What is the highest grossing film ever made? (1 Viewer)

[Inspector Hammer!]

I understand the point, I do, but why are you adjusting the grosses? Your top ten list is not what the ACTUAL chart states, on that chart 'Titanic' is #1 on every chart, so obviously they don't "adjust" grosses of films for inflation when they come up with these lists, if they did, 'GWTW' would be #1, but my point is, that film just simply isn't in the #1 spot on the actual charts.
What your suggesting is that if 'Batlefield Earth' took in let's say 1 million at the box office, in 40 years, adjusting it for inflation, that 1 million is now 100 million, not too sure of the actual #, your saying that 'BE' actually took in 100 million at the box office!?!? That makes no sense, when it's theatrical run was over, it took in 1 million, no more, no less.
Are you suggesting that the genuin chart is wrong?

 

[Artur Meinild]

OK, I'll give it a try:

You can have two types of box office charts - adjusted and unadjusted.

It's obvious that there are advantages and disadvantages to both.

The adjusted chart will tend to favor older films, simply because older films have more years (and thereby more fans) behind them.The unadjusted chart will tend to favor new films, because of the inflation rate.

So what's the most realistic measurement? I don't know, but you can't just accept one type as "the truth", because there's more to it than that...

 

[Kenneth]

I understand the point, I do, but why are you adjusting the grosses? Your top ten list is not what the ACTUAL chart states, on that chart 'Titanic' is #1 on every chart, so obviously they don't "adjust" grosses of films for inflation when they come up with these lists, if they did, 'GWTW' would be #1, but my point is, that film just simply isn't in the #1 spot on the actual charts.

The grosses are adjusted because $1 million forty years ago was actually worth more. When "Gone with the Wind" was released ticket prices were probably about $0.10, or so. Reaching the million dollar mark (let alone multiple tens of millions) would have been an amazing achievement then. When considering worldwide release numbers they are not ajusted for inflation since each country would have its own rate (and I would assume that would be a calculation nightmare). There is no slight to Titanic to suggest that it is the Gone with the Wind of modern times. The achievement of Titanic is not diminished by comparing it to Gone with the Wind.

Cheers,

Kenneth

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Artur, I see what your saying, but isn't the 'adjusted' chart nothing more than a padded one? I see no point of an 'adjusted' chart.

 

[JonZ]

Titanic:Highest Gross

Gone With The Wild:More tickets sold

I agree with those who say - People paid 25 cents to see GWTW compared to $8 for Titanic.

That is HUGE difference.

 

[Bryan Jones]

but isn't the 'adjusted' chart nothing more than a padded one? I see no point of an 'adjusted' chart.

John:

Money is relative. Say a particular house cost $25,000 in 1940. Same house cost $250,000 today. Is it ten times better or ten times more valuable? Cars used to cost $2,000. Now they cost $20,000. They are not more valuable, just cost more in relative dollars. A $0.10 movie ticket in the 1930 is the same, relatively, to an $8.00 ticket today.

This "adjustment" makes the comparison more accurate.

This sort of "indexing" is the same thing that is done with things like the Consumer Price Index (relative to 1982 dollars), Gross National Product (relative to 1996 dollars), etc.

Regards

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Artur, I see what your saying, but isn't the 'adjusted' chart nothing more than a padded one? I see no point of an 'adjusted' chart.

Why not? It puts films from all eras on an even playing field and allows you to compare how a film released in 1939 performed at the box office compared to a film released in 1997. Sounds very reasonable to me.

 

[Scott McGillivray]

I totally agree with using the adjusted figures. It is the only fair way to judge how well a movie did in the box office versus all others in the past. If we only looked at the unadjusted box office numbers for "Gone With The Wind" we would be left with it grossing less than "Freddy Got Fingered". Now, I think you can agree, that looking at it that way is not an accurate reflection of the respective films popularity.

 

[NathanP]

I hated Titanic...

It's a major chick flick..

Any man who's ever seen it should be very, very embarresed as he just lost 1/4 of his manhood....

Nathan

 

[RicP]

Artur, I see what your saying, but isn't the 'adjusted' chart nothing more than a padded one? I see no point of an 'adjusted' chart.

John, how old are you?
Just answer me this question...Does $20 buy the same amount of goods today that it did 20 years ago? Not a chance.
Movie tickets cost 75 cents in 1940, they cost $8.00 now. So one hundred people see a film in 1940 and fifty see a film today. Which film did better? Sure today's movie grossed more, however it only had 50% of the audience. To me the first film is more successful...more people saw it.
Also don't forget that Titanic cost approx $825 Million dollars to make in 1940 dollars. GWTW was nowhere near that.
Money is not a constant, which is why using any chart other than an adjusted one is completely meaningless in determining box office measures between films released in different eras.

 

[Steve Christou]

Ok lets be fair here, Gone With The Wind was reissued successfully many times and made a ton of money from 1939 to at least the early 70's, but has it beaten Titanic's gross on initial run business?

I don't think so, Titanic grossed $1.8billion Dec 1997-1998, how much did Gone With The Wind gross during its initial run (late 1939-1940) adjusted for inflation ofcourse? Anyone know?

