E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial (1982)

[Edwin Pereyra]

Title: E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial

Tagline: He is afraid. He is alone. He is three million light years from home.

Genre: Science Fiction, Adventure, Family, Fantasy

Director: Steven Spielberg

Cast: Henry Thomas, Drew Barrymore, Robert MacNaughton, Peter Coyote, Dee Wallace, Erika Eleniak, K. C. Martel, C. Thomas Howell, Sean Frye, David M. O'Dell, Richard Swingler, Frank Toth, Robert Barton, Michael Darrell, David Berkson, David Carlberg, Milt Kogan, Alexander Lampone, Rhoda Makoff, Robert Murphy, Richard Pesavento, Tom Sherry, Susan Cameron, Will Fowler Jr., Barbara Hartnett, Diane Lampone, Mary Stein, Mitch Suskin, Ted Grossman, James Kahn, Anne Lockhart, Melissa Mathison, Chuck Riley, Pat Welsh, Debra Winger

Release: 1982-06-11

Runtime: 115

Plot: After a gentle alien becomes stranded on Earth, the being is discovered and befriended by a young boy named Elliott. Bringing the extraterrestrial into his suburban California house, Elliott introduces E.T., as the alien is dubbed, to his brother and his little sister, Gertie, and the children decide to keep its existence a secret. Soon, however, E.T. falls ill, resulting in government intervention and a dire situation for both Elliott and the alien.

As you all know by now, E.T.: The Extraterrestrial” will be re-released on March 22 for its 20th Anniversary with additional scenes, re-mastered sound and enhanced special effects.

At this point, it only needs to make $32M or $62M to break the records of The Phantom Menace and Star Wars, respectively, which is a good possibility. Here is where all three films currently stand at the box office:

1. Titanic - $600.8M

2. Star Wars ($322.7M + $138.3M from 1997 SE) - $461.0M

3. Star Wars Episode I : The Phantom Menace - $431.1M

4. E.T. : The Extra Terrestrial - $399.8

Source: Box Office Guru

E.T. held the #1 spot for the longest time until the re-release of Star Wars in 1997 and eventually beaten by Titanic. To put things in perspective, The Empire Strikes Back and Return Of The Jedi each made $68M and $45M, respectively, during their 1997 re-release.

Much like the re-release of Star Wars in 1997, which made an outstanding $138M that no one expected, E.T.’s box office re-release take will be a tough one to call.

While I certainly think that it has a possibility of breaking Star Wars’ total cumulative record of $461M, it will have to rely on a new generation of viewers to do so rather than those who have seen the film before. However, this new generation of viewers can also be big. It is also being strategically released during Easter break or Spring break where most kids will be off.

The bottom line and my prediction: between $70M - $75M.

~Edwin

 

[John Berggren]

I have no clue what to expect from this rerelease. Like Star Wars, it's an amazing modern classic that remains memorable 20 years later. Unlike Star Wars, ET Dissapearred for a very long time when Speilberg refused to release it on video. I don't think it was available legally for ten years. During this time, ten years worth of children didn't see it over and over again - like Star Wars.

Star Wars is on TV all of the time, which likely HELPED it's box office. It'll be interesting to see how many people go to ET, but I wonder if it's ten year dissapearance hurt the long term box office potential.

 

[Dave H]

I agree. I really don't know about E.T. anymore. So many kids have missed out on it and I'm not so sure it will appeal to kids today like it did 10 or 20 years ago.

 

[Rain]

Whatever amount of money this revisionist version of E.T. makes at the box office, not a penny of it will be coming from my pocket.

To stay on topic though, I will comment on box office grosses.

This is rather a meaningless statistic, isn't it? After all, any film released today could conceivably make more money than a film that came out 10 or 15 years ago even if less people go to see it, simply because movie ticket prices have continued to increase at a ridiculous rate.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

This is rather a meaningless statistic, isn't it? After all, any film released today could conceivably make more money than a film that came out 10 or 15 years ago even if less people go to see it, simply because movie ticket prices have continued to increase at a ridiculous rate.

Apparently, Rain, you haven't followed the box office returns from the re-release of 2001: A Space Odyssey which has prevented it from being re-released beyond the 70mm screenings last year.

~Edwin

 

[DaveF]

Like Rain suggested, I'm curious what the inflation-adjusted values for gross are? I'd also be interested in the ROI? And maybe how many kernels of popcorn were consumed during each movie (just trying to find better metrics)

Actually, the best metric might just be how many tickets were sold for each movie, cumulative. Any stats?

