Box Office Weekend (8/8-8/10) - Batman vs. Pineapple Express

[Goldberg74]

It's gonna be close...

1 Pineapple Express $7,845,000
2 The Dark Knight $7,525,000
3 The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor $4,820,000
4 Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2 $3,925,000
5 Step Brothers $2,725,000
6 Mamma Mia! $2,455,000
7 Journey to the Center of the Earth $1,380,000
8 Hancock $1,010,000
9 Swing Vote $930,000
10 WALL-E $905,000

[TheMovieman]

Deadline Hollywood:

SATURDAY PM: Studio sources tell me that very early domestic numbers show that Warner Bros' The Dark Knight won its 4th straight weekend after taking in $26 million, compared to No. 2, Sony's Pineapple Express with $22 million. The Batman installment's easy win was fueled by Saturday's +37% gross compared to Friday's, while the Judd Apatow/Seth Rogen stoner comedy fell -6% from Friday to Saturday. Full report on Sunday...

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/dark-knight-26m-vs-pineapple-express-22m/

[BullGooseLoony]

For some reason, I'm still expecting Pineapple Express to take the weekend. It's just so close, though it did have a pretty steep drop after the wednesday opening.

[TheMovieman]

^ You also have to look at the increase from Thursday-Friday. PE was up 31.9%, TDK 60.5%. That's pretty telling that PE was fairly front-loaded and continued from Friday-Saturday as well...

[BullGooseLoony]

Well, that is good news. Don't get me wrong, nothing would make me happier than to see TDK rule weekend for FOUR weekends straight, I just have to assume something is going to take it down soon enough, even if it just is for a margin.

But if those numbers hold, then yeah, TDK definitely wins Saturday and Sunday.

[TheMovieman]

Well, next week most likely both TT and Star Wars will overtake TDK. I see TDK making around $16m, so those movies should be able to easily make more than that...

[stingermck]

1 THE DARK KNIGHT 26.03
2 PINEAPPLE EXPRESS 22.40
3 THE MUMMY:TOMB OF THE DRAGON.. 16.11
4 SISTERHOOD OF THE TRAVELING..2 10.77
5 STEP BROTHERS 8.90
6 MAMMA MIA! 8.08
7 JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE.. 4.86
8 HANCOCK 3.30
9 SWING VOTE 3.11
10 WALL-E 3.04

Woo TDK!

[sauce07]

Tropic Thunder is going to be big, not huge, but big. I'm seeing like a 50 mil weekend. Star Wars I think will only do like 25 mil. So in other words, 4 weekends is it for Dark Knight, it had a good run.

Pineapple Express was front loaded with stoners but a lot of people in my office were talking about it, like 50 year olds. Hopefully it brings in audiences for a few weeks.

[DonnachaOne]

A movie is number one for four straight weeks. In summer. Thanks to repeat viewings. It really is 1989 again, isn't it?

[TheMovieman]

Tropic Thunder is going to be big, not huge, but big. I'm seeing like a 50 mil weekend. Star Wars I think will only do like 25 mil. So in other words, 4 weekends is it for Dark Knight, it had a good run.

Pineapple Express was front loaded with stoners but a lot of people in my office were talking about it, like 50 year olds. Hopefully it brings in audiences for a few weeks.

So you think TT is going to make $50m in its 3-day weekend? Remember, it also opens on a Wednesday like PE did...

[fumanstan]

For some reason, I'm still expecting Pineapple Express to take the weekend. It's just so close, though it did have a pretty steep drop after the wednesday opening.

4 million difference for the weekend isn't that close. I can't imagine a variance of more then 1 or 2 mil.

[RichC2]

4 million difference for the weekend isn't that close. I can't imagine a variance of more then 1 or 2 mil.

That was posted before the final estimates were out.

