Thoughts On The $600 Million Barrier Falling (1 Viewer)

[Pete-D]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[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.

 

[Steve_Tk]

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

 

[Don Solosan]

"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]

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]

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]

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

 

[rich_d]

From Russia With Love made more than Dr. No and Goldfinger made more than FRWL.

There were lines down city blocks in some cities for Goldfinger and it ran for months and months (much like Sound of Music did).

Some additional points not brought up is the number of theatres have increased. So, yes, the competition for eyeballs of the potential theatre goer is much greater in current day, but the access to theatres is also improved. I'd love to know how many theaters were in, say, Iowa in 1958 versus 2008.

I don't buy much into the argument that repeat viewing of a film was a big deal back when. There was built in competition much of it internal to the studio system. MGM in their heyday released 50+ films per year so they pumped 'em out and needed theatres to show them. There were also more studios back then as well. So for a movie like Gone With The Wind staying around for months and months was phenomenal.

So, you could say that back in the day that people had less entertainment options so they went back to the same movie. I'd counter that they definitely went to the movies more but it was to another film as the prior film went bye-bye. Also, if given (only) the two options of watching a repeat film (only days/weeks after seeing it) or reading a new book, I'd read the new book (unless I needed the air conditioning).

I don't mind that studios try to fake us out by releasing sales totals versus the number of tickets sold but it's always bugged me that the media goes along with that crap.

 

[Pete-D]

I think people went back to see a movie more than once back in those days for a more simple reason --

If you didn't watch a movie you loved in the theater, you weren't going to be seeing it again until years later on a small 22 inch black and white TV set.

And also, movie tickets relative to the time were a cheap commodity. People often times would see the same movie twice in one day if they really enjoyed it, because tickets weren't that expensive.

Today in larger urban areas, a movie ticket can cost $10 or more a pop, another $10 for popcorn + soda, which I think has led to the consumer opting to make sure they see something different every time they go. People still love going to the movies, it's just that if you're going to ask them to pay $20 a pop every time, they want to see something different every time.

They know even if they love a movie they can have that movie to own for $20 in good quality a few months down the line to enjoy as often as they want.

Its created a different mind set within the consumer. Also the breadth of films available has changed greatly too. In 1950 or 1960 even I'm sure you could take the entire family into the car drive up to the theater and you'd all see the same film. Today .... try doing that with Superbad or even The Dark Knight ... that would not fly. Films become more demographic specific as cultural revolutions of the 60s and 70s changed things, particularly how sex and violence could be depicted on screen.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Acutally people used to sit in the theater all day and watch the movies.

We are talking about a time when a 10 cent ticket bought you a feature film, 2 cartoons, a news reel, a short subject or 2, and a second feature film(the B movie). It was not uncommon for someone to come in in the middle of one of the movies, so they would just stay for it to show again to see how it started. They didn't used to kick you out then like they do today. For 10 cents you could go in the morning and not leave until after midnight.

In fact the tradition of not letting theater goers into a movie after it had started began with Psycho. It was a publicity stunt by Hitchcock, telling people that no one would be admitted after the movie had started. As a result there were lines around the block, and it worked so well that it became standard practice for theaters.

And of course the demise of the studio system led to the end of the short subjects, news reels and "B" feature films.

Doug

 

[Pete-D]

Well I think newsreels and that sort of thing would've gone extinct simply because of television and the advent of the evening news broadcast.

But yes, it is fascinating to look back and see how integral movie theaters were back then ... it was basically where people got their news and entertainment all at once.

When I hear even younger filmmakers like Robert Rodriguez talk about how he and his siblings would go with their grandmother to the theaters every Sunday to watch a Hitchcock double bill or something ... that does kind of blow my mind.

That really doesn't happen today, in fact the whole "double feature" concept would be thought of negatively today by people even if you let them watch the second movie for free I think.

People just can't sit still that long these days.

In terms of movie cycles I think we're in a new one that conveniently started right after 1999 ended. The Phantom Menace changed the idea of front-loaded weekends and pre-hype build-up for the modern blockbuster, DVD which started to really take off in 2000, also changed many things. It would be interesting to see what a film like TDK could do say in 1998 rather than 2008. There would be trade-offs and some advantages.

 

[rich_d]

This is a good point. Naturally, it's offset with some families just splitting up and seeing different films and meeting up after but it's also true that some parents merely drop their kids off at the theater and pick them up later (sadly sometimes just as a form of babysitting service).

You could also add Psycho as having an influence on that as one could easily argue it was the first popular slasher film as well as the first popular film to utilize a large number of quick cuts.

 

[Pete-D]

Yeah that was one of the most puzzling things about Grindhouse (for me anyway), some people just left after Planet Terror, others acted really indignant like "I have to watch *another* movie?"

Maybe 15-20 years ago people would consider that good value.

 

[Douglas Monce]

This is very true. But it could also be said that TV was at least partly to blame for the death of the studio system, along with the Paramount decision.

The whole movie program was swallowed by TV. The News, cartoons, the serials became episodic TV shows. You could even say that "B" movies, which were often crime dramas and thrillers, became TV shows like The Untouchables, Perry Mason, Peter Gunn etc.

Doug

 

[Douglas Monce]

Here in Phoenix, even as late as the early 70s, we still had quite a few single house theaters, and they would show double features with the newest release as the "A" movie, and a film that had been out for a few weeks as the "B" movie.

Some theaters even still ran the whole program on Saturdays with double features cartoons and the whole bit. I actually saw some of the old Republic serials in the theater on Saturdays.

Doug

 

[rich_d]

Certainly the cities could do double features. In New York City, the bigger houses would do an 'A' and a 'B.' But most of the smaller houses had moved to second run double or triple bills. Actually, the film MIDNIGHT COWBOY' (1969) is a bit of a documentary of the late 60's period around Times Square. It's interesting to observe what films are playing together as Joe Buck walks along 42nd street. These houses then moved to Blaxploitation and Karate films in the early 70's before most moving to porn.

In the 'burbs you really couldn't do double features at night. The average family with two kids isn't going to take them out much on a school night and if they did they sure the heck wouldn't see the value of a double feature when they have to get the kids home. Babysitting is something usually only done on a Friday or Saturday night to free the parents up back then.

In the 60's and very early 70's, you did get double/triple bills in the summer with the drive-ins and of course theatres would do the children matinees with two films on Saturday afternoon.

Growing up outside Hartford, some single screen Hartford area theatres would start with a first-run film for several weeks and THEN add a second run film to the mix as business dwindled. But honestly, my folks never went to a Hartford cinema with other theatres half that distance to us.

Naturally in many of the 'burbs, by the early 70's the multiplex killed many single theatres from being able to compete for first run films. Some then moved to second run, or splitting their big beautiful screen into two so they could show more porn or going out of business (some converted into Churches of Worship).