PDA

View Full Version : 2008 Box Office



artistrex
08-09-2008, 04:20 PM
Back in April the anti talents at Entertainment Weekly gave their predictions for the summer. Their list went as so...

1.Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
$355.9 million
2.The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
$310.8 million
3.Hancock
$280.4 million
4. WALL-E
$280.3 million
5. Iron Man
$262.7 million
6. The Dark Knight
$255.0 million
7. Kung Fu Panda
$224.6 million
8. The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor
$176.5 million
9. The Incredible Hulk
$147.2 million
10. Tropic Thunder
$142.6 million


Here's were we stand,
1.The Dark Knight
$393,751,065
2.Iron Man
$315,687,768
3.Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
$314,331,661
4.Hancock
$215,883,222
5.Kung Fu Panda
$210,480,901
6.WALL-E
$204,078,076
7.Dr. Suess' Horton Hears A Who
$154,444,322
8.Sex And The City:confused:
$151,441,438
9.The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
$140,693,781
10.The Incredible Hulk
$133,283,170

Yes, Tropic Thunder hasn't come out yet, but I don't see the list changing much.This goes to show you why I really don't pay much attention to what they say.

Voorhees27
08-09-2008, 04:23 PM
Wow Iron Man did VERY well and rightfully so!!!!

EVILFACE
08-09-2008, 04:24 PM
They were sure wrong on that Narnia crap.

The Dark Knight rules all!!!

Punchy
08-09-2008, 04:32 PM
Horton Hears a Who wouldn't be considered a summer movie which would move Wanted into the top 10. Of course that doesn't help EW's predictions any...

artistrex
08-09-2008, 04:35 PM
Horton Hears a Who wouldn't be considered a summer movie which would move Wanted into the top 10. Of course that doesn't help EW's predictions any...

Granted Horton came out early but I was factoring the top ten so far this year, but ya. since neither Wanted or Horton were on their list they're boned.

DarthNeil
08-09-2008, 04:51 PM
This goes to show you why I really don't pay much attention to what they say.

Putting The Dark Knight and Narnia to the side for the moment, here's where they were off...

(roughly)
Iron Man -60 mil
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull -40 mil
Hancock +65 mil
WALL-E +75 mil
Kung Fu Panda +14 mil
The Incredible Hulk +15 mil

These six don't seem too far off. If you're going to swear of predictions I'd strongly discourage you from reading any of SI's NFL predictions.:D

Shai
08-09-2008, 04:54 PM
Narnia.....:lol:lol:lol

The Ween
08-09-2008, 08:18 PM
Back in April the anti talents at Entertainment Weekly gave their predictions for the summer. Their list went as so...

1.Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
$355.9 million
2.The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
$310.8 million
3.Hancock
$280.4 million
4. WALL-E
$280.3 million
5. Iron Man
$262.7 million
6. The Dark Knight
$255.0 million
7. Kung Fu Panda
$224.6 million
8. The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor
$176.5 million
9. The Incredible Hulk
$147.2 million
10. Tropic Thunder
$142.6 million


Here's were we stand,
1.The Dark Knight
$393,751,065
2.Iron Man
$315,687,768
3.Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
$314,331,661
4.Hancock
$215,883,222
5.Kung Fu Panda
$210,480,901
6.WALL-E
$204,078,076
7.Dr. Suess' Horton Hears A Who
$154,444,322
8.Sex And The City:confused:
$151,441,438
9.The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
$140,693,781
10.The Incredible Hulk
$133,283,170

Yes, Tropic Thunder hasn't come out yet, but I don't see the list changing much.This goes to show you why I really don't pay much attention to what they say.

EW has the worst film critics of any magazine. They wouldn't know a good movie if it bit them in the arse. :moon

Mesa
08-09-2008, 08:25 PM
I'm going on the record and stating I liked Narnia.

But I also like Labyrinth, Dark Crystal, Last Unicorn, Neverending Story and all those other fantasy films geared towards kids, so I guess I'm biased. But I draw the line at the spiderwick chronicles. :lol

wofford29
08-09-2008, 08:31 PM
Here's were we stand,
1.The Dark Knight
$393,751,065


Not sure where you got your numbers from but The Dark Knight has been past that number since last week. It's currently at $423,110,995, and will likely be in the 440 range by the end of this weekend.

Mesa
08-09-2008, 08:33 PM
Not sure where you got your numbers from but The Dark Knight has been past that number since last week. It's currently at $423,110,995.

Yeah, I heard on the radio that there's talk it may break all time record that "The Titanic" currently holds. Some details about domestic vs. international sales, no Batman film has ever done as well internationally as it has domesticly.

artistrex
08-09-2008, 08:34 PM
Not sure where you got your numbers from but The Dark Knight has been past that number since last week. It's currently at $423,110,995, and will likely be in the 440 range by the end of this weekend.

I got them from Yahoo, movies I know not exactly the most accurate, but it's what I could find. They didn't have Batman surpassing Spidey til about four days after it happend, but the point of my message still stands.

King Darkness
08-09-2008, 08:36 PM
Narnia.....:lol:lol:lol

http://blog.wired.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/10/19/bomb.jpg

wofford29
08-09-2008, 08:39 PM
I got them from Yahoo, movies I know not exactly the most accurate, but it's what I could find. They didn't have Batman surpassing Spidey til about four days after it happend, but the point of my message still stands.

Check out www.boxofficemojo.com some time, it's a cool site with just about all the info you can find.

tomandshell
08-09-2008, 09:10 PM
I thought there were some really great action sequences in Prince Caspian, and the whole film had a darker and more mature tone than the first. I am surprised it didn't do better.

At any rate, I don't think that anybody could have predicted the success of The Dark Knight.

EVILFACE
08-09-2008, 10:30 PM
Yeah, I heard on the radio that there's talk it may break all time record that "The Titanic" currently holds. Some details about domestic vs. international sales, no Batman film has ever done as well internationally as it has domesticly.

I think it will pass Star Wars ANH, but won't be anywhere close to Titanic. Around 500 mil is about right.

tomandshell
08-09-2008, 10:50 PM
TDK doesn't have the date movie vibe that Titanic had. I also don't see women in their 50's and 60's going to see it and then coming back with all their friends.

I just want to see it beat Shrek 2--biggest turd in the Top Ten.

EVILFACE
08-09-2008, 10:56 PM
Yea, Shrek 2 making what it did domestic and worldwide is pretty crazy for he mediocre movie it is.

Voorhees27
08-09-2008, 10:59 PM
Does anyone know what Titanic grossed domestically?

pixletwin
08-09-2008, 11:48 PM
I thought there were some really great action sequences in Prince Caspian, and the whole film had a darker and more mature tone than the first. I am surprised it didn't do better.