[Brent L]

From BOM:

1 1 The Dark Knight WB $26,030,000 -39.0% 4,025 -241 $6,467 $441,541,000 $185 4
2 N Pineapple Express Sony $22,400,000 - 3,072 - $7,291 $40,474,000 $27 1
3 2 The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor Uni. $16,113,000 -60.2% 3,778 +18 $4,264 $70,671,000 $145 2
4 N The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2 WB $10,770,000 - 2,707 - $3,978 $19,712,000 $27 1
5 3 Step Brothers Sony $8,900,000 -46.1% 3,182 +88 $2,796 $80,903,000 $65 3
6 4 Mamma Mia! Uni. $8,081,000 -35.9% 3,194 +132 $2,530 $104,017,000 $52 4
7 5 Journey to the Center of the Earth WB (NL) $4,855,000 -27.1% 1,970 -315 $2,464 $81,759,000 $60 5
8 7 Hancock Sony $3,300,000 -35.1% 2,258 -524 $1,461 $221,709,000 $150 6
9 6 Swing Vote BV $3,106,000 -50.1% 2,213 - $1,403 $12,002,000 $21 2
10 8 Wall-E BV $3,045,000 -33.9% 2,144 -411 $1,420 $210,112,000 $180 7
11 10 Space Chimps Fox $1,650,000 -39.3% 1,631 -503 $1,011 $25,447,000 $37 4

[Mr. Cinema]

I wonder what the numbers would have been like if The Dark Knight wasn't playing at 1,000 more theaters than Pineapple Express.

[Shannon Nutt]

TDK is less than $160 million away from Titanic's domestic record, and it hasn't even been in theaters a month yet. I wouldn't be surprised if fan-boy "desire" to overthrow Titanic might get it to that magic $600 million number.

[trespoochies]

Perhaps, but Warner doesn't seem to expect that. From comingsoon.net

"If the estimate holds, then the Christopher Nolan-directed film has surpassed Shrek 2 ($441.226 million) to climb to the third spot on the all-time domestic blockbuster list, trailing just Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope ($460.998 million) and Titanic ($600.788 million). Warner Bros. Pictures said it expects "Dark Knight" to end up with about $520 million domestically. The movie cost $185 million to make."

[Trevor]

TDK is less than $160 million away from Titanic's domestic record, and it hasn't even been in theaters a month yet. I wouldn't be surprised if fan-boy "desire" to overthrow Titanic might get it to that magic $600 million number.
I guessing that it is losing steam and will maybe barely top $500 million.

Even combined they won't touch Gone With the Wind's 1.2 billion.







:) Adjusted for inflation of course.

[TheMovieman]

Perhaps, but Warner doesn't seem to expect that. From comingsoon.net

"If the estimate holds, then the Christopher Nolan-directed film has surpassed Shrek 2 ($441.226 million) to climb to the third spot on the all-time domestic blockbuster list, trailing just Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope ($460.998 million) and Titanic ($600.788 million). Warner Bros. Pictures said it expects "Dark Knight" to end up with about $520 million domestically. The movie cost $185 million to make."

Well, WB was underestimating TDK's OW ;)

But short of a big re-release for the Oscars (and it would have to be outside of just Ledger in terms of Oscar buzz), this will have a tough time getting to $600m. VERY tough.

[BullGooseLoony]

I kind of see it topping out at around $530 million. Even though it's made a ton, it is still making less and less, something that Titantic didn't start off doing. Unless they have a small re-release in the fall, it just isn't possible. As I've said before, as soon as summer ends and people (kids, teens, and college students), the numbers will drop more steeply.

[chris_sc77]

Besides even if Dark Knight crossed $600 million and overtook Titanic for the #1 spot James Cameron (and his ego) would immediately re-release it out of spite until Titanic ends up at no. 1.

[TheMovieman]

As I've said before, as soon as summer ends and people (kids, teens, and college students), the numbers will drop more steeply.

Well, actually the weekday drops will be more harsh, but weekends could still be strong. But I think it will top around $520m or so... I certainly hope there won't be people disappointed if it doesn't reach $600m because nobody saw this coming earlier this year (in fact, if someone said a movie was going to make over $450m, let alone $500m, they would've said Indiana Jones 4).

[starman9000]

I don't have an Imax around here, so I don't know how those theater's work, but how long will TDK stay in those?

[cartman]

I don't have an Imax around here, so I don't know how those theater's work, but how long will TDK stay in those?

Until at least September 26 when "Eagle Eye" is set to release on Imax. It wouldn't surprise me if EE doesn't do too well, they put TDK back on a couple weeks later. After that, November 7 is Madagascar 2 and November 21 is Harry Potter.