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Actually Edwin, I *predicted* (to no one but myself, I admit) Star Wars: SE to make a complete killing in a rerelease. I was amazed to find it on only one screen where I was living at the time. A revved up version of THE classic for my generation...HUGE. Now E.T., I don't know. I am thinking more like $40 million, which'll be more than the current dogs at the theater are taking home. This doesn't scream theater to me like SW did. But a good family film is hard to find, though. Like Rain, I won't be there. But I don't have young ones either. If the eventual ORIGINAL is available on DVD (as reported), I'll purchase and watch. But I won't believe it until I see it.

Take care,

Chuck

 

[Rain]

Apparently, Rain, you haven't followed the box office returns from the re-release of 2001: A Space Odyssey which has prevented it from being re-released beyond the 70mm screenings last year.

I'm not sure what your point is there, Edwin. Are you saying that because the limited re-release didn't make enough money that it won't be released wider?

The only thing that proves is that the general movie-going public wouldn't know a good film if it bit them in the ass.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

If it bit me in my can, Rain, I bet I'd know it! I also bet I'd kick it's ass, unless it was Fight Club.

Take care,

Chuck

 

[Mark Pfeiffer]

According to the local paper, that weekend (the one prior to the Oscars) looks light for new releases. That should help in its box office take. Keep in mind that kids' films are often few and far between. E.T. should do fairly well with that audience, at least for a weekend or two.

 

[TerryRL]

Though I seriously doubt E.T. will have the sort of debut that the Special Edition of "Star Wars" had (a near $36 million opening weekend), I do think that it will pass the lifetime domestic tally of "Star Wars", and may even flirt with passing the $500 million mark.
"Blade II" will be the "BIG" movie the weekend E.T. hits screens, but I do think it'll do very well for Universal and end up with between $470 and $500 million as it's lifetime domestic number after it's all said and done. Depending on how well it does overseas, expect the worldwide gross of E.T. (currently at $701 million) to have little difficulty in passing the $800 million mark.
I was 13 when E.T. originally opened back in 1982 and I remember the craziness surrounding the movie. There were lines around the block for months. It'll be interesting to see how today's audiences will receive the movie.
"Star Wars" had a slight advantage because it's more of a timeless piece than E.T. which is loaded with things that are VERY '80s. Still, E.T. remains one of Steven Spielberg's greatest works (not to mention one of John Williams' greatest scores) and it'll definitely find a big audience.

 

[Matt Birchall]

Unlike Star Wars, ET Dissapearred for a very long time when Speilberg refused to release it on video. I don't think it was available legally for ten years. During this time, ten years worth of children didn't see it over and over again - like Star Wars.

The film was originally released in 1982, and the first VHS release was in 1987. Took five years to get it out on tape.

I'm with Edwin--somewhere around $75 million seems reasonable. There were a lot of kids who saw it twenty years ago and loved it, who now have kids of their own. Great opportunity to relive some old memories for the parents and create some new memories for their kids by taking them to this movie. And remember, Universal has been hyping the shit out of the E.T. SE--the trailer was attached to Monsters, Inc., which a ton of kids saw, it was attached to the Grinch DVD, which a ton of kids saw, and Toys 'R' Us stores have had a ton of E.T. merchandise in their stores for the past three or four months. Everybody's making sure that the kids and families are aware of the new E.T.

-mwb-

 

[Peter Kline]

Be nice fellows. By the way, here's an article about a certain recent film thath as surpassed TPM world-wide:

"Potter": More Box-Office Magic

Wed Feb 20, 7:11 PM ET

Box-office races are like a good Quidditch match: Just leave it to Harry Potter and his trusty Nimbus 2000 to wipe up the competition.

The magical ride continues for Warner Bros., as Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone has earned a spellbinding $926.1 million in worldwide ticket sales, officially topping 20th Century Fox's Star Wars: Episode I--The Phantom Menace to become the second-highest grossing movie ever worldwide.

Adding to its already massive pot of gold, Potter officially surpassed Phantom Menace's $922.8 million global take in a little less than three months. It's more than halfway to challenging Titanic, whose seemingly unsinkable $1.8 billion gross leads the all-time international box-office hits list.

With Harry moving up, the new top five worldwide looks like this: Titanic ($1.8 billion), Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone ($926.1 million), The Phantom Menace ($922.8 million), Jurassic Park ($914.3 million) and Independence Day ($807.8 million).

Despite its overseas success, however, Potter still ranks only seventh domestically, based on its estimated $313.7 million haul as of last week.

