5punk

Dog Pants wrote:That's a good point actually. If the cinemas can offer something that people can't get at home then it stands to get more people watching the big screens. However, I'd like to see films that will also be worth watching at home regardless.

Fix'd.

I seem to remember that movies tend to make more from DVD sales, than they do from the cinema (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong)

In which case, I'd assume that massive budget tech demo movies aren't the best route for studios to take. I'm sure avatar will sell well on DVD, but I'd bet that in future they'll need a lot more than "it's a ride" to sell the movie.

Dr. kitteny berk wrote:I'd assume that massive budget tech demo movies aren't the best route for studios to take.

Considering the film cost $240 million ish to make and has already grossed almost $1.5 billion, I can see the studios disagreeing with you there. Rightly or wrongly, stick a big name and a shitload of fancy new effects on a film, and the story is rendered almost moot as far as cash is concerned, and cash is all the studios are concerned with.

Compare that to Shawshank, a film that im sure most would agree had a good story: cost $25 mill, grossed $28 mill. Its a sad state of affairs, but decent story doesn't sell as well as fancy shiny things.

Dr. kitteny berk wrote:I seem to remember that movies tend to make more from DVD sales, than they do from the cinema (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong)

Not sure if a specific movie makes more from DVD than cinemas, but I do know that last year cinemas in general made more money than DVD sales (in America at least). They had a thing on the BBC news website about it last week, funnily enough.

It was the first time that's been the case since 2002 mind.

Does DVD include BluRay in that poll?

1.5 billion I thought they were joking when I heard billion on TV.

Plus, now James Cameron has top 2 grossers evar!

Rank Title Worldwide Box Office
1. Titanic (1997) $1,835,300,000
2. Avatar (2009) $1,356,667,005

The rest of the LIST

They really should figure in inflation to get a true listing.

Anyways, out of the top 50, which one should give everyone their money back?

I vote for Indiana Jones and the Crystal Numbskulls...


Fine Print:
All amounts are in USA dollars and only include theatrical box office receipts (movie ticket sales) and do not include video rentals, television rights and other revenues. Totals may include theatrical re-release receipts. Figures are not adjusted for inflation.

Some movies may still be in general release; all figures are estimated and subject to change.

Jesus, there's a lot to choose from there

From an objective point of view I'd say the highest rating movie in the list that people generally seemed less satisfied with was Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. I liked the surreal purgatory scene though, even more than I hated Keira Knightly. The first film in there that I've seen all the way through and hated was Jurassic Park. I can't even remember why any more. Something to do with the hype and an annoying kid.

Both the kids are really annoying in that.

I do like the guy with the shotgun stalking the raptor though.

Clever girls

Really...you didn't like the original Jurassic Park, Pants? I don't remember the hype but I'm sure it was there.

I do agree with you on World's End though...but I actually paid to go see the Indy movie so that's why I picked that one...

MORDETH LESTOK wrote:They really should figure in inflation to get a true listing.

Well, adjusting for inflation, Jurassic Park, Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi would beat Avatar, with Jaws just beating Titanic and Star Wars A New Hope nearly double its gross.

The older ones like Bambi and Gone With The Wind blow even that away though, making roughly $4 billion and $7 billion respectively in today's money.

Joose wrote:
Considering the film cost $240 million ish to make and has already grossed almost $1.5 billion, I can see the studios disagreeing with you there. Rightly or wrongly, stick a big name and a shitload of fancy new effects on a film, and the story is rendered almost moot as far as cash is concerned, and cash is all the studios are concerned with.

Compare that to Shawshank, a film that im sure most would agree had a good story: cost $25 mill, grossed $28 mill. Its a sad state of affairs, but decent story doesn't sell as well as fancy shiny things.

Am not sure this logic actually works.

For every Avatar there's a 'Water World'. It's not just throwing a big pile of money into a bunch of studios and having a big budget pile of awesome fall out the butt end of it ...

They need to have all the right contacts lined up. ILM actually has too many clients just now - they reject more work than they take on. Getting the right director, VFX supe, and artists will always be at the forefront of these films making money. Plus there's the Robert Rodriguez factor. For every Avatar there's some random indie monster that makes 80 million out of 5.

There's just far too many factors to suggest what you're saying adds up. Plus I think you'll find studios aren't *just* interested in money. A lot of the studios are interested in being viewed a certain way, and a good number of them are started by directors and actors themselves to fill something they feel is artistically missing from the work place.

A lot of artists also work off points rather than wages. The whole myth that all studios are only interested in money is pretty offensive to some of the artists involved. These are talented ass people that tooth and clawed their way from the bottom up to make the kinds of films they want to make.

Am not having a personal dig though really! I think a lot of people have blaise assumptions about industries they're not a part of. And am not saying it's not about money at all ... but it's just not that simple.

MORDETH LESTOK wrote:Really...you didn't like the original Jurassic Park, Pants? I don't remember the hype but I'm sure it was there.

I do agree with you on World's End though...but I actually paid to go see the Indy movie so that's why I picked that one...

I think I was in my early teens when it came out and it was the first film that I remember being hyped all to hell before disappointing me. Like I said, I can't even remember why I don't like it other than hype, so if I were to watch it again I might find it's quite good. I did like most of World's End, but it seems a lot of the public didn't after watching it. I've never seen Crystal Skull.

World's End just went on for far too long. Loved the original though.

Never seen Crystal Skull either.

Ignoring all the big franchises from that list, and the ones that have a "name" to pull people in, there is one film that sticks out like a sore thumb: Twister. It was an awful film!

I only ever saw Twister on TV. I didn't think it was a bad film, but I never saw the hype for it and didn't expect it to be brilliant. Also, it has Bill Paxton in it.

Jurassic Park blew me away and I still love the scene where you first see the diplodocus. With the music and all. Like the Matrix I think it appeals to the child in you. The Matrix tells you you're special and you have magical powers, Jurassic Park tells you dinosaurs are real, kids love dinosaurs.

Crystal Skull should only be viewed out of morbid curiosity.

On a slight tangent, I'm going to buy myself District 9 I think today, since I didn't get it for Christmas and I like the look of it. I hate buying just one DVD though, so what else should I buy?

I was considering Terminator Salvation for the hypocritical reason that I want to see lots of robots and fighting, but if it's going to give me the rage I won't bother. I was always of the opinion that everyone knows the Terminator storyline well enough that they can just concentrate on cool fight scenes, especially since I saw the future-flashbacks in the other films and though "I want to see more of that stuff!".

I wouldn't pay any money for Terminator 4. Hellboy 2 is on sale at Play, that's quite good.