$66mm dark knight BO

[joe_collector]

It's silly to compare eras when movies were opened at one theater in a city for the first two months with what they do today...

 

,. if this bizarre logic was true, the ALL of the Top 100 movies would be from the "pre-TV explosion" time period, with the majority from the 30's to early-40's, where movies were the main source of media entertainment.

 

But they aren't, and instead, there is a nice selection of "event" movies from all eras.

[DocGo]

Maybe the actual amount of tickets sold would be a more accurate gauge. I'm sure they have these numbers as well.

[joe_collector]

Maybe the actual amount of tickets sold would be a more accurate gauge. I'm sure they have these numbers as well.

 

But then all the Pixar and Disney animated movies would shoot up, as the majority of tickets sold would be at the lower child or matinee rates.

[the_Greatest]

A nice tool, but not all that much more relevant.

When Gone With The Wind came out, there was no way you would ever see it again except at the theater.

 

There...gulp.....was NO TV.

[joe_collector]

When Gone With The Wind came out, there was no way you would ever see it again except at the theater.

 

There...gulp.....was NO TV.

 

So where are all the other movies from the 30's? There are more than double the 1990's movies in the top 20 than 1930's movies.

 

It comes down to "event movies" that strike a chord and make people of all ages, colors and religions flock to the theater. Gone with the Wind, Star Wars, Jaws, Titanic, Jurassic Park - you make a movie that hits pop culture like those and it will find its way into the top of all-time.

[the_Greatest]

When Gone With The Wind came out, there was no way you would ever see it again except at the theater.

 

There...gulp.....was NO TV.

 

So where are all the other movies from the 30's? There are more than double the 1990's movies in the top 20 than 1930's movies.

 

It comes down to "event movies" that strike a chord and make people of all ages, colors and religions flock to the theater. Gone with the Wind, Star Wars, Jaws, Titanic, Jurassic Park - you make a movie that hits pop culture like those and it will find its way into the top of all-time.

 

The comparison, itself, is silly.

Movies are released in completely different ways now.

The point being, God only knows how high Jaws or to a slightly lesser degree Star Wars( in twice as many theaters at week #14 as week #6 of its release) numbers would have been, if it had been released in 4000 theaters on DAY #1.

There are many factors that make comparing eras, just plain stupid.

 

[MR.COMICBOOK]

When Gone With The Wind came out, there was no way you would ever see it again except at the theater.

 

There...gulp.....was NO TV.

 

So where are all the other movies from the 30's? There are more than double the 1990's movies in the top 20 than 1930's movies.

 

It comes down to "event movies" that strike a chord and make people of all ages, colors and religions flock to the theater. Gone with the Wind, Star Wars, Jaws, Titanic, Jurassic Park - you make a movie that hits pop culture like those and it will find its way into the top of all-time.

the 1930`s had the Great Depression and the 1940`s had World War 2, people had other things on thier mind then going to the movies like figuring out how to stay alive.Which makes Gone With The Wind even look more impressive.

[FlyingDonut]

It's silly to compare eras when movies were opened at one theater in a city for the first two months with what they do today...

 

,. if this bizarre logic was true, the ALL of the Top 100 movies would be from the "pre-TV explosion" time period, with the majority from the 30's to early-40's, where movies were the main source of media entertainment.

 

But they aren't, and instead, there is a nice selection of "event" movies from all eras.

 

How many of them are post-internet, post mega-channel DVD age? That's the real question. Also, I don't think you can put count animated movies in the same category, as there's a completely new audience for them every seven years.

[FlyingDonut]

When Gone With The Wind came out, there was no way you would ever see it again except at the theater.

 

There...gulp.....was NO TV.

 

So where are all the other movies from the 30's? There are more than double the 1990's movies in the top 20 than 1930's movies.

 

It comes down to "event movies" that strike a chord and make people of all ages, colors and religions flock to the theater. Gone with the Wind, Star Wars, Jaws, Titanic, Jurassic Park - you make a movie that hits pop culture like those and it will find its way into the top of all-time.