[jaeufraser]

I guessing that it is losing steam and will maybe barely top $500 million.

Even combined they won't touch Gone With the Wind's 1.2 billion.

:) Adjusted for inflation of course.

But...Titanic adjusted for inflation is close to $900M...and $900 + $520 is, last I checked, greater than 1.2 billion. That's of course ignoring international box office, where Titanic made so much god damn money the puny $600M domestic take starts to look small.

[Trevor]

But...Titanic adjusted for inflation is close to $900M...and $900 + $520 is, last I checked, greater than 1.2 billion.

No, math was different back in 1939.

:)

[wm lopez]

A movie is number one for four straight weeks. In summer. Thanks to repeat viewings. It really is 1989 again, isn't it?
Except this movie lived up to the hype.

[wm lopez]

TDK is less than $160 million away from Titanic's domestic record, and it hasn't even been in theaters a month yet. I wouldn't be surprised if fan-boy "desire" to overthrow Titanic might get it to that magic $600 million number. Are fan-boys that ...... I won't even say it.

[Goldberg74]

I wonder what the numbers would have been like if The Dark Knight wasn't playing at 1,000 more theaters than Pineapple Express.
That's what I said last week about Mummy III and TDK.

[movieguru]

TDK is less than $160 million away from Titanic's domestic record, and it hasn't even been in theaters a month yet. I wouldn't be surprised if fan-boy "desire" to overthrow Titanic might get it to that magic $600 million number.

I think TDK will hold up quite well. By next Friday it should surpass Star Wars and take the number 2 position on the unadjusted chart. By the end of that weekend it will be aroung $478 mil. the SW cartoon may take #1 next weekend and TDK will be close to being tied with TT but still should be #2.

It may not get to $600 but it sould come close in the neighborhood of at least $550 mil. It could stay in IMAX longer and it may likely get rereleased around Oscar time. I think it has a slight chance of reaching titanic levels.

[bwvanh114]

Has anyone considered that the Olympics may take a bit of steam away from TDK?

If I have to choose between seeing TDK again or watching the US Men's 4x100 free relay fall behind the french by nearly a body length on the last 50m against the world record holder and still somehow close the gap and break the world record by 4 seconds bringing home the gold, I'll choose the olympics.

[movieguru]

Has anyone considered that the Olympics may take a bit of steam away from TDK?

If I have to choose between seeing TDK again or watching the US Men's 4x100 free relay fall behind the french by nearly a body length on the last 50m against the world record holder and still somehow close the gap and break the world record by 4 seconds bringing home the gold, I'll choose the olympics.

The Olympics are quite boring and have been losing ratings each year for some time. Who really wants to watch people swim back and fourth in a pool over and over again?

[Patman]

Uh, TDK's weekend take (estimated) was off by only 39% from last weekend, that is outstanding legs for the film's 4th weekend. The Olympics are a non-factor for TDK's box office performance this weekend.

[tucker]

Has anyone considered that the Olympics may take a bit of steam away from TDK?

If I have to choose between seeing TDK again or watching the US Men's 4x100 free relay fall behind the french by nearly a body length on the last 50m against the world record holder and still somehow close the gap and break the world record by 4 seconds bringing home the gold, I'll choose the olympics.


sorry i dvr the olympics.

watching the tdk several times is more historical.

[Michael Corvin]

Besides even if Dark Knight crossed $600 million and overtook Titanic for the #1 spot James Cameron (and his ego) would immediately re-release it out of spite until Titanic ends up at no. 1.

I don't see him doing it out of spite, but I've always assumed a Titanic re-release was in the cards. I can see him going the 3D / IMAX route.

[Seantn]

Yes, I'm sure James Cameron would be really sad and would be wiping away his tears with hundred dollar bills. Honestly, I think that these days the movie fans appear to be more obsessed with box office figures than the people who actually worked on the films.

[benedict]

It sometimes looks that way, Seantn.

I wonder if inflation-adjusted figures mean just standard inflation....

