Battle of the Franchises (1 Viewer)

[Matt Pelham]

You're right Stephen, Thunderball was a smash hit. It's no coincidence that it was the film right after Goldfinger.

 

[Terrell]

so SW:ANH doesn't have a fair comparison to HP's 966mil worldwide.

It is difficult to compare movies of different eras, but I say to heck with box office figures. Judge by how many tickets were purchased. The inflation adjusted figures for Star Wars is over a billion domestically. What that tells me is way more tickets were sold for Star Wars, and far more people went to the movies on a regular basis back in the 70s. As for a worldwide figures adjusted for inflation, I've never seen any figures on that.

But if you compare films of different eras, I think the only true way to compare is adjusted for inflation. Why? Because of the extreme differences in ticket prices. In that case, it truly is staggering that back in 1939, Gone With the Wind made a staggering 1.1 billion plus, domestically. That's unreal. So, which is the bigger box office success, truly. Gone With the Wind pulling in 1.1+ billion adjusted for today's dollars, or Potter's 900+ million.

So I say scrap box office figures and start counting tickets sold. That way, you can compare movies of different eras in an equal fashion. But that'll never happen in this money concious society. There's really any number of different arguments that can be used.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

As Terrell said, it is nigh impossible to compare films from different eras. The math involved is crazy! VHS, followed by sell-through prices a few years later, completely changed the movie industry and moviegoing habits. Films like GWTW and SW, among others, had multiple rereleases, most of which generated significant interest. The only modern rereleases (post-video) to have any success was Star Wars (and to a lesser extent, E.T.). The only modern film that can get down and dirty with the classics is Titanic. It made more in it's (only) run than even Star Wars did in it's first run. But only by about $50M. And that's assuming all of the math is right.
The financial landmark is, and will remain, Star Wars. I expect EIII will do EII business with no problems, and possibly best it by a bit. That'll be 6 films over $250M PRIOR to inflation adjustment. Bond might eventually catch up, but it'll take about 6 more films. LOTR will be a grand success, but it has only 3 (or maybe 4) films in the modern era. No shot there. HP could. It has 7 films, modern era, but more crossover than any of the others. It also GETS BETTER with each book (so I hope the movies continue that trend), so the normal rules might not apply. Most people are not tired of HP, and the 2003 break will help out.
Surprised no one has mentioned The Matrix...it only has three films, and they are R, but I expect the next two will be the highest grossing R-films ever. Not bad, eh?!?!?
Take care,
Chuck

 

[Nick Sievers]

I think we can expect The Matrix sequels to do BIG business. The first film was successful at the BO, but the Home Video Release put it through the roof, nearly everyone owns this title. During late 1999/2000, you couldn't get away from all the references made towards it. The Matrix was a breath of fresh air in the action genre for a lot of people.

If the crowd buzz when the teaser was released a couple of months ago is anything to go by, expect the two sequels to be among the big earners of 2003. All those fans that found out about The Matrix from DVD/Video won't want to miss it in the cinema this time around.

 

[Terrell]

I expect EIII will do EII business with no problems, and possibly best it by a bit.

That's my best guess as well. I predict it will follw the same exact path as the original trilogy. The original TPM made the most, the middle film AOTC made the least, and the final film, Episode III will better the middle film by about 5-10%, at best. That's how I think it will pan out. Time will tell.

 

[Iain Lambert]

err, well, of course the three Bond films to make $100M were the Brosnan ones. Tickets are rather a lot more than they were 15 years ago when Dalton was being Bond, and you've got to go back at least as far as View To A Kill to reach one that really counts as 'successful' in any big way for its time.

 

[TerryRL]

Before Brosnan took on the role of 007, only four of the Bond adventures had managed to earn over $60 million. Those four were 1983's "Octopussy" ($67.9 million), 1979's "Moonraker" ($62.7 million), 1965's "Thunderball" ($63.6 million), and 1981's "For Your Eyes Only" ($62.3 million).

Three of those flicks starred Roger Moore Bond (of the seven times he played the part) and were huge successes for their day, but Sean Connery's stint in "Thunderball" remains the Bond film that sold the most tickets worldwide. Today the worldwide tally of "Thunderball" would be in the area of $800 million.

 

[TerryRL]

By the way, Timothy Dalton's Bond flicks saw mixed results at the box office. His first outting in 1987's "The Living Daylights" brought in a solid $51.2 million, but his second stint, 1989's "License to Kill", was a major disappointment as it earned only $34.7 million. What makes the Bond movies stand apart is how well they do overseas. Even with "License to Kill" flopping domestically, it went on to earn $156.2 million total worldwide.

