Mole Posted July 25, 2004 Report Posted July 25, 2004 I was looking at the Spiderman 2 numbers and how they it won't beat Shrek 2. It got me thinking on what movie will beat Titanic's $600 million record. The only movie I could see beating it would be Return of the Sith. And that is a BIG IF, only if it turns out to be a great movie. What movie do you think will break it?
LaParkaYourCar Posted July 25, 2004 Report Posted July 25, 2004 Revenge of the Sith won't beat it. The usual amount of people who saw the last two movies will go and maybe less as disappointing as the last two have been.
Guest wildpegasus Posted July 25, 2004 Report Posted July 25, 2004 Excuse me for my ignorance but what's Revenge of the Sith? No it didn't beat Titanic's 600 million dollar record but I believe Spirited Away should be mentioned for surpassing Titanic at the box office in Japan. I think it did anyway. Titanic will be beaten some day. Ticket prices always go up higher and higher.
MrRant Posted July 25, 2004 Report Posted July 25, 2004 Excuse me for my ignorance but what's Revenge of the Sith? No it didn't beat Titanic's 600 million dollar record but I believe Spirited Away should be mentioned for surpassing Titanic at the box office in Japan. I think it did anyway. Titanic will be beaten some day. Ticket prices always go up higher and higher. http://forums.thesmartmarks.com/index.php?showtopic=58528
Guest Smark-Raving Mad Posted July 25, 2004 Report Posted July 25, 2004 I think it would have to be some super-fad kid's movie, like Pokemon vs Yu-gi-oh 2 or something.
Guest TheZsaszHorsemen Posted July 25, 2004 Report Posted July 25, 2004 The inevitable sequel to The Passion of the Christ, I think. I thought it was very savvy of them to leave the possibility open for a Part 2 by hinting that the main character (a Jewish man unjustly tortured and apparantly killed by the Romans under Jewish pressure) was not really dead at the end. I also heard it was based upon a book. Perhaps the author would like to suggest ba plot line for the sequel?
spiny norman Posted July 25, 2004 Report Posted July 25, 2004 I think it is unlikely for a sequel of anything to ever top the box office record. Sequels rarely beat out their predecessors (and don't hit back at me with statistics, I said rarely). I think this is a silly thing to speculate about, because we honestly will not know until the event actually occurs.
Guest TheZsaszHorsemen Posted July 25, 2004 Report Posted July 25, 2004 I think it is unlikely for a sequel of anything to ever top the box office record. Sequels rarely beat out their predecessors (and don't hit back at me with statistics, I said rarely). I think this is a silly thing to speculate about, because we honestly will not know until the event actually occurs. Spider-Man 2 is beating where Spider-Man was right now. Oh and just about every Bond has outgrossed DN.
LaParkaYourCar Posted July 25, 2004 Report Posted July 25, 2004 It's hard to look at Bond movies as "sequels" though.
DangerousDamon Posted July 25, 2004 Report Posted July 25, 2004 It's hard to look at Bond movies as "sequels" though. Why's that?
LaParkaYourCar Posted July 25, 2004 Report Posted July 25, 2004 Since each one has the ability to stand on it's own and be viewed without prior knowledge and has little to no continuity with the last film other than the characters.
spiny norman Posted July 25, 2004 Report Posted July 25, 2004 I think it is unlikely for a sequel of anything to ever top the box office record. Sequels rarely beat out their predecessors (and don't hit back at me with statistics, I said rarely). I think this is a silly thing to speculate about, because we honestly will not know until the event actually occurs. Spider-Man 2 is beating where Spider-Man was right now. Oh and just about every Bond has outgrossed DN. To quote (and bold) myself: Sequels rarely beat out their predecessors (and don't hit back at me with statistics, I said rarely). I knew someone would try to be a smartarse.
Guest TheZsaszHorsemen Posted July 25, 2004 Report Posted July 25, 2004 It's hard to look at Bond movies as "sequels" though. Fair enough, but what about the earliest ones in the series? The ones still in the 60's which shared a common villain (SPECTRE) and all the recurring chaarcters were in place throughout? it would be difficult to think of them as anything BUT sequels, especially at the annual rate at which they were made. THESE ARE ALL DOMESTIC USA GROSSES, BTW. The Bond movies totals are always much higher after worldwide markets are figured in, because Bond is more of an international property. Also, remember that these numbers are from films made in the early 60's, and for that time these figures are pretty unheard of. Dr. No $16,067,035 5/08/1963 From Russia with Love $24,796,765 4/08/1964 Goldfinger $51,081,062 12/22/1964 Thunderball $63,595,658 12/21/1965 You Only Live Twice $43,084,787 6/13/1967 Those numbers are the reason Bond is still the franchise every other franchise wishes is was. NOTE: YOLT suffers bit in the box office department because it's not nearly as good as the first four.
