousands of significant others/boyfriends who were dragged to go see it by their better half (I count myself among that number.) TDK, on the other hand, since it mainly appeals to a younger male target audience, is less of a date movie - you're more likely to see a group of buddies revved up to see it than a couple in which one of them longs for the movie to just end, already.

Personally, I could give a damn what a movie grosses at the box office, and I think it is absurd that the weekend box office grosses (oftentimes incorrect) are reported on the Sunday evening news...I think it is a sickness in the American soul that we judge a film's success based on the money it makes.

I'm sorry, but how else would one judge a success of a film (which is a commercial enterprise, mind you) than by the profit it generates? I said it in a similar thread, but profitable movie = successful movie. Things like the Oscars, Golden Globes, year-end Top 10 lists are the format to measure how "good" a film is. Success is all about the dollars.

To use a comparison, the Spice Girls sold millions upon millions of CDs. Few would say they are that talented, but to move that many units, there's no question they were very successful.

[statikcat]

Stop reading the threads then. Problem solved..

As an edit: I do believe that ticket sales should be more important than $ amount for obvious reasons.

[MacDaddyOJack]

Originally Posted by ngkf7

Now take an old classic like Gone With The Wind. It made over $198 million in its box office releases. Adjust that for monetary inflation and it's over $2 billion. Ticket price inflation puts it around $1.43 billion.

My statistics teacher in college told me that statistics was nothing more than the art of lieing. I don't know where you got these 'statistics' but to say that Gone With the Wind generated a comparitive $2 billion dollars in todays age is just plain BS. And Titanic was in theaters for A LONG time.

We only have the dollar to go by in this country so thats what we use. You also have to consider that gasoline was 50 cents a gallon and shipping and elcetric costs were a fraction of what they are today when Gone With the Wind was made.....

[stockstar1138]

Originally Posted by MacDaddyOJack

We only have the dollar to go by in this country so thats what we use. You also have to consider that gasoline was 50 cents a gallon and shipping and elcetric costs were a fraction of what they are today when Gone With the Wind was made.....

a little correction gasoline was only .19 a gallon in 1939. yeah, it was that cheap!

[SS316SRV]

Originally Posted by stockstar1138

a little correction gasoline was only .19 a gallon in 1939. yeah, it was that cheap!

Udjust that for inflation and I still care very little.

[Strannix136]

Originally Posted by Pelican170

You need to focus on the Ticket Sales instead of Sales Dollars...

Exactly. Success, or popularity, should be determined by the number of butts in seats. For what it costs one person to see a movie today, the same dollar amount would have admitted 5 people years ago.

[toef]

Originally Posted by nick1091

The difference is that Titanic was a date/couples movie, so there were likely thousands of significant others/boyfriends who were dragged to go see it by their better half (I count myself among that number.) TDK, on the other hand, since it mainly appeals to a younger male target audience, is less of a date movie - you're more likely to see a group of buddies revved up to see it than a couple in which one of them longs for the movie to just end, already.

It might also be possible that the people seeing TDK multiple times don't even have girlfriends.

Both were ok movies (well, TDK was better than ok), but I don't think TDK will ever hold as much a place in movie history as Titanic.

I'm sure there are plenty of people, who upon hearing the news of how much TDK has grossed, start doing some mental math. "Well let's see, it made xxx so far, it only cost xxx to make, and they maybe spent xx on their ad campaign, so....wow, they've made xxx in profit already." However, it's movies like TDK that have to make up for all the other box office disappointments (10000 BC**) and/or fund the little pet films (whatever those might be).

**Although I guess when you add in the foreign gross, this movie still did ok. I'm sure Warner Bros released some bombs this year though.

[PCiAM]

Originally Posted by nick1091

The difference is that Titanic was a date/couples movie, so there were likely thousands of significant others/boyfriends who were dragged to go see it by their better half (I count myself among that number.) TDK, on the other hand, since it mainly appeals to a younger male target audience, is less of a date movie - you're more likely to see a group of buddies revved up to see it than a couple in which one of them longs for the movie to just end, already.