Internationally is really where the Bond franchise does most if it's damage at the box office.

 

[Neil Joseph]

We all win. As the last and final film of its series, Episode 3 will undoubtedly make the $700M to brings its franchsise to the $4B as was stated. LOTR: TTT, can't wait for that one either. Somehow, I see Harry Potter doing less and less as the seuqels come.

 

[Matt Pelham]

I don't agree. What you're calling Star War's "first run" was actually a series of releases and re-releases over a period of YEARS that cumulatively add up to that big figure. I think that if you just go with the FIRST THEATRICAL RUN figures, which is probably impossible to find, today's Blockbusters are right up there with movies of the past. It's not like Gone With the Wind had the equivalent of at $200,000,000 opening weekend like it's adjusted numbers would suggest, I'm sure it opened decently and stayed in theaters for a couple years, was re-released, then re-released again, then again, etc. I think Snow White has had something like 13 major theatrical releases over a period of 65 years. If you just go by that first release, it's not even close.

 

[TerryRL]

"Star Wars" earned $221 million in the summer of 1977. It had a total of $295 million after it's first year in theaters. Through subsuquent reissues through 1982, the movie's domestic tally sat at $322 million until the Special Edition releases in 1997.

Through the '60s, "Gone With the Wind" had earned record $79 million since it's release in 1939. In the early '70s, "The Godfather" became the biggest hit in history at the time with it's $86 million domestic haul. "The Sting" had earned over $85 million, "The Exorcist" took in over $80 million, and "The Sound of Music" earned over $79 million. "Jaws" eventually became the first film to earn over $100 million domestically in 1975.

By the end of the 1970s, "Jaws", "Star Wars", "Grease", and "Superman" were the only movies that earned over $100 million without the benefit of rereleases.

 

[Terrell]

As the last and final film of its series, Episode 3 will undoubtedly make the $700M to brings its franchsise to the $4B as was stated.

It could be close. They keep saying AOTC is gonna make 700 million, but I don't see it. It is at 297 domestically, and 287 internationally. I see 650 at most. Because it's only got a couple of more countries to release in, and those aren't countries that will add much to the final international take. Even if Japan adds another 50 million, you still aren't gonna come up with the 400 million it needs to get to 700 million.

 

[TerryRL]

You're right, AOTC won't make $400 mil overseas. At the absolute most it'll take in $375 mil, but at this point it's looking more and more like a $350 million finish for a worldwide total of $650 mil. Still, that would make it the 13th biggest movie in history.

 

[Terrell]

I kept hearing that it's predicted to make 150 million in Japan, but based on the numbers I've seen, it won't be close to that. Looks like 100 million at most. If AOTC had met predictions in Japan, then it would have pushed for 400 million.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

My first run prediction was based on inflation adjustment, which I read somewhere (Mojo?) was $550M for the first, year-long Star Wars release. Hence the $50M short of Titanic, accounting for inflation. But I could be way off.
As for HP, I disagree that the sequels will see less and less returns. The series gets better and much more emotionally involving. I don't expect it to surpass what the first did. It'll drop a bit, and then hold steady as long as the adaptations hold up.
Take care,
Chuck

 

[Matt Pelham]

That's actually much better than I originally thought.

 

[TerryRL]

By the end of 1978, "Star Wars" was #1 with $295 million and "Jaws" was second with $238 million.

In 1980, "The Empire Strikes Back" broke records with it's opening weekend and went on to earn $181 million in it's first run to become the third biggest hit in history.

A year later, "Raiders of the Lost Ark" became only the third film in history to earn over $200 million in it's first run in theaters. It took in $228 million.

Records fell again the following year when "E.T." obliterated box office records and became the first film in history to earn over $300 million in it's first run in theaters. It earned a record $359 million in 1982, a record that wasn't broken until the historic run of "Titanic" 15 years later. It earned over $100 million in it's first 30 days in theaters, which was the fastest film to do so at the time.

In 1983, "Return of the Jedi" became only the second film to earn over $250 million in it's initial run, it also passed the $100 million mark in 19 days. A record that stood until 1989's "Batman", which did it in 10 days.

Nowadays, most of these numbers are acheived every summer. You can also see how Lucas and Spielberg virtually created the era big-money film franchises.