Guest TheZsaszHorsemen Posted July 25, 2004 Report Posted July 25, 2004 I think it is unlikely for a sequel of anything to ever top the box office record. Sequels rarely beat out their predecessors (and don't hit back at me with statistics, I said rarely). I think this is a silly thing to speculate about, because we honestly will not know until the event actually occurs. Spider-Man 2 is beating where Spider-Man was right now. Oh and just about every Bond has outgrossed DN. To quote (and bold) myself: Sequels rarely beat out their predecessors (and don't hit back at me with statistics, I said rarely). I knew someone would try to be a smartarse. Oh I saw it. I just don't give a damn what you "want to hear." This is a board for discussion. Stuff it.
LaParkaYourCar Posted July 25, 2004 Report Posted July 25, 2004 It's hard to look at Bond movies as "sequels" though. Fair enough, but what about the earliest ones in the series? The ones still in the 60's which shared a common villain (SPECTRE) and all the recurring chaarcters were in place throughout? it would be difficult to think of them as anything BUT sequels, especially at the annual rate at which they were made. THESE ARE ALL DOMESTIC USA GROSSES, BTW. The Bond movies totals are always much higher after worldwide markets are figured in, because Bond is more of an international property. Also, remember that these numbers are from films made in the early 60's, and for that time these figures are pretty unheard of. Dr. No $16,067,035 5/08/1963 From Russia with Love $24,796,765 4/08/1964 Goldfinger $51,081,062 12/22/1964 Thunderball $63,595,658 12/21/1965 You Only Live Twice $43,084,787 6/13/1967 Those numbers are the reason Bond is still the franchise every other franchise wishes is was. NOTE: YOLT suffers bit in the box office department because it's not nearly as good as the first four. Yeah I guess those are sequels.
Guest TheZsaszHorsemen Posted July 25, 2004 Report Posted July 25, 2004 I'd also be very interested to see how those numbers translate to now with inflation.
2GOLD Posted July 25, 2004 Report Posted July 25, 2004 No movie will. You need the perfect combo of "chick flick", "young handsome dork that grabs young girls attention", "possiblity of nude red head for horny teens", "girlfriends forcing boyfriends to movie", "boyfriends taking girlfriends in hopes of after film tail", "first daters looking to get girl's defenses down for sex", "big ass sinking boat", "big ass sinking boat full of white people", "big ass sinking boat full of rich white people", "James Cameron", and finally "Celine Dion's brainless followers". That film hit on every level. If the top geekdom of all time couldn't top it, nothing will.
spiny norman Posted July 25, 2004 Report Posted July 25, 2004 I think it is unlikely for a sequel of anything to ever top the box office record. Sequels rarely beat out their predecessors (and don't hit back at me with statistics, I said rarely). I think this is a silly thing to speculate about, because we honestly will not know until the event actually occurs. Spider-Man 2 is beating where Spider-Man was right now. Oh and just about every Bond has outgrossed DN. To quote (and bold) myself: Sequels rarely beat out their predecessors (and don't hit back at me with statistics, I said rarely). I knew someone would try to be a smartarse. Oh I saw it. I just don't give a damn what you "want to hear." This is a board for discussion. Stuff it. Then I don't see what your point was? Psycho outgrossed its sequels. Silence Of The Lambs outgrossed Hannibal and Red Dragon. The Matrix outgrossed Revolutions and Reloaded (I assume). Fellowship Of The Ring outgrossed the other two. Weekend At Bernie's outdid the sequel. There are so many things to the contrary. Why are you trying to spark a debate over nothing? I said that a sequel rarely outgrosses the film that came before it. You agree. So why are you arguing about it?
