All Time Biggest Box Office Draw Movies
There has been a lot of talk lately about the biggest box office movies of all time due to the insane amounts of money that The Dark Knight has been raking in at the box office. The film will reach $500 million domestically, which will make it the #2 all time money making movie just behind Titanic.
However to me, when talking in the context of “all time” box office success, the dollar amounts don’t really mean all that much to me because the cost of tickets changes drastically over time. Imagine if there was a time when making a basket in basketball only counted as 1 point instead of 2. If you tried to compare between a modern player and one from the “1 point per basket” era in terms of who was the best at making baskets, looking at points would be irrelevant. You would instead look at the number of baskets each player made, not the number of points.
Thus, when looking at “all time” box office success and trying to compare films from radically different eras, it’s pointless to compare dollar amounts. The best gauge is instead to look at tickets sold. How many people bought tickets to see that movie?
So even though “The Dark Knight” is now #2 all time in the MONEY department… how does it stand up all time against other movies if it didn’t have the advantage of higher inflation ticket prices? Would it still be #2? Would it drop down to #5 or #6? Actually, if you measured movies all time by how many people actually went to the movie theater and bought tickets to see it… then “The Dark Knight” would currently only sit at #35 all time. In other words, if all the movies ever made all sold their tickets for the exact same price, The Dark Knight would be the #35 all time box office movie.
So here is your list of the all time box office champions:
| MOVIE TITLE | TICKETS | In 2008 $ |
| #1 Gone With The Wind | 202,044,600 | $1,430,476,000 |
| #2 Star Wars | 178,119,600 | $1,261,086,700 |
| #3 The Sound Of Music | 142,415,400 | $1,008,300,900 |
| #4 E.T. | 141,854,300 | $1,004,328,700 |
| #5 The Ten Commandments | 131,000,000 | $927,480,000 |
| #6 Titanic | 128,345,900 | $908,688,900 |
| #7 Jaws | 128,078,800 | $906,798,000 |
| #8 Doctor Zhivago | 124,135,500 | $878,879,000 |
| #9 The Exorcist | 110,568,700 | $782,826,200 |
| #10 Snow White | 109,000,000 | $771,720,000 |
| #11 101 Dalmatians | 99,917,300 | $707,414,100 |
| #12 Empire Strikes Back | 98,180,600 | $695,118,900 |
| #13 Ben-Hur | 98,000,000 | $693,840,000 |
| #14 Return Of The Jedi | 94,059,400 | $665,940,600 |
| #15 The Sting | 89,142,900 | $631,131,400 |
| #16 Raider Of The Lost Ark | 88,141,900 | $624,044,300 |
| #17 Jurassic Park | 86,205,800 | $610,337,400 |
| #18 The Graduate | 85,571,400 | $605,845,500 |
| #19 The Phantom Menace | 84,825,800 | $600,566,700 |
| #20 Fantasia | 83,043,500 | $587,947,800 |
85 Comments, Comment or Ping
Terry Leather
How many other movies were released on the same weekend as Gone with the Wind? While current titles may have the advantage of inflated ticket prices, they have the disadvantage of drastically increased competition. There are far more entertainment options available now and I don’t just mean other movies. It’s a different era. No one statistic such as number of tickets sold or amount of gross receipts is able to tell the whole story.
Aug 26th, 2008
Mr. Chris
Damn, tastes have changed over time. I don’t know anyone who can even make it through one sitting of “Gone with the Wind.”
Aug 26th, 2008
miles
what is the source? not doubting, just curious.
Aug 26th, 2008
Rob
Are you counting original theatrical runs or are you including re-releases, I have heard that some of these figures can be misleading because movies used to be rereleased all the time before home video became popular.
Aug 26th, 2008
Jalon
ya, we knot that already, it’s listed on any other movie site.
Aug 26th, 2008
John
Hey Terry,
You’re absolutely right that no one statistic can tell the whole story… especially when you’re trying to compare different eras.
However, I would say this one makes a little more sense than pure dollar values. Just my opinon.
Hey Miles, The sources that I gathered the numbers from were Yahoo Movies and Boxoffice Mojo
Aug 26th, 2008
Mozzerino
Man, I wish I’d live in a time where a film like THE GRADUATE can make 600 Million bucks.