 

Well, there were 3X the PEOPLE in the 1990s than the 1930s, which might have something to do with it.

[Old Fashion PB and J]

When Gone With The Wind came out, there was no way you would ever see it again except at the theater.

 

There...gulp.....was NO TV.

 

So where are all the other movies from the 30's? There are more than double the 1990's movies in the top 20 than 1930's movies.

 

It comes down to "event movies" that strike a chord and make people of all ages, colors and religions flock to the theater. Gone with the Wind, Star Wars, Jaws, Titanic, Jurassic Park - you make a movie that hits pop culture like those and it will find its way into the top of all-time.

the 1930`s had the Great Depression and the 1940`s had World War 2, people had other things on thier mind then going to the movies like figuring out how to stay alive.Which makes Gone With The Wind even look more impressive.

 

People went to the theatre to find out news also. There was live footage before the movie showed. People still went. Unless you ended up homeless from the depression. And people did have other things on there minds, just like now. Which is a reason movies are so successful today. It gives you a little bit of time to relax and not worry.

[the_Greatest]

It's silly to compare eras when movies were opened at one theater in a city for the first two months with what they do today...

 

,. if this bizarre logic was true, the ALL of the Top 100 movies would be from the "pre-TV explosion" time period, with the majority from the 30's to early-40's, where movies were the main source of media entertainment.

 

But they aren't, and instead, there is a nice selection of "event" movies from all eras.

 

How many of them are post-internet, post mega-channel DVD age? That's the real question. Also, I don't think you can put count animated movies in the same category, as there's a completely new audience for them every seven years.

 

Exactly. You can't just say that movies are now because so few of the top 15 movies in that chart are post-1983, or approximately the point in the home theater revolution that you could watch a movie in your house on videotape or HBO within a year of it being in the theater.

To deny that is a factor is borderline stupidity.

That's even more relevant than theater counts, because God only knows how many seats theaters used to have compared to now.

I know the seven theaters that Jaws opened at in the Chicago area had a ton of seats, but probably not close to the number that Dark Knight opened at yesterday.

[joe_collector]

How many of them are post-internet, post mega-channel DVD age? That's the real question.

 

Maybe in another 10-15 years we can judge it better, but we're still in 2008.

 

The closest is Shrek 2 from 2004 in 29th place and Spider-man in 33rd, and keep in mind that Phantom Menace (19th) was from 1999.

[Socratic Wonder]

I think we all understand that. Nonetheless, it seems to be such a significant amount that even with inflation it will beat previous records which are only a couple of years old at the most. There hasn't been that much inflation.

 

But every day, movies become more front-loaded, open in more theaters, have more early showings, etc. so that these "new records" mean virtually nothing.

 

Dark Knight was shown on less screens than both Spider-Man 3 and Pirates of the Caribbean: Dean Man's Chest

 

Not to mention it runs longer than both so that means less showings. Seems like these BO #'s do mean a little something

[Crowzilla]

When Gone With The Wind came out, there was no way you would ever see it again except at the theater.

So where are all the other movies from the 30's? There are more than double the 1990's movies in the top 20 than 1930's movies.

 

No Doubt, GWTW was the biggest movie of it's decade, but it's total box-office draw was also heavily supported with re-releases in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s and even 90s.

Those numbers are all added to the unadjusted gross of the film, and I wonder if the "adjusted for ticket price inflation" calculator separates the box office of the different re-releases when doing computations.

 

It's very easy today to deprive movies of "box-office dollars" by waiting for the release on DVD, cable, borrowing from a friend, downloading off the internet or whatever, this of course wasn't always the case in prior decades. GWTW was never even shown on TV until 1976 (and garnering record audiences at the time), so for the first 37 years it was out you HAD to see it at a theater and add to it's box-office numbers.

 

Comparing 30s/40s movies with 90s/00s movies might be fun, but it's a pretty fruitless endeavor.