I'm sorry, but how else would one judge a success of a film (which is a commercial enterprise, mind you) than by the profit it generates? I said it in a similar thread, but profitable movie = successful movie. Things like the Oscars, Golden Globes, year-end Top 10 lists are the format to measure how "good" a film is. Success is all about the dollars.

To use a comparison, the Spice Girls sold millions upon millions of CDs. Few would say they are that talented, but to move that many units, there's no question they were very successful.

Very good points. Plus, Titanic was one of those rare movie experiences. I think it's very easily written off as a chick flick by a lot of people who don't enjoy the film, but in my opinion it was much more than that. Sure it was a chick flick to some people, but the movie also appealed greatly to other demographics. I've always been huge into the disaster itself as a kid, even before the movie's release. I thought the film was a stunning spectacle visually, historically, and the story was also very good.

Also the film was number one for an unprecedented number of weeks, which is saying something considering it was over 3 hours in length. Something about the film kept people going back and back again. The mystery and fascination with the true disaster combined with the great fictional story of Jack and Rose was box office gold. It was a financial and critical success.

The Dark Knight is also a financial and critical success, but I think it's pretty clear it won't beat Titanic. If you adjust for inflation, TDK would have to gross 900 million to beat Titanic. Personally, I loved The Dark Knight. I haven't seen a movie like that in a while, and it was refreshing to see it. I loved them both.

People can clash back and forth all day about which is better in quality, but when the dust settles, I think Titanic will still be on top. Regardless of one's personal opinion regarding the movie, it's definitely been an impressive film both financially and with critical consensus.

[PCiAM]

Originally Posted by Strannix136

Exactly. Success, or popularity, should be determined by the number of butts in seats. For what it costs one person to see a movie today, the same dollar amount would have admitted 5 people years ago.

I would agree. Inflation is why every single summer, you hear about a brand new 'record breaking' movie. When adjusted for inflation, Titanic isn't even in the top 3 or 4 I believe. I think Gone With the Wind and Star Wars are, but you also have to take into account that both these films were re-released in theaters after their original theatrical runs so entire new generations were able to experience it theatrically.

[nick1091]

Originally Posted by Riff Magnum

Whoever is making the argument that there was less to do 60 years ago and that people just had all kinds of leisure time to go to the movies over and over again really needs to clean out the cobwebs. The roads you drive on were not built, the cables you use were not buried, and the bombs we drop were not even thought of. People were worried about no food on the table, droughts, duststorms, and Hitlers stormtroopers marching across Europe. There was and is, still plenty do besides entertaining ourselves.

I don't think anyone means there was less to do in general, just that there were much fewer entertainment options. Dozens of TV channels, the concept of watching movies at home at your leisure, more sporting events, more music concerts, etc offer a wider variety of entertainment options than those of 50-60 years ago.

That extends to the theater itself. According to Wikipedia, there were roughly 60 movies released in 1939. Compare that to the 153 movies released theatrically in 2008. Plus, in those days, you didn't drive to one of the multiplexes within driving distance and choose between 8-10 films. You went to the one theater in town and chose between the 2 (if that) which were currently playing.

[fighthefutureofhd]

Originally Posted by MacDaddyOJack

My statistics teacher in college told me that statistics was nothing more than the art of lieing. I don't know where you got these 'statistics' but to say that Gone With the Wind generated a comparitive $2 billion dollars in todays age is just plain BS. And Titanic was in theaters for A LONG time.

We only have the dollar to go by in this country so thats what we use. You also have to consider that gasoline was 50 cents a gallon and shipping and elcetric costs were a fraction of what they are today when Gone With the Wind was made.....

lots of things back then were fraction of what they cost today. but people seem to forget that 19 cents for gas back then was really expensive. at least to them. we don't understand that because we never dealt with that.

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by nick1091

The difference is that Titanic was a date/couples movie, so there were likely thousands of significant others/boyfriends who were dragged to go see it by their better half (I count myself among that number.) TDK, on the other hand, since it mainly appeals to a younger male target audience, is less of a date movie - you're more likely to see a group of buddies revved up to see it than a couple in which one of them longs for the movie to just end, already.