Aug 26th, 2008
miles
thx. i will rember it for the next time i get into an argument with dark knight fan boys on some forum :P
Aug 26th, 2008
Phil Gee
Wow, i thought Fantasia was a flop. You learn something new every day.
Aug 26th, 2008
calviin
Four Star Wars movies in the top 20.
Where do the other 2 fall in? (Clone Wars doesn’t count)
Aug 26th, 2008
Rodney
That is why the “highest grossing film” stat doesn’t mean much to me. Titanic will fall down the list eventually and its just a matter of time. Not because of “greater success”
They should just tell us “tickets sold” instead of dollars. Then at least we can have a slightly better measure of success.
Slightly.
Aug 26th, 2008
calviin
But Rodney, if they did that, they couldn’t toot their horn as much. What sounds more impressive, Number two box office, or number 35 tickets sold? Yeah.
Aug 26th, 2008
spiderfreak182
inflations bullshit. keep in mind maybe $10 bucks a pop is a disadvantage when it comes to the amount of people filling seats. If gone with the wind was $10 a viewing, i think there wouldve been alot less repeat viewers…
Aug 26th, 2008
miles
@spiderfreak182
inflation. the relative value of money changes over time.
Aug 26th, 2008
John
Hey Spiderfreak182
No, inflation is not bullshit, it’s a reality.
That’s the main reason why the music industry has always measured things in terms of units sold. You don’t get a platinum album for amount of money made… you get one for amount of records (or cd’s) sold.
Yes, $2 a ticket might seem like nothing to you NOW… but back then $2 was worth a whole heck of a lot more. It’s all proportionate.
Aug 26th, 2008
Jay Pyatt
Just to give you some idea of how GWTW dominated the market, there were only 130,879,718 Americans when it came out. Not another movie has sold more tickets than the freakin’ population. However, TV was in its infancy and there were not as many distractions. It is kind of like the last episode of M.A.S.H. perfect timing to set an unbeatable record.
Aug 26th, 2008
Jeremy
Ticket sales are impressive and all, but how many more tickets would be sold for movies today if they still cost the price that they did back when Gone with the Wind was released? I know I have cut my visits to the theater down quite a bit now that I am looking at paying 10+ dollars a shot, or 30+ if on a date.
Aug 26th, 2008
scoville
From a friend with a masters in Econ about this very topic in a forum a few weeks ago:
Inflation doesn’t account for the number of butts in the seats. It just means that getting into those seats was much more expensive back then relative to today.
Fewer people were around to see Gone With the Wind in 1939, combined with a crippling depression that kept even more people being able to pay to see it. That certainly doesn’t take away from the achievement of the film. It adds to it.
TDK is a good movie. But its only breaking records because its a good movie at a time when a lot of people can afford to see it (cheap tickets + what else is there to do in the summer?). Kudos to the guys who opened it at just the right time. I pity the Mummy.
Anyway, using inflation to measure the gross earnings is a bit misleading. It doesn’t show that more people would have seen the movie today, it just shows that seeing the movie back then would have been a lot more expensive than seeing it today. TDK in that sense should get credit for sheer turn out. Not to say its better or worse than the classics, it just happened to be very successful given the circumstances.
For the life of me, I can’t explain Titanic. Teen girls I guess are an extremely powerful global economic force.
Aug 26th, 2008
Johnny Boy
Lets not also forget that movie audiences were completely different back then. If Gone with the Wind were released today, and I mean released as is for the very first time ever and not as a rerelease, it’s most likely that many people would be bored to death. On the flip side, a movie like the Dark knight wouldn’t be made during the old days of cinema.
Aug 26th, 2008
Kevin C
in todays time with so many different forms of entertainment available, for The Dark Knight making $500+ million is far more impressive to me than Gone with the Wind selling however many tickets.
What other forms of entertainment were challenging it for peoples disposable income? Were people deciding between a host of other films, Television shows, internet, video games etc?
Youre point is well taken but its still apples and oranges. There are so many variables. Its fun to speculate, but its also futile in this case.