At any rate, I don't think that anybody could have predicted the success of The Dark Knight.

Ditto that. I really enjoyed this movie and i liked it a lot better than the first one. :moon

spidermonkey
08-10-2008, 01:14 AM
Voorhees, I believe Titanic did $600 million domestically. I would like to think that the DK could pull it off but I don't know.

tomandshell
08-10-2008, 01:17 AM
Does anyone know what Titanic grossed domestically?

$600,788,188 domestically. It was number one its opening weekend in December, and continued to hold on to the number one spot for fifteen consecutive weeks. The Dark Knight isn't going to do that.

However, it took eleven weeks for Titanic to get to where TDK got in less than four. But I think TDK will end up with more success up front, whereas Titanic was a steam locomotive that built up momentum and was having weekends bigger than its opening weekend gross for six weeks, with people going back to see it again a month or two after their first viewing. TDK is shrinking slowly, not picking up momentum. Most of the fans that will end up seeing it multiple times have already done so.

KrisSolo
08-10-2008, 05:19 AM
Titanic needs to sink hard like the giant turd it is. Terrible, terrible movie IMO.

King Darkness
08-10-2008, 07:43 AM
$600,788,188 domestically. It was number one its opening weekend in December, and continued to hold on to the number one spot for fifteen consecutive weeks. The Dark Knight isn't going to do that.

However, it took eleven weeks for Titanic to get to where TDK got in less than four. But I think TDK will end up with more success up front, whereas Titanic was a steam locomotive that built up momentum and was having weekends bigger than its opening weekend gross for six weeks, with people going back to see it again a month or two after their first viewing. TDK is shrinking slowly, not picking up momentum. Most of the fans that will end up seeing it multiple times have already done so.

Also, the 600 million that Titanic made is not representative of the inflation of movie tickets today. At current price for movie tickets Titanic would have made a little over $900 million, so TDK would have to make over 900 million to beat Titanic, which will never happen.

Titanic is a good movie, I dont care how uncool it is to say that :lol

MaulFan
08-10-2008, 07:49 AM
Here's were we stand,
1.The Dark Knight
$393,751,065
2.Iron Man
$315,687,768
3.Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
$314,331,661
4.Hancock
$215,883,222
5.Kung Fu Panda
$210,480,901
6.WALL-E
$204,078,076
7.Dr. Suess' Horton Hears A Who
$154,444,322
8.Sex And The City:confused:
$151,441,438
9.The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
$140,693,781
10.The Incredible Hulk
$133,283,170

I must say, looking at those numbers, I'm astonished at the success of Indy. I don't think it was a bad movie, but compared to what I hear about Iron Man and my own thoughts on TDK, to be that close to those movies is impressive.

MaulFan
08-10-2008, 07:54 AM
Titanic is a good movie, I dont care how uncool it is to say that :lol

I think anyone mature enough can admit, that film was the perfect formula, and it's release period was perfect. Titanic came out before DVD, when home video didn't mean much to folks and a trip to the movies didn't become a budget concern. Couple that with it being a story that folks from age 12 to 100 could see and enjoy and it was just a perfect mix for huge box office success.

TDK is a movie that's as much for a great home theater experience as it is for the big screen, and it has a much narrower audience and it's out in a time where people are less inclined to go out to the theater a few times or at all when a great DVD release is innevitable. Under the circumstances of it's release, TDK may be one of the all-time great successes. Sure it's numbers aren't up at Titanic levels, but within it's own genre of film, audience type and everything, it really is doing very well for itself.

UTtoyfan
08-10-2008, 09:15 AM
I think anyone mature enough can admit, that film was the perfect formula, and it's release period was perfect. Titanic came out before DVD, when home video didn't mean much to folks and a trip to the movies didn't become a budget concern. Couple that with it being a story that folks from age 12 to 100 could see and enjoy and it was just a perfect mix for huge box office success.

TDK is a movie that's as much for a great home theater experience as it is for the big screen, and it has a much narrower audience and it's out in a time where people are less inclined to go out to the theater a few times or at all when a great DVD release is innevitable. Under the circumstances of it's release, TDK may be one of the all-time great successes. Sure it's numbers aren't up at Titanic levels, but within it's own genre of film, audience type and everything, it really is doing very well for itself.

Totally agree! It is already the best selling comic book adaptation ever, and if it even reaches $500 million not counting inflation it will be #2 behind Titanic. I do believe that Titanic is at least the "unsinkable ship" when referring to the box office.

tomandshell
08-10-2008, 02:22 PM
I think anyone mature enough can admit, that film was the perfect formula, and it's release period was perfect. Titanic came out before DVD, when home video didn't mean much to folks and a trip to the movies didn't become a budget concern. Couple that with it being a story that folks from age 12 to 100 could see and enjoy and it was just a perfect mix for huge box office success.

TDK is a movie that's as much for a great home theater experience as it is for the big screen, and it has a much narrower audience and it's out in a time where people are less inclined to go out to the theater a few times or at all when a great DVD release is innevitable. Under the circumstances of it's release, TDK may be one of the all-time great successes. Sure it's numbers aren't up at Titanic levels, but within it's own genre of film, audience type and everything, it really is doing very well for itself.

I totally agree--people today know that a popular movie will be available on DVD or Blu-ray after a wait of only about four months, potentially looking and sounding better than in their local theater. Ten years ago, that wasn't the case. The thought of waiting nine months to see a pan & scan VHS tape on their 18" TV at home drove more people to the theater for return trips. In the age of surround sound, high definition and giant widescreen TVs in the homes of more and more average Joes, it's getting harder and harder to justify return trips to see those big epic movies that you can only experience on the big screen--because the quality of the home video experience has increased exponentially, and at a price that makes it much more accessible than ever before.

Agent23
08-10-2008, 02:27 PM
I never got to see the new Narnia movie. Was it that bad?

I think part of it's problem, it opened against some serious competition right?

How does it look for the 3rd one now?

tomandshell
08-10-2008, 02:32 PM
I personally enjoyed it much more than the first, but it was up against Iron Man, Indiana Jones and Speed Racer (!) and then on into June, and it just didn't have enough time to establish itself. This summer was so insanely crowded that most movies had a few weeks to make their money, and by then there were already four or five new ones out there competing for audience dollars. Had they put it out at Christmas, it would have done far better. They probably learned their lesson, and the next one won't go up against the big summer movies but will be a traditional holiday family film. The third one is already in production, so it should be safe. But they probably won't greenlight number four until they see improved box office results for film three.