AndrewTS Posted July 25, 2004 Report Posted July 25, 2004 I may be incorrect, but I recall reading an article that said if ET's numbers were adjusted for today, it still would be higher grossing than Titanic. This site seems to support that: http://www.leesmovieinfo.net/wbotitle.php?t=235 "(Adjusted) Worldwide Box Office: $754.805 (million)" Oh, this is quite funny--"Production Budget: $10.50 million." That's like a B-movie budget today. If Shrek 2 couldn't do it, I don't see any movies that I know of that are coming out capable of making a dent. However, I think it would have to be a family-friendly, but still well-scripted and widely appealing movie that can capture as many demographics as possible. However, how the hell did Titanic gross that to begin with? Were 13 year old girls going back to see it again 10 times? EDIT: 2GOLD already answered, I guess.
MarvinisaLunatic Posted July 25, 2004 Report Posted July 25, 2004 I was thinking maybe the King Kong remake but I doubt it.
spiny norman Posted July 25, 2004 Report Posted July 25, 2004 Adjusting for inflation, Gone With The Wind would be the highest grossing film of all time.
Guest Sturgis Posted July 25, 2004 Report Posted July 25, 2004 However, how the hell did Titanic gross that to begin with? Were 13 year old girls going back to see it again 10 times? Hell, I'm still trying to figure out why there's a movie in the first place. There's a Zillon documentries on Discovery Channel and we all now how the movie is going to end, what's the point.
MarvinisaLunatic Posted July 25, 2004 Report Posted July 25, 2004 However, how the hell did Titanic gross that to begin with? Were 13 year old girls going back to see it again 10 times? Hell, I'm still trying to figure out why there's a movie in the first place. There's a Zillon documentries on Discovery Channel and we all now how the movie is going to end, what's the point. Think of all that as free advertising.
bob_barron Posted July 25, 2004 Report Posted July 25, 2004 A film will eventually surpass Titantic- especially with rising ticket prices. Look at Shrek 2- it was only 130 million away from beating Titantic. A movie would have to come out in November-December, appeal to all audiences and have the backing of the critics. If they opened Shrek 3 around Christmastime and again got people to drink the Koolaid- maybe it'd have a shot. Oh and: The Matrix Reloaded outgrossed the Matrix. Return of the King outgrossed the other two. Hannibal outgrossed Silence of the Lambs. So spiny- you really don't know what you're talking about
Art Sandusky Posted July 25, 2004 Report Posted July 25, 2004 Psycho outgrossed its sequels. Silence Of The Lambs outgrossed Hannibal and Red Dragon. The Matrix outgrossed Revolutions and Reloaded (I assume). Fellowship Of The Ring outgrossed the other two. Weekend At Bernie's outdid the sequel. I think we all know which of these was most criminal.
spiny norman Posted July 25, 2004 Report Posted July 25, 2004 The Matrix Reloaded outgrossed the Matrix. Return of the King outgrossed the other two. Hannibal outgrossed Silence of the Lambs. With The Matrix, I said I assumed. I wasn't sure. I thought Fellowship outdid the other two, I was misinformed. Hannibal outdid Silence Of The Lambs? That's really quite sad. Oh well, no matter how bad my choices were, the fact remains the same that sequels do rarely outdo the first one. Even if I chose every example which is the opposite to the rule.
Kahran Ramsus Posted July 25, 2004 Report Posted July 25, 2004 Return of the King is the second highest grossing movie of all time and only the second to gross over a $1 billion worldwide. Two Towers also beat Fellowship. The record will fall in the next ten years. Obviously I can't say by what since they haven't been filmed yet. It definitely won't be a superhero or big action movie like Spider-Man or Batman. It would have to be something that appeals more to a wide audience and gets a lot of repeat business, like the Shrek films and like someone mentioned, it probably will be released in the winter where there is absolutely no competition for it. If Passion of the Christ had managed a PG-13 in the US, I think it would have done it domestically. Either that or when they re-release Return of the King in 20 years.
2GOLD Posted July 25, 2004 Report Posted July 25, 2004 Psycho outgrossed its sequels. Silence Of The Lambs outgrossed Hannibal and Red Dragon. The Matrix outgrossed Revolutions and Reloaded (I assume). Fellowship Of The Ring outgrossed the other two. Weekend At Bernie's outdid the sequel. I think we all know which of these was most criminal. Yeah, how did Weekend at Bernie's outgrossed that wonderful sequel? God, there should be a law to prevent such things.
Red Baron Posted July 25, 2004 Report Posted July 25, 2004 doesn't Gone With The Wind still hold the record, when you take in the inflation of ticket prices?
Guest tangerine Posted July 25, 2004 Report Posted July 25, 2004 Pretty much. Which is amazing considering the other gems that came out that year.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now