Aug 26th, 2008
John
Hey Kevin C
I see what you’re saying, but you have to keep in mind that just because we’re a generation of people addicted to digital media and entertainment, doesn’t mean they were back then. To say “They didn’t have as many other digital media entertainment forms back then” is meaningless since that’s not what most people used their time for.
As I said in an earlier comment, there is no single measure that will be 100% when comparing eras… but looking at the flat amount of tickets sold is the best of the imperfect bunch.
Aug 26th, 2008
Pierry
what about today’s rented movies and piracy? I think it comes into play
Aug 26th, 2008
Jacob
I think that the tickets sold is an interesting stat, as I’ve never actually seen these figures before, but of course nothing can account for context. The home video arena and the state at which movies are released today make for a hugely different situation, especially since there are so many options and truncated time to make money in theaters. This also makes inflation a hard judge. I assume that these are worldwide. Do they also account for rereleases? Of course there is no one stat, probably no one formula, that will rank popularity. That will probably depend on what stat people favor, but the discussion is interesting.
One final note. I would say that how people spend their time does matter. Look at the sports landscape. You have more options (and more competition with other channels and programs), and so the value of any one event has become diluted. That is to such a degree that ESPN considered dropping baseball. People have only so much time. Once you get into the multi hundred million dollar stratosphere, you’re trying to attract fringe costumers who don’t need your product. If there are other things competing with their time, that becomes a factor. And right now there are more options than ever.
Aug 26th, 2008
Kevin C
I disagree John,
Again youre point is well taken, but its like comparing tickets sold to a baseball game in 1902 and comparing it to a a game last week.
The game from 1902 may have sold more tickets, but what does that really mean? Does it have anything to do with the quality of the the two games or which one was better?
Granted, we can take something from the numbers, but it has little meaning when it crosses such vast amounts of time.
Its the best measurement o an imperfect bunch, for seeing which one sold more tickets. It really says little else.
Aug 26th, 2008
John
Hey Kevin C
I’m not really sure what your point is at this point? My only point is that number if tickets sold is a more accurate way of measuring “box office success” from different eras than flat unadjusted dollar amounts. That’s the whole, and only point.
I never once suggested it reflected the quality of a film or anything else for that matter.
So when you say you disagree… what exactly are you disagreeing with? I’m not being sarcastic, I’m honestly trying to understand what your point is.
Aug 26th, 2008
tobor68
i gotta go with john on this one.
considering era: gone with the wind came out during THE GREAT DEPRESSION when a nickle was worth something. for several generations, GWTW was considered one of the greatest movies ever made.
i loved the dark knight, but it still has a way to go to convince a generation of the same.
what surprises me about this list in ‘the sting’. who knew??
Aug 26th, 2008
Kevin C
I guess Im taking the point of the post to imply that because so many people are talking about The Dark Knight and how great it is and then using its domestic box off ice numbers to back it up, you are trying to show that it really isnt number 2 all time because after adjusting for inflation its more like the 35th all time.
Knowing your sentiments on the film Im guessing you are trying to bring some levity to the discussion by implying that the movie is good, but its not the best or second best movie ever made.
Im one of the people who think that TDK actually IS as good as people are saying it is, so I guess Im disagreeing with what I believe you are trying to imply. Heh. Sorry if im way off base!
Aug 26th, 2008
Marck
I don’t doubt these results at all, but I am still amazed. Given that Gone With the Wind came out in 1939. How many movie theaters were there in 1939? I don’t know, but I’m sure only a fraction of the number of theaters there are today. And how much disposable income did the average person have in 1939? Sure movie prices were lower, but this is still a time when a lot of people were having trouble getting enough money to eat.
Of course, as others have pointed out, there was less competition in 1939 for things to do on a Saturday night. In any event, this is a really interesting post.
Aug 26th, 2008
Lukas
JACOB….nop, these are actually only US numbers…even more amazing, right?
Aug 26th, 2008
Lukas
JOHN, excellent article by the way, I usually check the list over at boxofficemojo.com and agree 100% with you that this is a far more effective way to compare “box office results”. (we are literally counting tickets from the box office here!)
The Dark Knight`s performance is amazing nonetheless, only 34 movies have EVER done better….(in North America). Thats pretty succesful in my book. And its still going…If it gets to 520 o 530 million, it will be in the mid 20`s of the list.
