Thoughts On The $600 Million Barrier Falling

Pete-D · 08-30-2008, 08:37 PM

Most likely some time this weekend, The Dark Knight will breach the $500 million dollar barrier and will sometime over the next week overtake Shrek 2 for the no.1 film (even with inflation) of the decade.

That does set the stage for the $600 million barrier and Titanic's record to likely be toppled within the next 5-6 years. The third Batman film might be able to do it for instance.

Will it still be an impressive milestone?

On one hand people will say that inflation has driven movie ticket prices way up and not as many admissions need to be sold today to get to $600 million or beyond.

On the other hand, every movie goer knows that the movie they watch in a theater will be available in reasonably high quality DVD for $20 or less just 4-6 months down the line. And then you have pay-per-view and all that also.

The higher ticket prices also create a situation where people are not willing to spend that kind of cash on the same movie over and over again. For $10 a ticket or whatever they want to see something different every time they go to the theater nowadays. It's not that fewer people go to the theater, statistics show just as many people are going, they just won't watch the same movie over and over again, like they would when tickets cost say $6 a pop.

And of course today there's also things like internet piracy too.

Does inflation versus all the added competition theatrical releases have to deal with today sort of balance out?

TravisR · 08-30-2008, 10:53 PM

Something will eventually beat Titanic's record but I think it's going to take a long time just because it's a different world today than 1997 and 1998. Like you said, there's piracy, everyone knows that the movie will be on DVD in 4 months or less, tickets are $10 or more (which cuts down on repeat business) and movies that the public goes crazy for like The Dark Knight or Titanic or Shrek 2 or The Phantom Menace are rare.

As for Batman 3 breaking the record, I really doubt it. Most sequels make less than the originals (of course, The Dark Knight is a big exception to that). I'm sure the next one will do fine but it won't hit the amazing levels that The Dark Knight hit.

DavidPla · 08-31-2008, 12:22 AM

There's only three franchises that I can think of where the second made more than the first and the third improved even further than that by making more than the second and first; Lord of the Rings, Austin Powers and Bourne.

TerryRL · 08-31-2008, 05:03 AM

While "Titanic" needed to sell more than 128 million (128.3 million) theater admissions to make it to $600 million after it was released in December of 1997, today a movie needs to move about 85 million tickets to reach that number, which is still a tall order. The number will go down every year with ticket inflation.

By 2012, a film selling more than 65 million admissions will probably be enough to topple the domestic record of "Titanic". Overall, "Titanic" currently ranks as the sixth best ticket-seller all time behind "Gone with the Wind" (202 million), "Star Wars" (178.1 million), "The Sound of Music" (142.4 million), and "The Ten Commandments" (131 million), while being just ahead of "Jaws" (128.1 million).

TDK will end up selling between 73 and 75 million tickets, making it one the 30 biggest ticket-sellers in the history of cinema. Anything over 40 million admissions is blockbuster status, so it would take a special film to perform to the levels needed to reach "Titanic", even if ticket prices continue to rise.

In 2011, the third Batman could sell as many as 20 million less tickets, but will only be about $60 million behind TDK's expected $525 million domestic haul. With ticket inflation the way it is, I think we'll see a film eventually topple the record of "Titanic". The real question is what film will have the juice to do it, because selling 50 million tickets isn't an easy task. While both "Iron Man" and Indy IV were huge hits this summer, both ended up selling less than 45 million admissions (44.9 million and 44.5 million respectively).

Jason Roer · 08-31-2008, 08:51 AM

Pete,

Good topic. I think it's pretty simple, actually. When most films are lucky to hit $100 million (not summer blockbusters, but movies in general), I think a film hitting $500 million and beyond is pretty darn impressive.

When Titanic's record goes down, we all know the movie that does it won't come close to the tickets sold. It just can't happen in today's marketplace. The world has changed and you stated the reasons already. But I find it hard to believe anyone would think reaching that number anything less than spectacular.

Cheers,

Jason

**HTF Ads**

DaveF · 08-31-2008, 09:10 AM

Don't forget population growth: in five years there will be even more 13 year old girls to make some movie the new record holder.

Steve_Tk · 08-31-2008, 11:49 AM

I think Titantic 2 will have a really good chance of doing it.

Don Solosan · 08-31-2008, 10:06 PM

"There's only three franchises that I can think of where the second made more than the first and the third improved even further than that by making more than the second and first; Lord of the Rings, Austin Powers and Bourne."

If you're looking at worldwide numbers, the Lethal Weapon, Die Hard, and X-Men series also performed in that way.

Douglas Monce · 08-31-2008, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveF

Don't forget population growth: in five years there will be even more 13 year old girls to make some movie the new record holder.

Actually the number of teenagers is fewer now than say 20 years ago. The population is actually dropping in some areas of the country not growing. Of course there have never been as many teenagers as there were after the baby boom in the 1950s.

Also fewer people go to the movies today than they ever have before. At the height of movie going 1948 something like 70% of Americans went to the movies at least twice a week. Today its somewhere around 40% of Americans go to the movies twice a month.

Doug

Pete-D · 08-31-2008, 11:25 PM

In 1948 though a lot of households didn't have even a television, so the movie theaters at that time were competing with just the radio in a lot of places.

It's probably also skewed by the fact that we probably have a larger senior population today (who likely don't go to the movies except for once in a blue moon).

Maybe surprisingly though the biggest years in ticket sales/attendance since 1980 are the years between 2002 and 2004. Each of those years was bigger than even 1982 (E.T.) or 1989 (Batman + Indy) or 1998 (where Titanic made the bulk of its money) or 1999 (Phantom Menace + The Matrix + Sixth Sense + Austin Powers 2).

Douglas Monce · 09-01-2008, 02:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete-D

In 1948 though a lot of households didn't have even a television, so the movie theaters at that time were competing with just the radio in a lot of places.

It's probably also skewed by the fact that we probably have a larger senior population today (who likely don't go to the movies except for once in a blue moon).

Maybe surprisingly though the biggest years in ticket sales/attendance since 1980 are the years between 2002 and 2004. Each of those years was bigger than even 1982 (E.T.) or 1989 (Batman + Indy) or 1998 (where Titanic made the bulk of its money) or 1999 (Phantom Menace + The Matrix + Sixth Sense + Austin Powers 2).

Yeah exactly. In 1948 you either went to the movies, stayed home and listened to the radio, or read a book. Not quiet as many entertainment choices.

Oh I forgot, there were probably many more live music choices in 1948 than there are now.

Doug