MGREXX Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 As is Geoge Lucas didn't already have enough freaking money, check out these box office opening numbers and overall standings. I hate you George. Box Office numbers from the force.net worldwide standings for all Star wars films. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Togo Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 Of course, this doesn't account for inflation. The original film made 1.1 billion domestically in adjusted dollars. In pure ticket sales, we've never seen anything like it since. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HWR MKII Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 And you couldnt just post this info in ONE of the OTHER Star Wars threads why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 ANd I'd read an article by one critic before it came out saying that it would do worse ticket-wise than AOTC supposedly because no one liked the last two. I guess he was wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bandit29 Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 ANd I'd read an article by one critic before it came out saying that it would do worse ticket-wise than AOTC supposedly because no one liked the last two. I guess he was wrong. Perhaps but Star Wars fans are known for seeing any SW film multiple times during an opening weekend. Some people I've talked to have seen the move 12 times already. Get a life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JsARCLIGHT Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 Seeing as this thread already exsists I might as well dump these guys here. Star Wars Movie performance of the past (old movies not adjusted for inflation). This chart should update itself as more time and money rolls in. Star Wars movie actual ticket sales versus days in release, this is a bit more accurate of a barometer of how the various SW movies performed over time. This graph should also update itself as time passes. This info is from: The Numbers Study on ROTS As it stands ROTS has failed to break only one record, held by Spiderman still and it is on track to break about four more records. ROTS has already begun to turn a profit as it's production budget is rumored to be $115 mil. Ads and print budget is most likely astronomical but with $300 mil already in international market sales this movie will turn such a profit that it will make previous box office babies like Shrek 2 cower. The real hard egg to crack will still be Titanic. I'd rather see this sucker gain that slot and bump that darn movie out finally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurin Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 For the life of me, I can't figure out why these aren't adjusted for inflation. Whoever's making them shoud realize that they're essentially useless if inflation isn't taken into account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JsARCLIGHT Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 Take it up with the people at The Numbers. Have to hand it to them though, they are one of the only accurate movie budget and profit/loss info sites on the net. They plan to change the top chart to reflect adjusted dollars soon but when you think about it that "isn't fair" in comparing movies. The total tickets sold chart below is the one to watch as it IS an accurate reflection of how well the movies do and how popular they are. Money is money and can be fudged quite easily but butts in seats is a number that can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stamen0083 Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 For the life of me, I can't figure out why these aren't adjusted for inflation. Whoever's making them shoud realize that they're essentially useless if inflation isn't taken into account. Why bother taking inflation into account when we can just look at the number of tickets sold to see how well these movies do against their old counterparts? It seems like except for Attack of the Clones, Star Wars films consistently sell more tickets than the previous movie. If George were to make the sequel trilogy, it would break every records and hold them for a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurin Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 You're correct, butts in seats is better than inflation adjusted dollars as a guage. Yet, adjusted dollars are much better than regular ol' dollars since regular ol' dollars are essentially meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phatslappy Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 (edited) I can't see how number of tickets sold is supposed to be more of an indication than inflation or anything else. There are a lot more movie theater seats now than there were back in the day of the first one. There are also more people on this planet by far. How many people were on the earth back at Star Wars IV? 1 billion? More people = more people to fill seats with. More seats = higher potential for people to watch the movie. Also, back then, I don't think they had midnight showings. So more showings also = more possible seats. So I really don't think there's really a way to capture everything unless you can tie in everything together. Number of possible views, number of seats, number theaters, number of people on the earth, etc. and even then that brings out the whole problem of oversaturation of the market because there were too many seats and the elasticity of demand for seats based on these different market conditions. Someone please shoot me before I keep going on... In the end, who really cares? George Lucas is still making a killing on this. Right? Edited May 24, 2005 by phatslappy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent ONE Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 You're correct, butts in seats is better than inflation adjusted dollars as a guage. Yet, adjusted dollars are much better than regular ol' dollars since regular ol' dollars are essentially meaningless. You are just lookin for ANY reason to piss on this movie aren't ya? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Jenius Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 Butts in seats is butts in seats is butts in seats. Nobody said it would be fair when measuring success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Togo Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 BTW, Star Wars is number 2 all time in adjusted dollars. Number 1 is actually Gone With the Wind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