One last comment, about a fact that I find pretty curious. Why is it that we only count US box office results when considering the success of a movie? I mean, do US dollars that come from abroad have less value? Just saying…
Aug 26th, 2008
sean dailey
how about we compare initial theatrical runs? that oughta level the playing field somewhat, seeing as modern movies rarely, if ever, get more than one theatrical run. if you’re including multiple releases for pre-home video movies, you have to account for that somehow.
Aug 26th, 2008
George
If gone with the wind was released today as a brand new film and went up against say, the dark knight, which film would sell more tickets?
Its all about time and place. Things are so different I personally don’t see the point in comparing.
Times change, people change, society has had such massive shifts since then especially in the fields of entertainment it just seems silly to compare them/
But that is just me.
Aug 26th, 2008
spiderfreak182
John, its only a few years ago my movie ticket cost me $7-8. $10 doesnt feel the same now ‘proportionately’ as a my $7.50 just a few years ago.
Aug 26th, 2008
emad
i think you should consider piracy too ,warez and p2p are going to be the majority of internet.
it makes revisiting dollars much more less than old days.you think 202 thousand americans went to see GWTW?
Aug 26th, 2008
Jacob
Just domestic makes it even more impressive. Does this still count multiple theatrical runs? For instance, Star Wars grossed $300 million in its original run and an additional $150 million from two other runs. And it was the rule of the road for an older movie to have multiple theatrical runs, which I believe is conflated with the original run, so that further obfuscates the issue.
I don’t find comparison useful anyway, as I don’t think that the point should be to find the most useful figure that establishes middle ground. I think the point should be to isolate all of the variables and differences. Perhaps it’s not possible to assemble a straight list, but it does tell you how far you have to go for a baseline of comparison and lend to a debate just how much of a factor all of this is. You can argue all day about why this figure is more important than that figure. But exploiting the differences will tell you where you still have to go.
Aug 26th, 2008
goodbar1979
heres a link to the list:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm
another plus for the dark knight:
if you look at the whole “adjusted for inflation” numbers you can see ALOT of them are from many, many years ago (20+ years)
The only recent ones are Shrek 2, Spiderman, EP 1: The Phantom Menace..and from the looks of it the Dark Knight will probably surpass those by the end of its theatrical run.
So no worries fanboys lol…you can say its the most succesful movie of the decade :)
BTW..this is coming from someone who’s seen TDK 5 times now lol
Aug 26th, 2008
goodbar1979
oh yeah:
would love to see the adjusted WORLDWIDE numbers…anybody know where else besides BO Mojo you can find those??
Aug 26th, 2008
EricD
So many good points brought up. There were less people around to by all those tickets for GWTW but on the flip side they didn’t have mega-theaters with 16 movies to pick from, nor 110 channels of high def TV at home.
But I think Rob brings up the best point, “Are you counting original theatrical runs or are you including re-releases”. Almost all of those movies in the top made tons of bank on re-releases. Shit, Star Wars will take over number 2 again on its next re-release. Movies now haven’t had the time to make money on re-releases and for the most part they will never be re-released. Money from DVD sells and rents has to be factored in their some how.
Aug 26th, 2008
Ric Ocasek
The market has everything to do with it. If Gone with Wind was released on dvd 5 months after it’s theatrical release, the numbers would be much different. Star Wars had multiple releases, the same with ET. I think what the Dark Knight has done is even more remarkable with the way the market is at this moment(It will be on dvd by December).
Aug 26th, 2008
EricD
Oh oh, another point. Spiderfreak182 is a little bit right that inflation is a bullshit. You can’t strictly compare the cost of tickets then to now. You need to factor in the cost of the tickets versus disposable income/average entertainment dollars spent.
Aug 26th, 2008
T-Vo
I totally agree with this, althought one more factor in why so many tickets sold on some of these older movies is because of no Vhs or dvd sales, so movies were often re-released in theaters. I don’t think present day movies will ever be able to crack this list now that they can buy the DVD and re-watch it at home. I can’t tell you how many times I saw the original trilogy in the Theaters before they came out on VHS.
Aug 26th, 2008
Lukas
EMAD, try 202 million….
Aug 26th, 2008
George
You have to take more factors into account than just pure inflation.