Maybe they should be looking at ticket-price inflation, then factor in relative population sizes at each time, how many cinema seats were available then and now, and perhaps a further adjustment for the number of films on release at the same time then and now i.e. if they only had a handful of films on release then, the narrow market itself might be a distortion. Furthermore, there's the fact that you may have had repeat viewings back then because there was less to see on television. And some people holding back seeing it again these days because they know they can soon watch the DVD/BD on their home cinema system. Not to mention the relative production cost of films then and now.

What a can of worms! [;)]

[grim_tales]

I think TDK will make $500m easy but maybe not $600m.

[kefrank]

I wonder what the numbers would have been like if The Dark Knight wasn't playing at 1,000 more theaters than Pineapple Express.
In my opinion, it really doesn't matter. The Dark Knight is in more theaters because of its popularity and isn't that what box office numbers are measuring anyway?

[TheMovieman]

It sometimes looks that way, Seantn.

Maybe they should be looking at ticket-price inflation, then factor in relative population sizes at each time, how many cinema seats were available then and now, and perhaps a further adjustment for the number of films on release at the same time then and now i.e. if they only had a handful of films on release then, the narrow market itself might be a distortion. Furthermore, there's the fact that you may have had repeat viewings back then because there was less to see on television. And some people holding back seeing it again these days because they know they can soon watch the DVD/BD on their home cinema system. Not to mention the relative production cost of films then and now.

What a can of worms! [;)]

This is how they figure out the adjusted numbers:

Take the gross of the movie you're looking at and divide it by the ticket price of the release year. That number represents the number of tickets sold. Now, take the number of tickets sold and multiply it by the average ticket price today (2008 isn't out yet, but 2007 was $6.88). http://www.natoonline.org/statisticstickets.htm

So for Titanic it would be:
$600,788,188 / $4.59 = 130,890,672
130,890,672 * $6.88 = $900,527,828

If it were standard inflation it would be: $786,561,558

[Patman]

But when people do all these calculations, the one thing that is missing is the demand elasticity of the ticket price, then and now.

It's fine to say that Titanic garnered 130.89 million tickets sold at an average price of $4.59, but would Titanic still garner the same amount of tickets sold at the higher price of $6.88? No one knows.

[TheMovieman]

But when people do all these calculations, the one thing that is missing is the demand elasticity of the ticket price, then and now.

It's fine to say that Titanic garnered 130.89 million tickets sold at an average price of $4.59, but would Titanic still garner the same amount of tickets sold at the higher price of $6.88? No one knows.

Yeah, I know. And I highly doubt it would. So that's the best we can do. Personally, I think using adjusted numbers are overused. Would Gone with the Wind make over $1 BILLION if it were released today? Of course not.

[Giles]

I don't see him doing it out of spite, but I've always assumed a Titanic re-release was in the cards. I can see him going the 3D / IMAX route.

I see him going the 3D/IMAX route as much as a extended cut theatrical release. (uh, I don't see it)

[Hokeyboy]

Besides even if Dark Knight crossed $600 million and overtook Titanic for the #1 spot James Cameron (and his ego) would immediately re-release it out of spite until Titanic ends up at no. 1.
I love how fanboys assume everyone in the world is as emotionally shallow and oversensitive as they are. :lol:

[Seantn]

But when people do all these calculations, the one thing that is missing is the demand elasticity of the ticket price, then and now.

It's fine to say that Titanic garnered 130.89 million tickets sold at an average price of $4.59, but would Titanic still garner the same amount of tickets sold at the higher price of $6.88? No one knows.

Yes, it would. Never underestimate the power of teenage girls.

[Trevor]

Yeah, I know. And I highly doubt it would. So that's the best we can do. Personally, I think using adjusted numbers are overused. Would Gone with the Wind make over $1 BILLION if it were released today? Of course not.

Perhaps a better way to compare films would be # of tickets sold / population at that year?

[RoboDad]

Yeah, I know. And I highly doubt it would. So that's the best we can do. Personally, I think using adjusted numbers are overused. Would Gone with the Wind make over $1 BILLION if it were released today? Of course not.
I think, perhaps, that you may not fully understand the purpose of publishing adjusted numbers. It isn't intended to posit the notion that a film from a bygone era would have made X dollars if it were released today, any more than it is intended to say that a contemporary film would have made X dollars, had it been released in that bygone era. Would Gone with the Wind have made over a billion dollars if it were released today? Probably not. But then, it was written, produced and directed by 1930's artists for 1930's audiences. Would The Dark Knight have earned $200 million if it had been released in 1939? Not a chance.