do not disturb Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 is that right? mace gets eaten by a space shark? who honestly cares what movie was number one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JsARCLIGHT Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 Hollywood cares... and when hollywood cares, copies are made. The SOP in Hollywood is to copy copy and copy again movies that make money, put butts in seats and turn heads. The continuing sucess of movie chains like Star Wars makes hollywood think that they should pursue other sequels and trilogies of like matieral... but unlike the successes hollywood tries to make more money with their copies by cheaping out. It's always interesting to pay attention to the massive hits as they tend to create the trends we the movie viewing public must stomach for the next few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurin Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 (edited) You're correct, butts in seats is better than inflation adjusted dollars as a guage. Yet, adjusted dollars are much better than regular ol' dollars since regular ol' dollars are essentially meaningless. You are just lookin for ANY reason to piss on this movie aren't ya? Hey A1, if you would, ya know, actually look at what I'm writing before spouting off, you'd see over in the various Ep3 threads that I enjoyed the movie and have actually been defending it. But, don't let facts stand in your way. . . H P.S. Not to mention, what I wrote there actually supports the new movie. Kindly start making sense. Edited May 24, 2005 by Hurin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bsu legato Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 (edited) Hows about this for a curveball: The Prequels as a whole are actually receiving better reviews than the Original Trilogy did back in its initial run. Don't believe me? Check out the TOMATOMETER. Edited May 25, 2005 by bsu legato Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent ONE Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 You're correct, butts in seats is better than inflation adjusted dollars as a guage. Yet, adjusted dollars are much better than regular ol' dollars since regular ol' dollars are essentially meaningless. You are just lookin for ANY reason to piss on this movie aren't ya? Hey A1, if you would, ya know, actually look at what I'm writing before spouting off, you'd see over in the various Ep3 threads that I enjoyed the movie and have actually been defending it. But, don't let facts stand in your way. . . H P.S. Not to mention, what I wrote there actually supports the new movie. Kindly start making sense. I actually noticed that after I posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr March Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 I'm very glad RoTS is doing so well. IMDB has also been reporting very high figures. After the negative reaction to TPM and AoTC, I had doubts RoTS would perform at the box office. I personally loved AoTC and was very much looking forward to Sith, so I suspected that many would share my enthusiasm and contribute to an impressive first day. It's great to see the weekend kept going and made the film strong. I'm eager to go back for a second viewing, but I'm waiting a few weeks. Probably go back in June. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurin Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 Hows about this for a curveball: The Prequels as a whole are actually receiving better reviews than the Original Trilogy did back in its initial run. Don't believe me? Check out the TOMOTOMETER. Disclaimer: By saying this, I'm not crapping on the Prequels, but rather sticking up for the OT. . . they aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. I'd say a lot of that is due to the progression and infiltration of pop culture into the media. Back then, science fiction and fantasy got no respect. The thought of giving a favorable review to a "space opera" which they considered to be a "children's movie" was repugnant to the high and mighty film critics of the day. Tolkien's work received a similar lack of respect until recently. College professors couldn't be bothered to take a "children's book" seriously. But when its fans grew up and became professors themselves, and pop culture became more accepted by our critical elites, suddenly Tolkien's works are now seen as "heroic epics" and classes are taught about them. Just my take on it. H Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr March Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 Hows about this for a curveball: The Prequels as a whole are actually receiving better reviews than the Original Trilogy did back in its initial run. Don't believe me? Check out the TOMOTOMETER. If I recall, something similar was done when TPM and AoTC was released. It's nice to hear, but I think the result might actually be a little skewed. The internet and fandom publications in general have increased immensely since the era of the original Star Wars era of 77-83. The reviews from many of these genre-friendly publications are counted right along side major metropolitan newspapers and the film presses. And while fandom opinion is certainly harsh and a little jaded, usually they enjoy genre entertainment - any genre entertainment - a lot more than the general press. Still, I'm not complaining Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noriko Takaya Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 Hollywood cares... and when hollywood cares, copies are made.... but unlike the successes hollywood tries to make more money with their copies by cheaping out. Yep. That's how we end up with Roger Corman crapfests like Battle Beyond the Stars. Corman states this rather blatantly in his commentary on the DVD that he was trying to copy off of the success of the original Star Wars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurin Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 Don't forget Alan Quartermaine (Indian Jones knock-off). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Opus Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 Don't forget Alan Quartermaine (Indian Jones knock-off). If I may be a know-it-all for a sec. and show off my knowledge of Victorian literature: Jones is more of a character inspired by Quartermain. 