There are so many other factors to take into account that you just can’t compare.
The one thing this does prove is that people are going to the movies less these days.
My mom says they went to the movies all the time because back in the day it was relatively cheap and there wasn’t much else to do. Movies were the big thing. The only thing. People have more options and there is more competition for your disposable income then ever before.
As I said release Gone with the Wind today and it would not be the biggest film of all time.
Does anyone seriously believe it would sell 202 million tickets?
Of course it wouldn’t.
It has to be put into context. Social shifts, changing tastes. There are just so many other things to take on board that its just pointless. Time and place man, time and place.
That was then and this now. The world is an entirely different place.
Aug 26th, 2008
Dink
This argument doesn;t matter today. Back in the Gone in the wind days, there was no internet. No bootlegs that you could buy off the streets.
I can name 6 internet sites right now where you can go watch The Dark Knight for free, and in good quality. SIX.
Inflation is not a solid argument compared to the era we live in today. But nice try John.
Aug 26th, 2008
GODFATHER
Personally, I find it quite interesting that only one movie made/released in the past decade is in the top 10. I’d have thought with the number of screens movies play on these days, there’d have been a helluva lot more. Just goes to show you that the movies listed in this list are phenomenal in terms of their drawing power (to the theatre) and raises the issue that someone (can’t remember who and too lazy to check) made about their not being much in terms of competition for those older movies.
Still, John, I agree with you about number of tickets sold being a better measure, and there’s no real way to measure to 100% accuracy with so many variables available to skew numbers.
Aug 26th, 2008
GODFATHER
OK OK… Throw Titanic in there to, so that makes it only two movies… ;)
Aug 26th, 2008
giren
Gyahahaha… fair enough!
Aug 26th, 2008
krazie835
Movie tickets used to cost about a NICKLE. That would help repeat viewings tremendously. Now they cost around $10 in some places.
When I was a kid the price was about $3 and that was back in the 90s. With $20 I could easily take four people, but I can barely take me and one more person with $20.
Anyone remember the line in the original King Kong? A guy said he paid $20 to see the Kong. $20 to see something was a lot back when that movie was released.
Aug 26th, 2008
Dink
I don’t know about 1939, but the number #2 movie on your list, star wars came out in 77 I believe. Jaws came out in 75. 2 dollars back then had the exact same value that it has today, and I know, because I lived through those times, so do not come with that bulshit John. Sorry for my language but you are trying way too hard.
Aug 26th, 2008
giren
BTW good post John, this is clearly the better way to see what really Americans favorite film is.
Aug 27th, 2008
dead_makis
i have a small request. Can you tell us the source of that list. I really want to know more about the most tickets insted of most money.
Aug 27th, 2008
tecom
I can’t believe how many fanboys got angry because TDK is not on the list. God….
Aug 27th, 2008
The Cinema Source
Dead_Makis — he said earlier the source was Box Office Mojo and Yahoo Movies.
Dink — sorry man, but $2 did not have the same exact value in ‘77 that it has today. You can make an argument that inflation is over-estimated, but you can’t make an argument that it doesn’t exist.
Aug 27th, 2008
John
Hey “Dink”
You said:
“I don’t know about 1939, but the number #2 movie on your list, star wars came out in 77 I believe. Jaws came out in 75. 2 dollars back then had the exact same value that it has today, and I know, because I lived through those times, so do not come with that bulshit John. Sorry for my language but you are trying way too hard.”
Bullshit? Ummm… according the the American government census, the average income of an American home was:
In 1975 - $15,458
In 2007 - $50,970
So tell me again how $2 in 1975 and 2008 are worth exactly the same. I’m so ignorant I must be missing something.
