2004 Box Office Predictions And Discussions - Page 9

ScottR · 02-21-2004, 01:22 AM

Does anyone know the running time of Passion?

Dennis Pagoulatos · 02-21-2004, 01:53 AM

I still think it's going to make about as much as Schindler's List, adjusted for inflation.

OTOH, if it's as heavy handed and choppily edited as Braveheart...it could make quite a bit more given the subject matter in this case.

-Dennis

Kevin Grey · 02-21-2004, 03:37 AM

As it becomes clear that there is a huge amount of interest in The Passion one thing becomes clear:

Mel Gibson could personally make a lot of money from this film.

That obviously wasn't his goal but I imagine that if this film becomes a mega-hit some people will look critically at what he does with his profits.

Clem · 02-21-2004, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Some have criticized Mel Gibson's film 'The Passion of the Christ' because of its portrayal of Jews in Jesus' crucifixion, calling it anti-Semitic. Theatre managers say the debate has not hurt pre-ticket sales.

Renee Miller with Landmark GKC Cinema said, ''I was just talking to home office about that and they said that this has shattered all previous booking records, advanced bookings for GKC including Harry Potter, The Lord of the Rings and any of these movies this has shattered those records.''

http://week.com/morenews/morenews-read.asp?id=3631

nolesrule · 02-21-2004, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Interestingly, ROTK only has to make about $6 million more before it breaks into the top 50 inflation-adjusted box office grosses of all time. To me, this is more significant, since the current grosses are basically meaningless if not compared to inflation, and puts ROTK more in the perspective of all of film box office history.

Don't get started down the unadjusted vs. adjusted road. There are many cultural/societal/technological situations (theater viewing vs. home video being the prime example, since it falls into all 3 categories) that vary from year to year, which have more impact on movie-going than just ticket price. Malls, video game systems, home theater, Internet, etc. were not around back in the "Gone with the Wind" days, or even Star Wars days, to have the kind of impact they do now. Adjusting for inflation does not take these factors into account, which is the real reason why adjusted lists are top-heavy with older films.

Adjusting for inflation is only really an accurate measure when making comparisons between films only a few years apart, due to less changes in outside factors. Anything more than a few years and an adjusted inflation comparison falls apart under closer scrutiny.

Seth Paxton · 02-21-2004, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Anything more than a few years and an adjusted inflation comparison falls apart under closer scrutiny.

I think this is a HUGE overstatement.

More options but also MORE PEOPLE to go see films. TV as a distraction is also TV as a marketing tool.

I've yet to hear a compelling argument that shows a significant imbalance between helpful and hurtful factors between the eras, other than inflation itself.

I mean while older films had "less competition", they also fought through eras of depression and war (decrease in money and population), they sold to audiences with far less free time on their hands, and people didn't necessarily just go see films all the time to supplement the missing entertainment, they simply did other things like go outside, walk to the store, go to the town square, and so on.

The idea that past films had some MAJOR CULTURAL ADVANTAGE is crazy. Yes things were different for films then, but other than inflation there is not a lot of evidence to support the idea that films then had a bigger audience readily available.

AND even if it is true that "sure everyone went to see Gone with the Wind because that's all there was to do" then the Adjusted for Inflation numbers are still very clearly making their point...that those films which earned more on the Adjusted scale had far more of an IMPACT on society...if as you say that's all anyone was doing because apparently back in 1935 life was boring

Blu · 02-21-2004, 12:55 PM

What do you all think will be this years Freddy vs. Jason?
It made a surprising amount of money last year and will likely trigger a Vs. bandwagon.

Ray H · 02-21-2004, 01:10 PM

How about Alien vs. Predator?

TerryRL · 02-21-2004, 01:39 PM

Friday Estimates

#1 "50 First Dates" $6.5 million ($57.8 million) -34%
#2 "Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen" $2.7 million
#3 "Eurotrip" $2.2 million
#4 "Miracle" $2.1 million ($44.7 million) -33%
#5 "Welcome to Mooseport" $1.8 million
#6 "Barbershop 2: Back in Business" $1.7 million ($48.6 million) -40%
#7 "Against the Ropes" $880K
#8 "The Butterfly Effect" $870K ($51.1 million) -21%
#9 "You Got Served" $715K ($34.4 million) -30%
#10 "Mystic River" $703K ($76.8 million) -5%

Larry Sutliff · 02-21-2004, 03:24 PM

I don't want to turn this into a PASSION thread, but I don't know where else to post this. Both Ebert and Roeper give rave reviews to THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST. Here's a link to the press release:

Ebert and Roeper Review THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST

Colin Jacobson · 02-21-2004, 03:41 PM

Quote:

I mean while older films had "less competition", they also fought through eras of depression and war (decrease in money and population), they sold to audiences with far less free time on their hands, and people didn't necessarily just go see films all the time to supplement the missing entertainment, they simply did other things like go outside, walk to the store, go to the town square, and so on.

There also were far fewer movie screens back in ye olden dayes.

Face it - whenever we compare anything across generations - baseball statistics, movie grosses, whatever - there'll always be some issues. Unless the simply count the number of tickets sold, adjusted grosses will always be the best way to compare a movie from 2004 and one from 1944...