 

[MickeS]

What your suggesting is that if 'Batlefield Earth' took in let's say 1 million at the box office, in 40 years, adjusting it for inflation, that 1 million is now 100 million, not too sure of the actual #, your saying that 'BE' actually took in 100 million at the box office!?!? That makes no sense, when it's theatrical run was over, it took in 1 million, no more, no less.

John, are you saying you have never heard of "inflation"?

Yes, in 40 years, BE would be listed as making $100M, in order to compare it to other movies released after that. Of course, "Shrek" will be listed as having made $23 billion, and the #1 movie released in 2040 probably made $30 billion dollars. So BE would still be at the 3089th spot on the list.

The only meaningful way to list box office success is by adjusting for inflation, in my (and most other peoples) opinion.

/Mike

 

[Mike Broadman]

Well, this is certainly a case of arguing over semantics if I've ever heard one.

Gross:

adj- without deductions; total, as the amount of sales, salary, profit, etc., before taking deductions for expenses, taxes, or the like (opposed to net): gross earnings; gross sales

So, in other words, this simply means how much money a movie made. Period. The answer to the question, "Which movie grossed the most?" is Titanic. It's number is bigger than all the others, plain and simple.

Of course, this means that newer movies will always come out on top, due to inflation.

Another question being thrown around here is, "Which movie is more successful?" Well, this is complicated. If your criteria is highest gross, then Titanic wins.

However, it is unreasonable to use that criteria as the only means to determine financial success. A more reasonable question might be, "Which movie was the most financially successful for its time when it was released?" This takes inflation and different markets into account, and if what people on this thread are saying is true, than it looks like Gone With the Wind wins.

So what the hell is the problem?

 

[Carlo_M]

Well, the simple answer of "which movie has made the most money" is Titanic. Billions is more than millions, no matter what Dr. Evil thinks.
Of course that stat is relatively meaningless by itself, and truly crowns no Box Office champ, unless you adjust for inflation. Ask yourself this simple question: is it fair to compare B.O. receipts when one movie charged $0.25 a ticket, and the other charged $6.00 a ticket? I completely agree with www.boxofficereport.com when they adjust the figures for inflation in figuring out the Top Ten.

 

[RobertR]

The problem is that the statment "highest grossing film" is not made in a vacuum. It CLEARLY has a meaning, a subtext. It is CLEARLY meant as a direct indicator of a film's popularity, therefore its success. No one would EVER bother mentioning it otherwise.

Therefore, inflation SHOULD be taken into account so that we can know (based on a reasonable estimate) the actual number of TICKETS sold, ie, how MANY PEOPLE saw it. It's the number of people that's the true measure of popularity. The gross is just an indicator that has no meaning without the proper context.

Let's use another analogy: Suppose the NFL went to a 25 game season. The number of running backs rushing for 1,000 yards in a season subsequently rises. Do we therefore conclude that running backs have suddenly gotten better? Of course not. The flawed reasoning should be obvious.

 

[Bergan Peters]

This argument is just a poor logic trap attempting to make Titanic something that it's not. In most cases, popularity is not indicative of quality, as the record sales of the backstreet boys, and Nsync will testify too. In fact that should let know why why Titanic was such a popular film, it appealed to teenage girls, the market which spends the most money. (They have the highest rate of available pocket change, I can't think of a better way to phrase that).

Gone with the wind is obviously a more substantial film than Titanic, and its ticket sales show that. In 50 years, a Titanic re-release would do poor business because it's a period piece, it came out at the right time. The US is a cyclical place and it happened to hit at the right time in the cycle.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

In fact that should let know why why Titanic was such a popular film, it appealed to teenage girls, the market which spends the most money. (They have the highest rate of available pocket change, I can't think of a better way to phrase that).

No...it appealed to EVERYBODY, not the market that has the most "pocket change." If that was the case, every movie made today would be directed at the demographic. In any case, I highly doubt that demo has the most "pocket change."

I went to Titanic 5 times because I had never seen it's like in the theater. It was a throwback to older, opulent films. It also is the "highest GROSSING movie ever." No movie MADE MORE MONEY.

Discussing popularity is another matter. I can easily by GWTW being more popular historically, but not worldwide. In the US, maybe. You think any other country gave a crap about GWTW in 1939? I doubt it. So discuss caveats all you want. The answer to the QUESTION ASKED is simple: TITANIC.

Take care,

Chuck

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

O.k., I love a good discussion as much as the next guy, but I am also man enough to admit when i'm way out of my league! So believe what you want to believe, that's fine with me, i'll go with what the actual chart says though thank you very much.
Yes, I have heard of inflation.
NathanP, what the hell was that all about!? Because i'm a man and liked 'Titanic' i'm less of a man!? Whatever!rolleyes
That's one of the most ridiculous things i've ever read!

 

[Tino]

Chuck
Well said. That tired old argument that Titanic was succesful just because it appealed to teenage girls always amused
me, along with the "no competition" excuse. Both obviously incorrect. Some people are always making excuses for it's success when the simple fact is that it appealed to EVERY demographic hence it's staggering accomplishment. That is a fact. Accept it and move on. Titanic' record will stand for many years to come. Give credit where credit is due instead of making uninformed excuses.
BTW,Nathan P
Inflammatory comments like those will get you booted off this forum in a hurry.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Thank you Chuck and Tino, I knew I could count on you in these Titanic discussions. Honestly, some people wouldn't know a great movie if it jumped up and bit them.