Aug 27th, 2008
spiderfreak182
with that math, my ticket should be no more than $7 now no?
quite flawed…
Aug 27th, 2008
Kamish
So, 4 star wars in the top 20, no Lord of the Rings, No Spiderman, No comic flicks of any kind…Phantom Menace is the most recent entry into the top 20 (1999)…I think it puts things in perspective, on who loves what, when you talk about all-time audience favorites…
It will be interesting to see if Bats can make it into the top 20, it sure won’t beat out Titanic now as a lot have said it would just two weeks ago…For my money Star Wars will always be the Box-Office Champ because it took GWTW 70 years to do what’s it’s done, Star Wars will have surpassed it another 30…
Aug 27th, 2008
John
Hey Spiderfreak,
Quite flawed? Ummmm… No
According to BoxOffice Mojo and National Census, the average ticket price in the US is $7.10
I’m never flawed. You should know that by now. :P
Aug 27th, 2008
Kamish
DINK,
Your argument makes no sense…what percentage of bootlegs etc…do you think it actually keeps movies from making?
10% 20%, hell even 50%….would not give Batman enough tix sold to make up the ground on Star Wars & Titanic….at 80 million sold add 50% of sales and you get 120 million sold, where does that put it…between the exorist and dr zivagho…
Aug 27th, 2008
Kamish
ERICD…
I think if you figured rentals and dvd/vhs sales into the numbers you are sure to find Star Wars way out in front of everyone….GWTW, would fall back somewhere into the teens….why? how many folks own GWTW, I do, but not many, on the other hand, Star Wars has been available for sale on many different formats, and it still has Blu-Ray to come….meaning some folks have bought SW like 3-6 times if you count Laser Disc/Beta etc…So no matter how you slice it Star Wars comes out on top and always will….In the scheme of things Dark Knight, like a lot of other Johnny Come lately’s are making headline now, but not in 10 to 20 years…
Aug 27th, 2008
Kamish
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHa
Gone With The Wind is number one and better than the Dark Knight…it also won a record 10 oscars, only 3 films have eclipsed that….Dark Knight won’t even get that many nominations… When will fanboys, etc…learn they are not the the end all be all when it comes to movie opinions…
I leave you with this, just remember that Dark Knight is getting it’s arse kicked by Gone with the Wind, and in 70 years it will still be far behind…
Aug 27th, 2008
John
Hey Kamish,
Box office results are not an indication of a film’s quality. Just because GWTW is ahead of Dark Knight doesn’t mean it’s a “better” movie than it. Just saying.
Aug 27th, 2008
George
Just for the record I am not arguing this in dark knight fanboy protection.
I still find it funny that people thought it would beat titanic when it is still only like oohhhh a billion dollars short.
I have said this for a long time that I personally pay no attention to adjusted for inflation figures for all the reasons I listed. Times they are and always will be a changing and I just don’t see the point in comparing the box office figures of a film that came out in 1933 or 1975 to one that comes out today.you have to take into account how incredibly different the world is.
I don’t even think if star wars was released as it is but as a brand new film today it would be the biggest film of all time.
It wouldn’t even beat titanic.
when was the last time an original sci fi film based from a completely original idea was a fucking gigantic smash hit?
because the world is a different place to what it was in 1977.
Aug 27th, 2008
John
Hey George,
Your arguments are exactly why you SHOULD pay more attention to the inflation totals and number of tickets sold INSTEAD of flat dollar amounts.
Aug 27th, 2008
Kamish
John….
I know, but perhaps hows it’s viewed in History, I never said $ = greatness, but I think many are perceiving that, and are pissed because in this particular discussion Dark Knight is way behind GWTW…I think 10 oscars no matter when it was, tells you GWTW is going to be remembered as better than Dark Knight…and even though you did not intend for this to turn into what is better, or a boffo rankings war, it has….
AFI, says Gone with the Wind is #3… Don’t think they’d say DK is anywhere in the top 25…Further more, if others here want to talk about media hype and fan frenzy over a film, I suggest they do a little research over Gone with the Wind it Was Star Wars meets Titanic in it’s day….
it’s a given, its had 70 years to amass the numbers it has, but no film, except Star Wars will ever sell more tickets…If George Lucas follows thru with his planned re-release of All the Star Wars in 3-D, and then in 20 years he does again with a Super Superb Special Edition, then yes Star Wars will take back the number one spot…
Aug 27th, 2008
spiderfreak182
if 7.10 is the average ticket price now, then im getting raped by all my theaters cause theyre not even close. maybe a child ticket would come close.
Aug 27th, 2008
spiderfreak182
but u win.
Aug 27th, 2008
George
why is that?
There is more competition for a cinema goers dollar today then ever before probably in the history of film.