The top moneymakers in the U.S. remain Titanic ($600.8 million), the original Star Wars ($461 million, counting reissues and special editions), The Phantom Menace ($430.1 million), E.T. ($399.8 million), Jurassic Park ($357.1 million) and Forrest Gump ($329.7 million).

"While it's not number one or number two domestically, on a worldwide basis, Harry Potter is still pretty impressive," says Paul Dergarabedian, president of box-office tracking firm Exhibitor Relations.

By comparison, Titanic generated $600 million in North America alone while going on to gross an unheard-of $1.2 billion in foreign territories.

"You don't do that without good marketing, good word of mouth, the popular appeal, the critical appeal and worldwide notoriety which created this monster," Dergarabedian adds. "[But Potter's run] is still an amazing achievement considering that, other than Titanic, it's the only non-summer film in the top 10 of all time. It really took moviegoers by storm and really created a sensation."

Dergarabedian also notes that much of Potter's success has to do with its all-ages appeal (none of the top-grossing movies on the list is rated R). The fact that the global phenomenon had already been spawned by J.K. Rowling's monster-selling fantasy series probably didn't hurt, either.

The bespectacled boy magician with the lightning scar has conjured up all kinds of box-office records since unspooling on more than 8,200 screens at 3,672 theaters across the country in mid-November.

Potter cast the biggest single-day gross in Hollywood history, earning more than $33.5 million (trumping the old mark of $28.5 million set by 1999's Phantom Menace). It also edged out Universal's The Lost World: Jurassic Park for the biggest three-day tally, snagging an amazing $90.3 million compared to the dino-sequel's haul of $90.2 million over the four-day Memorial Day weekend in 1997.

Not bad for a PG-13 film that ran more than 152 minutes long and received mixed reviews from critics--some of whom complained that it was too faithful to Rowling's book.

For those Muggles who have not yet seen Harry catch a snitch, hang out with Hagrid in Diagon Alley and do battle with evil wizards and the likes of You-Know-Who, DVD and VHS versions of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone are set to hit stores May 28.

The fifth book, meanwhile, is reportedly due sometime between the end of summer and middle of fall.

And Potterphiles looking for further big-screen adventures from Harry will have to wait until November 15. That's when the sequel, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, hits theaters in the U.S.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

The only thing that proves is that the general movie-going public wouldn't know a good film if it bit them in the ass.

You got that right.

~Edwin

 

[Rain]

As far as the DVD goes, as long as the original version (sans the "terrorist" line--sorry, there ain't no way it's back in with the events of the past six months) is available, I'm happy.

Not me. Like I said, if I buy something that is labelled "Original theatrical version" and that line is missing, I'm going to kick up a fuss like you've never seen before.

Yes, there have been some recent terrorist events lately. Should we now remove the word "terrorist" from all films and TV shows. Maybe we should just remove it from the language altogether. It's silly.

 

[RobertR]

If it's a "Special Edition", is it really the same film? And if it's not the same film, should the box office totals be added to the original film?

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

If it's a "Special Edition", is it really the same film? And if it's not the same film, should the box office totals be added to the original film?

I think you'll see a revolt from the Star Wars fanboys if they're not included in the totals.
~Edwin

 

[RobertR]

They'd indeed be revolting, Edwin.

 

[Terrell]

Actually, when adjusted for inflation, TPM never was #2 all time. Star Wars, when adjusted for inflation, is well over TPM. Isn't it only fair to adjust for inflation? After all, as Rain said, ticket prices back in the 70s were hardly as expensive as they are today.
Top 20 highest grossing films adjusted from inflation, according to www.filmsite.org are as follows:
1. Gone with the Wind
2. Star Wars
3. The Sound of Music
4. E.T.
5. Titanic
6. The Ten Commandments
7. Jaws
8. Doctor Zhivago
9. The Jungle Book
10. Snow White
11. Ben-Hur
12. 101 Dalmations
13. The Exorcist
14. The Empire Strikes Back
15. The Phantom Menace
16. Return of the Jedi
17. The Sting
18. Mary Poppins
19. Raiders of the Lost Ark
20. Jurassic Park
Is that list completely accurate. Seems like some films are out of place. Well, www.the-movie-times.com has the adjusted list the exact same way. So it's probably accurate. Anyway, Star Wars adjusted for inflation is 865 million dollars. Gone With the Wind is over 1 billion. TPM is 442 million, ESB is 468 million, and ROTJ is 450 million. ET adjusted is 654 million dollars. And last but not least, Titanic is 639 million.
So ET, if you adjust for inflation, needs about 210+ million dollars.

 

[Matt Birchall]

Removed.