NASEDO
08-10-2008, 02:49 PM
This was a great summer of movies, next summer looks really weak. TDK has made 441mil, but I dont see it beating Titanic. Hard to believe Titanic made that much money, and with a 3hr run time. But I'll wait to all these movies on DVD I hate the theaters.

barbelith
08-10-2008, 05:01 PM
I must say, looking at those numbers, I'm astonished at the success of Indy. I don't think it was a bad movie, but compared to what I hear about Iron Man and my own thoughts on TDK, to be that close to those movies is impressive.

Don't forget the Internet is basically an echo chamber. Snakes on a Plane was going to be huge because of the Internet ... or so everyone thought. The average person on the street thought Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was just fine and either told their friends to go see it or saw it twice. Iron Man racked up more or less the same box office for the same reasons, but it's trendy in media and Internet circles to bash Lucas while nobody saw Iron Man coming, so there was a pair of manufactured stories there.

In short, never trust that "what I hear online" has any bearing on reality whatsoever. This is the place that insists The X-Files is a bomb after all even though it's already made a handy profit and guaranteed another sequel!

screamingmetal
08-10-2008, 05:19 PM
Back in April the anti talents at Entertainment Weekly gave their predictions for the summer. Their list went as so...

1.Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
$355.9 million
2.The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
$310.8 million
3.Hancock
$280.4 million
4. WALL-E
$280.3 million
5. Iron Man
$262.7 million
6. The Dark Knight
$255.0 million
7. Kung Fu Panda
$224.6 million
8. The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor
$176.5 million
9. The Incredible Hulk
$147.2 million
10. Tropic Thunder
$142.6 million


Here's were we stand,
1.The Dark Knight
$393,751,065
2.Iron Man
$315,687,768
3.Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
$314,331,661
4.Hancock
$215,883,222
5.Kung Fu Panda
$210,480,901
6.WALL-E
$204,078,076
7.Dr. Suess' Horton Hears A Who
$154,444,322
8.Sex And The City:confused:
$151,441,438
9.The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
$140,693,781
10.The Incredible Hulk
$133,283,170

Yes, Tropic Thunder hasn't come out yet, but I don't see the list changing much.This goes to show you why I really don't pay much attention to what they say.

Man, The Incredible Hulk deserves to be higher up on that list. It's a far better movie then Indiana Jones KOTCS at least (haven't seen most of the others though).

barbelith
08-10-2008, 05:47 PM
Man, The Incredible Hulk deserves to be higher up on that list. It's a far better movie then Indiana Jones KOTCS at least (haven't seen most of the others though).

At least Indiana Jones told a story and had characters who changed and grew...

CelticPredator
08-10-2008, 05:48 PM
So did Hulk. However, it was edited by the studio.

tomandshell
08-10-2008, 05:50 PM
How could anyone say that Bruce Banner didn't change and grow? That's the whole premise!!

RJMacReady16
08-10-2008, 06:04 PM
Are these numbers adjusted for inflation?

Titanic came out in what? 1997? 1998?

A ten year gap is huge. You also have to factor in the cost of marketing/advertising. And how things can be marketed/advertised now versus 10 years ago. This has all changed since the advent of the Internet era.

A raw box office total doesn't really tell us much. If it costs twice as much to buy a ticket, pay the actors, produce the movie and advertise, is that telling us the whole story?

GG

Here you go:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

tomandshell
08-10-2008, 06:32 PM
Here you go:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

I'm confused:

5 The Ten Commandments Par. $927,480,000 $65,500,000 1956

20 Fantasia Dis. $587,947,800 $76,408,097 1941^

44 Around the World in 80 Days UA $457,476,900 $42,000,000 1956

45 Bambi RKO $451,084,100 $102,247,150 1942^


Not quite sure how the adjustment is working.

RJMacReady16
08-10-2008, 06:58 PM
I'm confused:

5 The Ten Commandments Par. $927,480,000 $65,500,000 1956

20 Fantasia Dis. $587,947,800 $76,408,097 1941^

44 Around the World in 80 Days UA $457,476,900 $42,000,000 1956

45 Bambi RKO $451,084,100 $102,247,150 1942^


Not quite sure how the adjustment is working.


Here are the semantics:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/about/adjuster.htm

Les Walker
08-11-2008, 09:59 AM
DK is number three now, right behind Star Wars and Titanic. Not bad. But yeah, seems inflation must be counted in. Seems too off somehow.

IrishJedi
08-11-2008, 10:27 AM
This is the Top 20 Adjusted For Inflation:

1 Gone with the Wind MGM $1,430,476,000 $198,676,459 1939^
2 Star Wars Fox $1,261,086,700 $460,998,007 1977^
3 The Sound of Music Fox $1,008,300,900 $158,671,368 1965
4 E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial Uni. $1,004,328,700 $435,110,554 1982^
5 The Ten Commandments Par. $927,480,000 $65,500,000 1956
6 Titanic Par. $908,688,900 $600,788,188 1997
7 Jaws Uni. $906,798,000 $260,000,000 1975
8 Doctor Zhivago MGM $878,879,000 $111,721,910 1965
9 The Exorcist WB $782,826,200 $232,671,011 1973^
10 Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs Dis. $771,720,000 $184,925,486 1937^
11 101 Dalmatians Dis. $707,414,100 $144,880,014 1961^
12 The Empire Strikes Back Fox $695,118,900 $290,475,067 1980^
13 Ben-Hur MGM $693,840,000 $74,000,000 1959
14 Return of the Jedi Fox $665,940,600 $309,306,177 1983^
15 The Sting Uni. $631,131,400 $156,000,000 1973
16 Raiders of the Lost Ark Par. $624,044,300 $242,374,454 1981^
17 Jurassic Park Uni. $610,337,400 $357,067,947 1993
18 The Graduate AVCO $605,845,500 $104,901,839 1967^
19 Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace Fox $600,566,700 $431,088,301 1999
20 Fantasia Dis. $587,947,800

TDK is currently #49 and will likely end up somewhere between 21-30 on the all-time adjusted list. Still pretty damn good and the best domestic performer since TPM.