Aug 27th, 2008
Kamish
An Average ticket price would include…matinee prices, second run theaters, child, seniors etc…not to mention smaller theaters in small town middle America still only charge about $5…So it’s easy to come up with a $7.10 avg…any you guys ever go to math class?
Aug 28th, 2008
Austin
“if 7.10 is the average ticket price now, then im getting raped by all my theaters cause theyre not even close. maybe a child ticket would come close.”
I can’t speak to the hyperbole, but I rarely pay more than $7.00 (plus tax) for a movie. Of course, I generally stay away from the super-multiplexes, and I almost never purchase anything from the concessions, so maybe I’m not a typical moviegoer.
Aug 28th, 2008
spiderfreak182
Kamish ur right! i curious now what the real average of tickets were back in the day. wouldnt knnow where to look…
Aug 28th, 2008
kamish
GWTW = 23 cents a ticket, check this out everyone…
http://images.businessweek.com/ss/08/08/0822_movies/?technology+slideshows
Aug 28th, 2008
BloggingFun
Thanks for the new way of looking at box office numbers. It’s interesting.
Sep 3rd, 2008
finaljoe
“How many other movies were released on the same weekend as Gone with the Wind? While current titles may have the advantage of inflated ticket prices, they have the disadvantage of drastically increased competition. There are far more entertainment options available now and I don’t just mean other movies. It’s a different era. No one statistic such as number of tickets sold or amount of gross receipts is able to tell the whole story.”
A lot more than was released at the same time of TDK that’s for sure! In the 30s and 40s there was regularily up to a dozen films put out per week.
A quick check on IMDB shows that 11 films were released on the same day as Gone with the Wind.
Over one million people turned up for Gone with the Wind’s premiere. Can the same be said of TDK despite improved transportation, hugely increased population and media exposure?
Also, TDK was released in over 4000+ theatres. I doubt Gone with the Wind was released in a hundreth of that. Films were moved around the country and it probably wasn’t uncommon for people to have to travel a couple of hours to do to the movies. How many people would do that today? Most people live within 15 minutes of their nearest cinema.
Sep 4th, 2008
finaljoe
“nflations bullshit. keep in mind maybe $10 bucks a pop is a disadvantage when it comes to the amount of people filling seats. If gone with the wind was $10 a viewing, i think there wouldve been alot less repeat viewers…”
It certainly would have because $10 in 1939 would have paid for a family’s dinner for about a month. Would you spend that much on a cinema ticket?
Sep 4th, 2008
finaljoe
“Lets not also forget that movie audiences were completely different back then. If Gone with the Wind were released today, and I mean released as is for the very first time ever and not as a rerelease, it’s most likely that many people would be bored to death. On the flip side, a movie like the Dark knight wouldn’t be made during the old days of cinema.”
So? Are you saying the opinions and trends of those in the 1930s and 1940s are less valid than the people’s of today?
Gone with the Wind is a better film than TDK and that’s a fact you can print. It has gain viewers and acclaim for 70 years and in another 70 it will still be a held up as a cinematic great. Will the same be said of TDK when two months afte it’s released the hype has already worn off?
Sep 4th, 2008
finaljoe
“in todays time with so many different forms of entertainment available, for The Dark Knight making $500+ million is far more impressive to me than Gone with the Wind selling however many tickets.
What other forms of entertainment were challenging it for peoples disposable income? Were people deciding between a host of other films, Television shows, internet, video games etc?
Youre point is well taken but its still apples and oranges. There are so many variables. Its fun to speculate, but its also futile in this case.”
There was a little thing called World War II happening at the time.
And kiddies did like those new fangled comic books things starring characters known as “The Batman”. I don’t blame you if you haven’t heard of them as they’re pretty much obsulete now.
Sep 4th, 2008
finaljoe
“how about we compare initial theatrical runs? that oughta level the playing field somewhat, seeing as modern movies rarely, if ever, get more than one theatrical run. if you’re including multiple releases for pre-home video movies, you have to account for that somehow.”
Films are only re-released or kept in a cinema if there is a demand for them. What other reason is there to look at the box office other than seeing what kind of demand a film had?