I'm sorry, but how else would one judge a success of a film (which is a commercial enterprise, mind you) than by the profit it generates? I said it in a similar thread, but profitable movie = successful movie. Things like the Oscars, Golden Globes, year-end Top 10 lists are the format to measure how "good" a film is. Success is all about the dollars.

To use a comparison, the Spice Girls sold millions upon millions of CDs. Few would say they are that talented, but to move that many units, there's no question they were very successful.

You might want to check the opening weekend reports on TDK. The audience was almost evenly split between males and females. 52% male, 48% female. By comparison, Iron Man had 65% males in its opening weekend. And as TDK's run in theaters has gone further along, its audience has gotten older and older (which is what happens with every movie because older people wait for the crowds to die down before seeing movies). Also, the argument that half of TDK's audience was just hoping for the movie to be over and half of Titanic's wasn't is preposterous. Titanic, even as a so-called "date" movie, is a 3 hour and 15 minute long chick flick. Given the amount of male backlash to the film through the years, I would say PLENTY of males who got dragged by their girlfriends to that movie could not wait for the damn thing to be over. I personally enjoyed it a lot, but it was no less polarizing than TDK. By the way, here's an article about that weekend audience breakdown:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=2504

[nick1091]

Originally Posted by TTUBatfan2008

Also, the argument that half of TDK's audience was just hoping for the movie to be over and half of Titanic's wasn't is preposterous. Titanic, even as a so-called "date" movie, is a 3 hour and 15 minute long chick flick. Given the amount of male backlash to the film through the years, I would say PLENTY of males who got dragged by their girlfriends to that movie could not wait for the damn thing to be over.

Please read what I wrote again. I fully agree that more people were likely "dragged" to Titanic than TDK, not the other way around. The argument I made was the reverse of what you're saying I did.

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by nick1091

Please read what I wrote again. I fully agree that more people were likely "dragged" to Titanic than TDK, not the other way around. The argument I made was the reverse of what you're saying I did.

Ah, sorry about that. You were saying Titanic was the type of movie where half of the couple was wanting it to end. Gotcha.

But I notice you didn't even attempt a comeback on the 52%/48% thing.

[nick1091]

Originally Posted by TTUBatfan2008

But I notice you didn't even attempt a comeback on the 52%/48% thing.

I'm not sure what I should be coming back against? While I was admittedly surprised by such an even split (and happily so, I think it's a great movie that nearly everyone can appreciate), I'd be interested to see these break downs as the weeks continue. I would imagine that in the same way more females went back to Titanic for second viewings, that more males will see TDK multiple times.

[LORDs_angellos]

Originally Posted by Pelican170

You need to focus on the Ticket Sales instead of Sales Dollars...

That's just the thing though-- people don't go to the movies like they used to, and unless theaters get a major overhaul and start using DLP more and playing movies with Blu-ray quality, I don't see a reason for attendance to increase.

[fighthefutureofhd]

theaters will do fine. they're still the best place to watch a movie. even a non-dlp theater is better than watching a movie at home. your home cannot replicate the movie experience you get a theater. it will never happen. movie business in theaters will continue to do very well. the dark knight is proving that.

[dobyblue]

When people talk about TDK's place in the all-time list adjusted for inflation, no-one seems to have mentioned while noting that it has only just cracked the Top 50 that it's only entering its FOURTH WEEK-END!!!!!!!

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by fighthefutureofhd

theaters will do fine. they're still the best place to watch a movie.

I humbly disagree - the aural experience at the theatre doesn't come close to my home system, nor does it when I go to IMAX.

The reason why theatres will continue to do so well is because the theatres still get the first run and it's an evening or day out for families, dates, the boys, the girls, etc.

[SS316SRV]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

I humbly disagree - the aural experience at the theatre doesn't come close to my home system, nor does it when I go to IMAX.

The reason why theatres will continue to do so well is because the theatres still get the first run and it's an evening or day out for families, dates, the boys, the girls, etc.

I try to avoid the theaters as much as possible. Other people bug me sometimes. I like being able to stretch out at home and watch a movie. I can pause it to empty the tank and then grab another silver bullet. I can pause it to pay the pizza guy. Also, my floors are nowhere near as sticky.