King Darkness
08-11-2008, 10:30 AM
This is the Top 20 Adjusted For Inflation:

1 Gone with the Wind MGM $1,430,476,000 $198,676,459 1939^
2 Star Wars Fox $1,261,086,700 $460,998,007 1977^
3 The Sound of Music Fox $1,008,300,900 $158,671,368 1965
4 E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial Uni. $1,004,328,700 $435,110,554 1982^
5 The Ten Commandments Par. $927,480,000 $65,500,000 1956
6 Titanic Par. $908,688,900 $600,788,188 1997
7 Jaws Uni. $906,798,000 $260,000,000 1975
8 Doctor Zhivago MGM $878,879,000 $111,721,910 1965
9 The Exorcist WB $782,826,200 $232,671,011 1973^
10 Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs Dis. $771,720,000 $184,925,486 1937^
11 101 Dalmatians Dis. $707,414,100 $144,880,014 1961^
12 The Empire Strikes Back Fox $695,118,900 $290,475,067 1980^
13 Ben-Hur MGM $693,840,000 $74,000,000 1959
14 Return of the Jedi Fox $665,940,600 $309,306,177 1983^
15 The Sting Uni. $631,131,400 $156,000,000 1973
16 Raiders of the Lost Ark Par. $624,044,300 $242,374,454 1981^
17 Jurassic Park Uni. $610,337,400 $357,067,947 1993
18 The Graduate AVCO $605,845,500 $104,901,839 1967^
19 Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace Fox $600,566,700 $431,088,301 1999
20 Fantasia Dis. $587,947,800


Nice to see one of the greatest horror movies of time in the top ten :rock :rock :rock

Bannister
08-11-2008, 11:26 AM
This is the Top 20 Adjusted For Inflation:

1 Gone with the Wind MGM $1,430,476,000 $198,676,459 1939^
2 Star Wars Fox $1,261,086,700 $460,998,007 1977^
3 The Sound of Music Fox $1,008,300,900 $158,671,368 1965
4 E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial Uni. $1,004,328,700 $435,110,554 1982^
5 The Ten Commandments Par. $927,480,000 $65,500,000 1956
6 Titanic Par. $908,688,900 $600,788,188 1997
7 Jaws Uni. $906,798,000 $260,000,000 1975
8 Doctor Zhivago MGM $878,879,000 $111,721,910 1965
9 The Exorcist WB $782,826,200 $232,671,011 1973^
10 Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs Dis. $771,720,000 $184,925,486 1937^
11 101 Dalmatians Dis. $707,414,100 $144,880,014 1961^
12 The Empire Strikes Back Fox $695,118,900 $290,475,067 1980^
13 Ben-Hur MGM $693,840,000 $74,000,000 1959
14 Return of the Jedi Fox $665,940,600 $309,306,177 1983^
15 The Sting Uni. $631,131,400 $156,000,000 1973
16 Raiders of the Lost Ark Par. $624,044,300 $242,374,454 1981^
17 Jurassic Park Uni. $610,337,400 $357,067,947 1993
18 The Graduate AVCO $605,845,500 $104,901,839 1967^
19 Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace Fox $600,566,700 $431,088,301 1999
20 Fantasia Dis. $587,947,800

TDK is currently #49 and will likely end up somewhere between 21-30 on the all-time adjusted list. Still pretty damn good and the best domestic performer since TPM.

I think the whole adjusted for inflation thing is flawed. There really is no way to know what movie would really be the top money maker of all time. There are too many other factors besides inflation.

EVILFACE
08-11-2008, 11:32 AM
Nice to see one of the greatest horror movies of time in the top ten :rock :rock :rock

Guess you missed Jaws 2 spots above it :lol

Though Sound of Music could be considered a horror movie to some. It was torture having to watch it in school!

barbelith
08-11-2008, 11:38 AM
I think the whole adjusted for inflation thing is flawed. There really is no way to know what movie would really be the top money maker of all time. There are too many other factors besides inflation.

The most relevant ranking would be ticket sales expressed as a unit of volume combined with a "share" extrapolated from the contemporary population and number of screens. The combination of inflation, independently rising ticket prices and unprecedented number of screens makes a mockery out of any attempt to compare box office figures more than a few years apart.

IrishJedi
08-11-2008, 12:43 PM
I think the whole adjusted for inflation thing is flawed. There really is no way to know what movie would really be the top money maker of all time. There are too many other factors besides inflation.

It's not just inflation, though. The basis is the total number of individual tickets sold.

Obviously, people just don't go to the movies as often as they did before the advent of television, home video and other media.

tomandshell
08-11-2008, 01:05 PM
When Disney rereleased a movie like Fantasia over the years, they sold more tickets but at different price. Any of those big earners that had a rerelease (including E.T. and Star Wars) will have a mixture of original tickets prices and higher priced tickets from the various releases. It's pretty tricky trying to come up with a precise and accurate adjusted total.

barbelith
08-11-2008, 01:05 PM
Obviously, people just don't go to the movies as often as they did before the advent of television, home video and other media.

Modern movies actually have a massive advantage when it comes to box office figures beyond inflation. The Dark Knight opened on 9200 screens, which is an utterly inconceivable number for films released before the multiplex age.

CelticPredator
08-11-2008, 03:14 PM
Nice to see one of the greatest horror movies of time in the top ten :rock :rock :rock

I dont see Alien up there?!??? ;)

scubasteve
08-11-2008, 04:56 PM
I can't believe it's going to top Star Wars. Incredible!

Lord Aykroyd
08-11-2008, 05:08 PM
The most relevant ranking would be ticket sales expressed as a unit of volume combined with a "share" extrapolated from the contemporary population and number of screens. The combination of inflation, independently rising ticket prices and unprecedented number of screens makes a mockery out of any attempt to compare box office figures more than a few years apart.

I sort of agree - except, we can assume an increase in theatres over time and an increase in population density in the cities (i.e. newer movies SHOULD have more ticket sales), but take a look at this!

Obviously, the oldies kicked some serious butt.

Rank Title_____________Est. Tickets
1 Gone with the Wind_____________202,044,600
2 Star Wars_____________________178,119,600
3 The Sound of Music_____________142,415,400
4 E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial_______141,854,300
5 The Ten Commandments_________131,000,000
6 Titanic________________________128,345,900
7 Jaws__________________________128,078,800
8 Doctor Zhivago__________________124,135,500
9 The Exorcist____________________110,568,700
10 Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs__109,000,000
11 101 Dalmatians__________________99,917,300
12 The Empire Strikes Back__________ _98,180,600
13 Ben-Hur________________________98,000,000
14 Return of the Jedi________________94,059,400
15 The Sting_______________________89,142,900
16 Raiders of the Lost Ark____________88,141,900
17 Jurassic Park____________________86,205,800
18 The Graduate___________________85,571,400
19 Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace_____________ 84,825,800
20 Fantasia_______________________83,043,500

Kratos
08-11-2008, 05:27 PM
I'm Glad IronMan did so well good work Downey

barbelith
08-11-2008, 06:08 PM
I can't believe it's going to top Star Wars. Incredible!

It's not really. Have you been reading the thread?

Bannister
08-11-2008, 06:26 PM
I sort of agree - except, we can assume an increase in theatres over time and an increase in population density in the cities (i.e. newer movies SHOULD have more ticket sales), but take a look at this!