'King Solomons mines" was written in 1886 with a movie adaption being made in 1950 which probably inspired Lucas and Spielberg in the creation of Indiana Jones. Battlestar Galactica is a good example of cashing in on a Hollywood trend. The vipers, cylons and general plot of good guy underdogs struggling against souless evil domination are obviously ripped from Star Wars. Even so It was a pretty good show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichterX Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 Hows about this for a curveball: The Prequels as a whole are actually receiving better reviews than the Original Trilogy did back in its initial run. Don't believe me? Check out the TOMOTOMETER. If I recall, something similar was done when TPM and AoTC was released. It's nice to hear, but I think the result might actually be a little skewed. The internet and fandom publications in general have increased immensely since the era of the original Star Wars era of 77-83. The reviews from many of these genre-friendly publications are counted right along side major metropolitan newspapers and the film presses. And while fandom opinion is certainly harsh and a little jaded, usually they enjoy genre entertainment - any genre entertainment - a lot more than the general press. Still, I'm not complaining I am with Mr March in this the fan base of Star Wars was far bigger in 99 in the release of TPM than back when the original Star Wars came out making it a bigger fenomenon now that it was back them, also consider that it was the big thing of a new Star Wars movie after 16 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Togo Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 Hows about this for a curveball: The Prequels as a whole are actually receiving better reviews than the Original Trilogy did back in its initial run. Don't believe me? Check out the TOMOTOMETER. The Empire Strikes Back did very poorly in its critical reviews. They hated it. Now its widely considered to be the best film of the Saga. Go figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uxi Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 Widely considered by those with no basis in fact. Butts in seats tells the story of popularity far more than gross adjusted by inflation, which itself tells more than unadjusted gross. Critics are generally full of poo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
do not disturb Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 well thats $10 more bucks in GLs pockets cause my friends broke me down and made me go watch it in the theatre last night. i must say, it was actually better the 2nd time around. i still don't think it was as good as ESB but thats the ol'timer in me talking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 After the negative reaction to TPM and AoTC, I had doubts RoTS would perform at the box office. It is undeniable that there was a large segment that didn't like Episodes 1 and 2. However, I think it is a bit overstated since ther majority actually enjoyed these films. Rotten Tomatoes had "fresh" ratings for both TPM (63%) and AOTC (65%) and almost twice as many favorable to non-favorable reviews. The IMDB ratings for these films are 6.4/10 and 7.0/10 respectively. Those who frequent that site will know that these are decent ratings, and in AOTC case, 7.0 is quite respectible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr March Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 I am with Mr March in this the fan base of Star Wars was far bigger in 99 in the release of TPM than back when the original Star Wars came out making it a bigger fenomenon now that it was back them, also consider that it was the big thing of a new Star Wars movie after 16 years. It's also important to note that the early films of Lucas and Spielberg are largely responsible for creating the high profile blockbuster. There's a much broader audience availalble now as opposed to decade ago when this market was just being created. As such, there's more market for more diverse tastes and by default, more criticial reviews that cater to those specific tastes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr March Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 After the negative reaction to TPM and AoTC, I had doubts RoTS would perform at the box office. It is undeniable that there was a large segment that didn't like Episodes 1 and 2. However, I think it is a bit overstated since ther majority actually enjoyed these films. Rotten Tomatoes had "fresh" ratings for both TPM (63%) and AOTC (65%) and almost twice as many favorable to non-favorable reviews. The IMDB ratings for these films are 6.4/10 and 7.0/10 respectively. Those who frequent that site will know that these are decent ratings, and in AOTC case, 7.0 is quite respectible. Hehehe, another IMDB regular Yes indeed, obtaining a high opinion for anything on the IMDB is a chore. As a member, I vote on every film I watch and it hurts sometimes to visit the IMDB only to see good films suffer low ratings and bad films enjoy high ratings. To be perfectly honest with myself, I didn't really enjoy TPM so 6.4 is a little high even for me. On the flip side, I thoroughly enjoyed AoTC, so naturally I feel 7.0 is too low. But generally, the reviews on the IMDB are a good indication of which films to watch and what to avoid. There are exceptions to ever rule of course. However, I must say that reading the IMDB for years has introduced me to many more great films than bad. A worthwhile website, without a doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Togo Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 (edited) Ok, this is sad. Now they are ranking top 5 day openings, top 6 day... what the hell? Are we just going to keep rankings on every day its top? Jesus Christ, do these people not have something better to do with their time (like posting about cartoons on a message board or something...)? Edited May 26, 2005 by Duke Togo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JsARCLIGHT Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 I'd say all the lauding and heaping of "records broken" upon ROTS is not only manufactured success but it may have an alterior motive. Considdering that ROTS most likely stands to win about zero oscars this is the only winning this movie will do. In the end I think that George would rather have another half billion in the bank than a stupid gold statue on his mantle... no matter how much the love of the hollywood snob soceity warms the heart of directors, cash in the bank and records set at the box office keep them in silks and villas far longer. And seeing as how George has been to that podium to claim a tiny gold man all of zero times I think that he prefers these hollow records to actual awards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uxi Posted May 26, 2005 Share Posted May 26, 2005 Considering Lucas' well known stance with Hollyweird, I don't he gives 2 shits about the Oscars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts