It seems that many studios regard the $100 million mark as a special milestone. However, it just seems that with inflated budgets, inflated ticket prices and a record number of venues to play, that it's just not as hard for a movie to make that much money. Foremost is the fact that most major productions cost over $100 million to produce. Therefore, I seriously doubt it's any consolation to the investors that the press is heralding the film's gross when they've yet to make a profit. For instance 'Wild Wild West' grossed a hair over the magic mark, but was far more to produce. After advertising, foreign and video sales I'm sure it turned a profit, but not a great one. Or 'Harry Potter' cost $165 million so when it tied the record for quickest film to reach $100 million it still had a while to go before turning a profit (not that anyone doubted it would, but you get my point I hope). With ticket prices considerably higher than when a film like Jaws earned it's money which pretty much set the figure as the benchmark, I don't think it's fair to compare the two. Ticket prices in Orlando are creeping up to $8.00 (I don't want to think what they are in New York). Couple that with the number of screens these things play on it's much easier to reach $100 million. I know the inlfation argument doesn't hold weight with some, but it sure does me. Basically, for a major release it's the rule rather than the exception for it to reach $100 million, so why do studios and the press still harp on that number as making a film a hit? I think it's more akin to a film making $50 million in the eighties.