Obviously, the oldies kicked some serious butt.

Rank Title_____________Est. Tickets
1 Gone with the Wind_____________202,044,600
2 Star Wars_____________________178,119,600
3 The Sound of Music_____________142,415,400
4 E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial_______141,854,300
5 The Ten Commandments_________131,000,000
6 Titanic________________________128,345,900
7 Jaws__________________________128,078,800
8 Doctor Zhivago__________________124,135,500
9 The Exorcist____________________110,568,700
10 Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs__109,000,000
11 101 Dalmatians__________________99,917,300
12 The Empire Strikes Back__________ _98,180,600
13 Ben-Hur________________________98,000,000
14 Return of the Jedi________________94,059,400
15 The Sting_______________________89,142,900
16 Raiders of the Lost Ark____________88,141,900
17 Jurassic Park____________________86,205,800
18 The Graduate___________________85,571,400
19 Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace_____________ 84,825,800
20 Fantasia_______________________83,043,500

That is because home video didn't exist back then. There were a lot less viewing options for movies back then. You had to see it in the theatre. That was it.

DarkArtist81
08-11-2008, 06:29 PM
It's not really. Have you been reading the thread?

Depends on what list you are going off of. :lol

And SW has a leg up in the fact that it has be rereleased multiple times, with or without inflation.

I don't like the adjusted list, there are too many factors that change things. Number of theaters, ticket prices, the economic climate, technological advancements....

Lists are meant to evolve, so I like it as it is... nobody stays on top forever.

Bannister
08-11-2008, 06:31 PM
Depends on what list you are going off of. :lol

And SW has a leg up in the fact that it has be rereleased multiple times, with or without inflation.

I don't like the adjusted list, there are too many factors that change things. Number of theaters, ticket prices, the economic climate, technological advancements....

Lists are meant to evolve, so I like it as it is... nobody stays on top forever.

:lecture:lecture:lecture

scubasteve
08-11-2008, 06:42 PM
Depends on what list you are going off of. :lol

And SW has a leg up in the fact that it has be rereleased multiple times, with or without inflation.

I don't like the adjusted list, there are too many factors that change things. Number of theaters, ticket prices, the economic climate, technological advancements....

Lists are meant to evolve, so I like it as it is... nobody stays on top forever.

I agree. Eventually all these films will be toppled.

And yes, I read the thread, barbelith. Thank you for asking.

EVILFACE
08-11-2008, 07:39 PM
Depends on what list you are going off of. :lol

And SW has a leg up in the fact that it has be rereleased multiple times, with or without inflation.

I don't like the adjusted list, there are too many factors that change things. Number of theaters, ticket prices, the economic climate, technological advancements....

Lists are meant to evolve, so I like it as it is... nobody stays on top forever.

Bottom dollar amount is what matters now. And The Dark Knight is going to knock off Star Wars :banana

barbelith
08-11-2008, 08:11 PM
Depends on what list you are going off of.

The problem of course is that any list based solely on nominal box office is worse than meaningless. I say worse because we already know it's wrong. So what's the point?

Jaws opened on 400 screens. The Dark Knight opened on more than 9000 screens. Add in three decades of inflation and then pretend nominal box office tells us anything.

DarkArtist81
08-11-2008, 10:35 PM
The problem of course is that any list based solely on nominal box office is worse than meaningless. I say worse because we already know it's wrong. So what's the point?

Jaws opened on 400 screens. The Dark Knight opened on more than 9000 screens. Add in three decades of inflation and then pretend nominal box office tells us anything.

You also have to factor in the changes in culture and technology... that affects things a lot. People used to go see movies because it was the best they would ever get to see, and unedited. There was no DVD or even VHS back even further, no surround sound or huge HD screens at home that you could sit back and wait to see it later. Things have changed immensely since the Jaws days, no matter how you look at it.

To have a list that can factor in all the changes would be impossible. Unless you actually went back in time and released the top 20 films at the same time to the same time periods crowds.

To argue this point is even more pointless.... I think we can all agree that to measure old films vs. new films with 100% accuracy and 100% box office calculations... is insanity and cannot be done with full certainty.

Dusty
08-12-2008, 11:22 AM
I'm going on the record and stating I liked Narnia.

But I also like Labyrinth, Dark Crystal, Last Unicorn, Neverending Story and all those other fantasy films geared towards kids, so I guess I'm biased. But I draw the line at the spiderwick chronicles. :lol

Ah, I loved Spiderwick! Way more than the Narnia films. I adore the Narnia books, but these new films feel very... cold?... for me. There are some old BBC mini series adaptations from the 80s/90s that were MUCH better. Not the best of effects, but much more inviting into the story. I think the new ones went way too BIG for the story and lost all their appeal.

Spiderwick was good fun for what it was - I saw it on Imax and really enjoyed the heck out of it. I'll be buying it for the kid, but not the new Narnias.

Bannister
08-12-2008, 11:41 AM
Ah, I loved Spiderwick! Way more than the Narnia films. I adore the Narnia books, but these new films feel very... cold?... for me. There are some old BBC mini series adaptations from the 80s/90s that were MUCH better. Not the best of effects, but much more inviting into the story. I think the new ones went way too BIG for the story and lost all their appeal.

Spiderwick was good fun for what it was - I saw it on Imax and really enjoyed the heck out of it. I'll be buying it for the kid, but not the new Narnias.

I enjoyed the Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe, but I was pretty much bored while watching Prince Caspian. I definitely agree with your "cold" assessment.

Bannister
08-12-2008, 11:42 AM
You also have to factor in the changes in culture and technology... that affects things a lot. People used to go see movies because it was the best they would ever get to see, and unedited. There was no DVD or even VHS back even further, no surround sound or huge HD screens at home that you could sit back and wait to see it later. Things have changed immensely since the Jaws days, no matter how you look at it.

To have a list that can factor in all the changes would be impossible. Unless you actually went back in time and released the top 20 films at the same time to the same time periods crowds.

To argue this point is even more pointless.... I think we can all agree that to measure old films vs. new films with 100% accuracy and 100% box office calculations... is insanity and cannot be done with full certainty.

:lecture:lecture:lecture

Dusty
08-12-2008, 11:49 AM
And as for box office - basing it on dollars - or even popularity in the moment - is total BS. You can only do that for the current year, which is fine. But trying to compare the popularity of films that have been released 50+ years apart is ridiculous. Maybe if you combine total ticket NUMBERS (not dollars) with total number of DVDs and VHSs sold and rented over the years? No matter what though, I don't see many of the newer films becoming 'classics' and a huge part of our culture like Star Wars, Jaws, Gone With the Wind, etc. "Classic" to me has to do with the widest number of people seeing something, not the same people seeing it over and over and over and then having it lose it's 'crown' to the next big thing in 2 years or so.