 

[joe_collector]

Dark Knight was shown on less screens than both Spider-Man 3 and Pirates of the Caribbean: Dean Man's Chest

 

“The Dark Knight” earned an estimated $18.5 million in gross revenue at its 12 a.m. opening screenings early Friday morning at 3,040 screens, the most ever for midnight shows

 

Warner Bros. Pictures, and theater chains aren't afraid to screen the movie across a record swath of theaters -- 4,366 to be exact -- and, well, deep into the dark night.

[Crowzilla]

There is a difference between total number of theaters and total number of screens, Joe.

 

Reports are that Dark Knight is showing on fewer screens than Spider-Man 3, but more screens than Pirates.

 

[WiseGuyX]

Yup, "Gone with the Wind" is king.

 

Gone with the Wind

 

We named our son Rhett

 

Anyhow, I never pay attention to this Box Office BS.

 

 

[joe_collector]

There is a difference between total number of theaters and total number of screens, Joe.

 

Did you even READ the post you replied/disagreed with:

 

But every day, movies become more front-loaded, open in more theaters, have more early showings, etc. so that these "new records" mean virtually nothing.

 

These statements are proven here:

 

“The Dark Knight” earned an estimated $18.5 million in gross revenue at its 12 a.m. opening screenings early Friday morning at 3,040 screens, the most ever for midnight shows

 

Warner Bros. Pictures, and theater chains aren't afraid to screen the movie across a record swath of theaters -- 4,366 to be exact -- and, well, deep into the dark night.

[burntboy]

It's silly to compare eras when movies were opened at one theater in a city for the first two months with what they do today...

 

,. if this bizarre logic was true, the ALL of the Top 100 movies would be from the "pre-TV explosion" time period, with the majority from the 30's to early-40's, where movies were the main source of media entertainment.

 

But they aren't, and instead, there is a nice selection of "event" movies from all eras.

 

How many of them are post-internet, post mega-channel DVD age? That's the real question. Also, I don't think you can put count animated movies in the same category, as there's a completely new audience for them every seven years.

 

Exactly. You can't just say that movies are now because so few of the top 15 movies in that chart are post-1983, or approximately the point in the home theater revolution that you could watch a movie in your house on videotape or HBO within a year of it being in the theater.

To deny that is a factor is borderline stupidity.

That's even more relevant than theater counts, because God only knows how many seats theaters used to have compared to now.

I know the seven theaters that Jaws opened at in the Chicago area had a ton of seats, but probably not close to the number that Dark Knight opened at yesterday.

 

The chart that JC posted is the closest thing there will ever likely be in measuring a movies popularity as it pertains to azzes in seats. admittedly it doesn't adjust for the difference in individual ticket price differential between Adult and Child prices, but it's as good as it's gonna get.

 

for my money , the real barometer is how many folks were willing to spend money to see the flick in a theater. short of that you'd have to factor in DVD sales (adjusted for inflation) and god knows what else.

 

Suffice it to say that WB and DC are gonna REALLY be happy with the opening weekend gross.

 

Remember that most of us thought that Indy would win out this year. Iron man was a pleasant surprise and those two movies are virtually in a dead heat for 2008 top box office (Domestic). looks like The Dark knight may just give them a run for their money...

[the_Greatest]

I think we all understand that. Nonetheless, it seems to be such a significant amount that even with inflation it will beat previous records which are only a couple of years old at the most. There hasn't been that much inflation.

 

But every day, movies become more front-loaded, open in more theaters, have more early showings, etc. so that these "new records" mean virtually nothing.

 

Dark Knight was shown on less screens than both Spider-Man 3 and Pirates of the Caribbean: Dean Man's Chest

 

Not to mention it runs longer than both so that means less showings. Seems like these BO #'s do mean a little something

 

All I've taken from this is that Dark Knight is going to do very well, and I'm glad, because unlike Spider Man 3, it apparently is not a piece of mess.

Spider Man 3 was 10 minutes shorter, I don't recall it having 3 am showings (but it may have), it opened in 2% less theaters, and made about 11% less money by the end of it's first day.

At this point....