Sep 4th, 2008
finaljoe
“As I said release Gone with the Wind today and it would not be the biggest film of all time. ”
So? If Alexander was around today he probably wouldn’t have conquered most of the modern world. What’s your point? Stop trying to invalidate history and era. IT HAPPENED. Your hypothetical situations DID NOT.
Sep 4th, 2008
Kamish
Final Joe, you make no sense, and you argue both sides, what is your point really?
Sep 4th, 2008
Watch Full Free Legal Movies Here
Stick to the last ten years or so. For “Gone With The Wind”, frankly my dear, I don’t give a darn.
Sep 7th, 2008
bickleson
Back in the GWTW days they HAD to go to the theater and purchase another ticket for repeat viewings, and they did many times for how relevant the film was in society at the time….modern times we can watch The Dark Knight over and over in different mediums other than film, and we will for how relevant the film is in society today. So I’m not sure if I’d trust tickets sold back then versus ticket sales now as much as I don’t trust the gross back then to now, inflation blah blah…i did enjoy reading everyone’s opinions.
to some folks the biggest film of all time is big mamma’s house 2.
Sep 8th, 2008
finaljoe
Actually bickleson in the 30s and 40s people could buy ONE ticket and stay in the cinema for the entire day. Whereas today you can only have one viewing per ticket. Mark anoter against that theory.
Also people wouldn’t go to see Gone with the Wind agan if they didn’t want to. Another plus for its immense popularity.
Sep 8th, 2008
Armand
Lets just judge the movie on its own merits shall we?
GWTW was the champ in its heyday. Given that there was no piracy, multiplexes, competitions, limited outlets for movie entertainment, it was a no brainer that GWTW was able to reap so much at that time. Also, the cost of movie productions was much lesser than, in addition to the cost of living.
DK2, just like Titanic should be applauded for being able to achieve so much with the competitions they had to faced
Pirated DVDs being made available within days of the movies out in the theatres, internet downloading, huge cost of production and advertising, the movie being made available to DVD less than 6 months after its theatre showing etc.., these are some of the factors that GWTW was safe from.
All the above also played a part in the choice of moviegoers wanting to wait for the dvd or buying the pirated copy, instead of rushing to the theatres to watch it in the big screen.
So to say that DK2 or Titanic is smaller than GWTW is not fair since we are not basing our judgement on the factors mentioned above.
There is no one true-tested method of knowing which movie is bigger than the other in terms of its attendance or B.O tally. Given the rapid changes to the taste of the moviegoers on how they would prefer to watch the movies and also of the currency inflation, don’t be surprise to see Scary Movie part 231 or Friday the 13th part 349 , on day having a B.O above Titanic or DK2.
So John, the above article is kind of good but I disagree with your recommendation to gauge the movie’s success based on the number of tickets sold.
Oh! To some other members here, Oscar has nothing to do with the movie whether it is any good or bad. Oscars were given by a group of actors, those in movie productions on their preferred choice of the movies they like. It is not like the “American Music Award’ where the public chose the ones they like.
To say that Crash was better than Brokeback Mountain or that Shakespeare in Love was better than Saving Private Ryan is a a matter of personal preference. Using Oscar as the ‘better’ factor is simply ‘crap’ pardon the language. I for one, care not for which movie wins the Oscar. If I like the movie, I go watch it and buy the DVD or care enough to vote for it in IMDB or Rottentomatoes. I am not going to listen and agree to what a bunch of ballonies who decide to give the Oscar to some movies they like.
Tks for reading
Armand
Sep 8th, 2008
bickleson
finaljoe - how many viewings per day you think people could watch GWTW…I’m guessing 2 (3 or more if you are homeless) plus on different days they also can buy 1 ticket with multiple viewings. Yep I agree people will see it again if they want to and also if they were dragged in again by wife/cousin/friend, so many factors for one final number.
armand…totally agree peeps put too much into something if it won an oscar or not and they use that to argue their film of choice is superior…same with music and the grammy’s…we know that is pure caca….and lets not forget that agents and studios go on the “Academy campaign” /cough - gift basket.
Sep 9th, 2008
Eric
Dark Knight in 35th place? Sounds about right in every way, shape and form.
Sep 18th, 2008
Reply to “All Time Biggest Box Office Draw Movies”