For instance, Star Wars will always stand out to me as the most classic and successful of the classic films ever made for a few reasons (and I'm only talking about the ORIGINAL Star Wars here, forget everything else that's happened since then - and forget whether you're actually a SW fan or not :lol):

1) It's pure film. It was not a book, it was not a comic, it was not a part of culture at all - before the movie was released no one had any idea what the heck it was. IT HAD NO BUILT-IN AUDIENCE. It was a TOTAL risk, moreso than any other film. And now you would be VERY hard-pressed to find someone on the earth (within 100 miles of a TV or newspaper) that doesn't know who Darth Vader is... even if they HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE! Now, that's pretty amazing and no matter what we say about Lucas, we have to give him that - his combination of story-telling through film, his ingenious merchandising, and being smart with his IP is a case-study for success and I can't really see it ever being replicated to the same extent.

2) It's timeless. It's a story, like mythology and bible stories, that can be told in any culture, in any time, and still be relevant. Yeah, we may now laugh at some of the cheesy acting and effects, but overall, the story is pure and captivating. Movies like Wall-E, Iron Man, TDK rely heavily on the politics of the time. Yes, the superheroes themselves are timeless, but the stories told in these current films, and the way the characters are explored, are heavily reliant on the time in which they are released.

3) It explored brand new areas in the art of film-making - in both effects and cinematography. Yeah, the effects and cinematography in Iron Man and TDK are pretty amazing, but they're really nothing really new. They make you say, "OMFG, that's awesome! The suit looks so REAL!" but there is nothing in them that's a brand new experience like Star Wars was - for adults and kids alike. (The first time I felt that I was actually experiencing something new in cinema since Star Wars was during Jurassic Park, FOTR, and Titanic actually... but these were all books and/or well-known events before the film, so I don't really count them as classic 'films' as much as classic 'stories'.)

I also think ET is pretty classic and definitely belongs in the top-5 most popular movies of all time. Gone With the Wind... meh, that's one like Titanic... it's good, not great, but it definitely spoke very loudly to certain people - mainly women who love romance novels :lol

Lord Aykroyd
08-12-2008, 12:00 PM
Gone With the Wind... meh, that's one like Titanic... it's good, not great, but it definitely spoke very loudly to certain people - mainly women who love romance novels :lol

Oh snap! :lol:angelsmil:peace

wofford29
08-12-2008, 12:05 PM
No matter what though, I don't see many of the newer films becoming 'classics' and a huge part of our culture like Star Wars, Jaws, Gone With the Wind, etc. "

I think there's been a ton of films that will go down as 'classics.' Hell "There Will Be Blood" will end up being the "Citizen Kane" of our generation. "Lord of the Rings" is this generations "Star Wars." "The Dark Knight" is the male's "Titanic," and this generations "Superman 78" Not to mention the majority of Pixars movies which some of the olders are already being considered classics and no doubt in my mind their newer films like "The Incredibles" and "Wall*E" will be up high on the pedestal of the Disney greats of old. "No Country for Old Men," almost all of Pedro Almodovar's films. "Amores Perros" is already considered by many to be one of the best films over the past few decades and it's only 8 years old. Throw in movies like "Silence of the Lambs" and "Se7en" and "Pulp Fiction" and...awww hell there's way to many to list. Point is, I think we've seen more classics in the past decade than the previous generations ever saw.

Dusty
08-12-2008, 12:08 PM
Oh snap! :lol:angelsmil:peace

I'm a female, so I can say that :lol

Also, I can freely admit that I saw Titanic 3 times in the theaters and bawled every time, so I can definitely see why it made so much :rotfl To be fair, it also made me really interested in the history of the Titanic, so that's a plus and speaks well for a film when it makes you think of it outside the theater.

Dusty
08-12-2008, 12:22 PM
I think there's been a ton of films that will go down as 'classics.' Hell "There Will Be Blood" will end up being the "Citizen Kane" of our generation. "Lord of the Rings" is this generations "Star Wars." "The Dark Knight" is the male's "Titanic," and this generations "Superman 78" Not to mention the majority of Pixars movies which some of the olders are already being considered classics and no doubt in my mind their newer films like "The Incredibles" and "Wall*E" will be up high on the pedestal of the Disney greats of old. "No Country for Old Men," almost all of Pedro Almodovar's films. "Amores Perros" is already considered by many to be one of the best films over the past few decades and it's only 8 years old. Throw in movies like "Silence of the Lambs" and "Se7en" and awww hell there's way to many to list. Point is, I think we've seen more classics in the past decade than the previous generations ever saw.

My point is NOT popularity in the current time, but 'classic' - meaning, is it enduring? Will people (not film critics, but the general populace) in 30 years still know what you're talking about when you say "Amores Perros"? How do we know right now that they are "classics"? (this is NOT an argument about the *quality* of the films) If you can go up to someone on the street in 30 years and say the name of the film and spark a conversation about it, then yes, I will agree that it's a classic. We can guess and talk about it all we want, but no one will KNOW until time has passed.

For the record, I only see a few in your list that *I think* will pass the test of time on a grand scale like Jaws, Star Wars, etc. (again, meaning the majority of people will know what you're talking about when you mention it in 30 years): some Pixar films (the Toy Stories for sure), LOTR, and Silence of the Lambs

My only point of my previous post is that I think ANY film, no matter how critically 'good' it is, will have a hard time surpassing Star Wars (the ORIGINAL, not anything else) as a classic part of world culture. Like it or not, Star Wars is part of culture in a way that not many films have ever been or will be. Maybe another film will make more money in the current time, but that doesn't mean anything in the long run. It's the test of time that's the REAL test.

And another thing for the record, I COMPLETELY disagree about There Will Be Blood :lol :peace

EVILFACE
08-12-2008, 12:23 PM
Space Chimps is still outgunning X-Files 2. I don't recall chimps having a popular TV show . . .

Dusty
08-12-2008, 12:25 PM
Space Chimps is still outgunning X-Files 2. I don't recall chimps having a popular TV show . . .

Therefore, Space Chimps = Classic ;) :lol

Has anyone seen Space Chimps? I actually laughed in the previews :o

Poor X-Files :(

scubasteve
08-12-2008, 12:27 PM
Just face it everyone: TDK kicks your ass. Period. :lol

Is it more enjoyable than Star Wars, for me? Yes. Yes, it is.

Yep, I said it.

Does the fact that it will top SW in the BO mean that TDK will surpass SW in terms of "longevity" and take the title of "classic"? Absolutely not. It's just a good film. Damn good.

Lord Aykroyd
08-12-2008, 12:30 PM
Is it the movie that makes it 'part' of the culture or its marketing?

I dont think Star Wars would be as pervasive if Lucas hadn't also been the first to exploit merchandising.

Similarly for movies like ET. Even Casablanca was marketed more than its peers.

Maybe the movie itself has little to do with how it invades the public conscience.

EVILFACE
08-12-2008, 12:30 PM
Therefore, Space Chimps = Classic ;) :lol

Has anyone seen Space Chimps? I actually laughed in the previews :o

Poor X-Files :(

The female chimp looks like Michael Jackson :lol

wofford29
08-12-2008, 12:31 PM
And another thing for the record, I COMPLETELY disagree about There Will Be Blood :lol :peace

I'm not surprised.:monkey3

Dusty
08-12-2008, 12:51 PM
I'm not surprised.:monkey3

:lol Most of my 'film snob' buds agree with me - meaning they are somehow involved in the film industry, either as critics or as artists or as assistants (and I know more than a few). That movie is pretty overrated, IMHO. (yes, I did finally see it)

Here are my top 10 favorite films, for the record - so no one thinks that I ONLY like Star Wars, Iron Man, and Transformers :p (mostly these are simply films that I can watch over and over and over and still be just as entertained as the first time I saw them - and the order is negligible depending on my mood):

1) Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back (original)
2) The Shawshank Redemption
3) One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
4) Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
5) Pride and Prejudice (2005)
6) The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
7) Singin' in the Rain
8) Toy Story (both 1 & 2)
9) It's a Wonderful Life
10) Moulin Rouge

And Lord Akroyd, I totally agree about merchandising. That's why I included: "...no matter what we say about Lucas, we have to give him that - his combination of story-telling through film, his ingenious merchandising, and being smart with his IP is a case-study for success and I can't really see it ever being replicated to the same extent."

As far as that goes and as much as it may be true, if the story and film were not as appealing as they are, there's no way any amount of merchandising and marketing could get it to last over 30 years in the public conscious and get it nominated for an Academy Award. Just look at over-marketed and merchandised films such as Fantastic Four, The Hulk (2003), Speed Racer (again, NOT commenting on the *quality* of the film), etc, etc.

scubasteve
08-12-2008, 01:01 PM
:lol Most of my 'film snob' buds agree with me - meaning they are somehow involved in the film industry, either as critics or as artists or as assistants (and I know more than a few)

Really? That's surprising. Different tastes for different people, I guess.

TWBB is without a doubt in my top 5, possibly top 3, of '08.

wofford29
08-12-2008, 01:47 PM
:lol Most of my 'film snob' buds agree with me - meaning they are somehow involved in the film industry, either as critics or as artists or as assistants (and I know more than a few). That movie is pretty overrated, IMHO. (yes, I did finally see it)




It's all good. Different strokes. For every 100 film snobs that get it, there's always 1 who prefers The Mummy 3. :chase :D

wofford29
08-12-2008, 01:52 PM
By the way. I've got two words for the Star Wars "classic crusaders."





























ANNIE HALL

:lol:horror:lol

Oh snap!

barbelith
08-12-2008, 02:48 PM
Poor X-Files

Actually The X-Files has made a decent profit.

Dusty
08-12-2008, 05:07 PM
Actually The X-Files has made a decent profit.

Are we looking at the same X-Files movie? The new one, right? It's only made 2/3rds of it's budget back, and it's not even in the top 10 anymore after only 2 1/2 weeks in theaters. Pretty sure it has no chance of making ANY profit in theaters. MAYBE after rentals and DVD sales, but it will be miniscule.

Does anyone know if production budget also includes marketing costs? Because there were a ton of huge ads for it in downtown LA and West LA, which can't be cheap.

Again, poor X-Files. It was a great show up until the final few seasons.

Dusty
08-12-2008, 05:08 PM
ANNIE HALL

:lol:horror:lol

Oh snap!

:mwaha

Burned.

Because Annie Hall is so much more of an enduring classic that spans generations... :p

wofford29
08-12-2008, 05:16 PM
http://i38.tinypic.com/2rwrn20.jpg

:survivor

IrishJedi
08-12-2008, 05:18 PM
Oscars prove even less than Heisman Trophies.

wofford29
08-12-2008, 05:22 PM
Oscars prove even less than Heisman Trophies.

:violin:violin:violin

Dusty
08-12-2008, 05:24 PM
Oscars prove even less than Heisman Trophies.

:lol :rotfl

Agreed. In fact, I'd argue that box office even proves more than Oscars. At least if you have a really high box office that means you hit home with millions of people, rather than just a handful of film snobs ;)

Man, I love this stuff!

wofford29
08-12-2008, 05:33 PM
:lol :rotfl

Agreed. In fact, I'd argue that box office even proves more than Oscars. At least if you have a really high box office that means you hit home with millions of people, rather than just a handful of film snobs ;)

Man, I love this stuff!

Oscars certainly mean something, although its meaning is nothing important. I however take pride in the fact that I don't find enjoyment in the majority of the crap that hits theaters these days. I'd actually consider taking out a student loan to go back to school again if I watched a movie like The Mummy 3 and enjoyed it.

barbelith
08-12-2008, 05:36 PM
Are we looking at the same X-Files movie? The new one, right? It's only made 2/3rds of it's budget back, and it's not even in the top 10 anymore after only 2 1/2 weeks in theaters. Pretty sure it has no chance of making ANY profit in theaters.

Actually it's already made $51.3 million globally, which is a decent return even if its theatrical run ended today. Studios don't expect blockbuster numbers without blockbuster budgets anyway.


Does anyone know if production budget also includes marketing costs? Because there were a ton of huge ads for it in downtown LA and West LA, which can't be cheap.

Its marketing budget was virtually nil by Hollywood standards.

King Darkness
08-12-2008, 05:38 PM
Oscars prove even less than Heisman Trophies.


:lecture :lecture

When Gump beat out Shawshank for best picture, I decided then and there that the Oscars are a sham.

Dusty
08-12-2008, 05:47 PM
Oscars certainly mean something, although its meaning is nothing important. I however take pride in the fact that I don't find enjoyment in the majority of the crap that hits theaters these days. I'd actually consider taking out a student loan to go back to school again if I watched a movie like The Mummy 3 and enjoyed it.

Wow, but you like the new Apatow stuff? :confused: Like you said earlier, different strokes - because I feel the same way about some of those :)

The thing about films like The Mummy 3 and Transformers is that they're not trying to be something that they aren't. They're not trying to be Oscar winners - they're trying to be crowd-pleasers. And if they succeed at that, well, more power to them. Everyone needs to escape from life now and then in a dark theater with huge effects and sound. If all movies were like There Will Be Blood, or No Country for Old Men (which I like a lot, for the record), well, that would be pretty depressing.

It almost comes down to 'rental VS big screen' for me. Movies like The Mummy and Transformers and Iron Man = big screen or not really worth it. Movies like The Orphanage (awesome flick!) and Juno (another awesome one) and traditional Oscar fodder = rental because you don't need crazy speakers and a big screen to enjoy them. There is a place for both.

Therefore, nothing is really proved by box office with regards to a film's 'classic' status, just as nothing is really proved by Oscars. The only real measure of 'classicness', that I can see, is whether a whole new generation will know and be able to discuss the plotline 30+ years from now.

What's interesting about TDK - and it'll be cool to see if it works - is that it's trying to be something above and beyond itself. Traditionally, superheroes aren't Oscar winners. If it bridges that gap, it will be a bold statement. If it doesn't - oh well, at least the crowds of 2008 loved it! :rock

Just a question... did you like Indy 4? Because it's basically one of The Mummy films with the Indy name attached... ;)

wofford29
08-12-2008, 05:58 PM
Wow, but you like the new Apatow stuff? :confused: Like you said earlier, different strokes - because I feel the same way about some of those :)

Some of his recent stuff.

The thing about films like The Mummy 3 and Transformers is that they're not trying to be something that they aren't. They're not trying to be Oscar winners - they're trying to be crowd-pleasers. And if they succeed at that, well, more power to them. Everyone needs to escape from life now and then in a dark theater with huge effects and sound. If all movies were like There Will Be Blood, or No Country for Old Men (which I like a lot, for the record), well, that would be pretty depressing.

I guess what's crowd pleasing to you and I will remain at opposite ends. I get far more enjoyment out of a movie I don't have to induce a comma before I go in to see it.:medic

It almost comes down to 'rental VS big screen' for me. Movies like The Mummy and Transformers and Iron Man = big screen or not really worth it. Movies like The Orphanage (awesome flick!) and Juno (another awesome one) and traditional Oscar fodder = rental because you don't need crazy speakers and a big screen to enjoy them. There is a place for both.

I'm spoiled with my own home theater, which unfortunately means I don't make into theaters to often. It's all the same for me.

What's interesting about TDK - and it'll be cool to see if it works - is that it's trying to be something above and beyond itself. Traditionally, superheroes aren't Oscar winners. If it bridges that gap, it will be a bold statement. If it doesn't - oh well, at least the crowds loved it! :rock

"I find your lack of faith disturbing":vader

Just a question... did you like Indy 4? Because it's basically one of The Mummy films with the Indy name attached... ;)

Didn't go see it. Waiting for the Bluray. Although comparing a movie with Brenden Fraiser at the lead, who's arguably the worst actor of all time against Harrison Ford makes me a sad panda.:monkey2

Dusty
08-12-2008, 06:05 PM
Didn't go see it. Waiting for the Bluray. Although comparing a movie with Brenden Fraiser at the lead, who's arguably the worst actor of all time against Harrison Ford makes me a sad panda.:monkey2

Aw, come-on now, Brendan Fraser is awesome in Airheads :p And don't forget George of the Jungle and Encino Man :) It's just when he opens his mouth to form actual sentences that he gets in trouble :lol

I'm more comparing the plot than anything else. Although the acting is pretty stilted in Indy 4.

Worst actor in my book goes to Ben Affleck.

And no, I have no faith in the Oscars - either the nominating or the actual winners. Although they won back a tiny bit of my faith after ROTK won, and Depp was nominated for playing Captain Jack.

(can you tell that I'm procrastinating from actually working today :monkey3 :o)

tomandshell
08-12-2008, 06:08 PM
(can you tell that I'm procrastinating from actually working today :monkey3 :o)

Speaking of which, my boss and I skipped work this afternoon so I could take him to see The Dark Knight for the first time.

wofford29
08-12-2008, 06:09 PM
Aw, come-on now, Brendan Fraser is awesome in Airheads :p And don't forget George of the Jungle and Encino Man :) It's just when he opens his mouth to form actual sentences that he gets in trouble :lol

I'm more comparing the plot than anything else. Although the acting is pretty stilted in Indy 4.

Worst actor in my book goes to Ben Affleck.

(can you tell that I'm procrastinating from actually working today :monkey3 :o)

It's been fun though. You're a nice change of pace from the typical sausages in here.:monkey1:banana:monkey1

I actually like a lot of the stuff I'm poking fun of, I just don't prefer it. It's just more fun to stoke the fire.:D

wofford29
08-12-2008, 06:10 PM
Speaking of which, my boss and I skipped work this afternoon so I could take him to see The Dark Knight for the first time.

Can I email you my resume.

tomandshell
08-12-2008, 06:13 PM
Do you really want to work for someone who waits almost a month to see The Dark Knight?

:D

Dusty
08-12-2008, 06:13 PM
It's been fun though. You're a nice change of pace from the typical sausages in here.:monkey1:banana:monkey1

I actually like a lot of the stuff I'm poking fun of, I just don't prefer it. It's just more fun to stoke the fire.:D

:mwaha

It's fun, like I said I love this stuff... probably TOO much :lol

But now, I really do have to go back to work... don't rub it in Tom!

tomandshell
08-12-2008, 06:14 PM
:mwaha

It's fun, like I said I love this stuff... probably TOO much :lol

But now, I really do have to go back to work... don't rub it in Tom!

Aww, come on, Dusty, don't leave yet--hang out here long enough, and you'll be convinced that X-Files 2 was a hit!!!

wofford29
08-12-2008, 06:15 PM
Do you really want to work for someone who waits almost a month to see The Dark Knight?

:D

Touche. Tell him I quit.

tomandshell
08-12-2008, 06:16 PM
Touche. Tell him I quit.

I have been instructed to offer you a generous severance package.

wofford29
08-12-2008, 06:16 PM
Aww, come on, Dusty, don't leave yet--hang out here long enough, and you'll be convinced that X-Files 2 was a hit!!!

Wofford29's nugget of the day. I've never seen one episode of X-files.

wofford29
08-12-2008, 06:17 PM
I have been instructed to offer you a generous severance package.

I'm sorry but I'd prefer to not have my package severed.

barbelith
08-12-2008, 06:49 PM
Aww, come on, Dusty, don't leave yet--hang out here long enough, and you'll be convinced that X-Files 2 was a hit!!!

Who called it a hit? It's just a small movie that made a small profit. Math don't lie. ;)

tomandshell
08-12-2008, 08:26 PM
That was a tongue in cheek comment, lol. The film has already proven to be profitable.