The purpose of adjusted numbers is to provide perspective and context with regard to the relative success and popularity of films from different eras. By showing that Gone with the Wind has an adjusted domestic gross of $1.4 billion, it reminds us that many, many more people went to see that film in theaters than have seen The Dark Knight, despite a much smaller population, difficult economic times, significantly fewer available venues, and no internet to fan the flames of fanboy love.

The Dark Knight is an unqualified success. No one disputes that. It has far exceeded any predictions or expectations prior to its release, both critically and financially. But to claim that Gone with the Wind was somehow less successful in its day is absurd.

[TheMovieman]

I think, perhaps, that you may not fully understand the purpose of publishing adjusted numbers. It isn't intended to posit the notion that a film from a bygone era would have made X dollars if it were released today, any more than it is intended to say that a contemporary film would have made X dollars, had it been released in that bygone era. Would Gone with the Wind have made over a billion dollars if it were released today? Probably not. But then, it was written, produced and directed by 1930's artists for 1930's audiences. Would The Dark Knight have earned $200 million if it had been released in 1939? Not a chance.

The purpose of adjusted numbers is to provide perspective and context with regard to the relative success and popularity of films from different eras. By showing that Gone with the Wind has an adjusted domestic gross of $1.4 billion, it reminds us that many, many more people went to see that film in theaters than have seen The Dark Knight, despite a much smaller population, difficult economic times, significantly fewer available venues, and no internet to fan the flames of fanboy love.

The Dark Knight is an unqualified success. No one disputes that. It has far exceeded any predictions or expectations prior to its release, both critically and financially. But to claim that Gone with the Wind was somehow less successful in its day is absurd.

Oh I know the purpose but some people don't use it that way. And did I say Gone with the Wind was less successful in its day? I merely stated that it would not make $1 Billion if it were released today. I can't see any movie doing that unless ticket prices get really high, but with the advanement of home theaters, there has to be a ceiling, right?

[JPRaup]

Would The Dark Knight have earned $200 million if it had been released in 1939? Not a chance.

Are you kidding? If The Dark Knight was released in 1939 it would have made billions dollars because of its technical advances. IMAX in 1939 would be a pretty big draw.

[TheMovieman]

Perhaps a better way to compare films would be # of tickets sold / population at that year?

I definitely think the population would and should be a factor.

Listen, I don't have a problem using adjusted numbers but the way some use it in other ways that draw the question of whether a movie released today would actually make that adjusted amount.

[RoboDad]

Oh I know the purpose but some people don't use it that way. And did I say Gone with the Wind was less successful in its day?
If that isn't what you meant then I apologize. I (mis)interpreted your assertion that it could not have made over a billion dollars today as an implication that the only reason it made as much as it did was because of cheaper ticket prices.

[Trevor]

Dark Knight would have made virtually no money in 1939. The public would not have enjoyed the subject matter.

[KillerCannibal]

^ Yea, crime films weren't much of a draw in those days...

[RoboDad]

Are you kidding? If The Dark Knight was released in 1939 it would have made billions dollars because of its technical advances. IMAX in 1939 would be a pretty big draw.
No, I'm not kidding. That is my opinion. Of course, since we don't have a flux capacitor-equipped Delorean available, no one will know either way, will we :).

But I also think it is a bit disingenuous to assume that the films success is due to its technological innovations, or to assume that it could have been released with such innovations in 1939. What I meant (which should have been obvious) is that a superhero story as told in The Dark Knight would have had nowhere near the broad appeal in 1939 that it has today.

[TheMovieman]

If that isn't what you meant then I apologize. I (mis)interpreted your assertion that it could not have made over a billion dollars today as an implication that the only reason it made as much as it did was because of cheaper ticket prices.

Oh, not at all. But it's the way adjusted numbers are used is all I was trying to say. What it made back in those days was extremely impressive.

[RoboDad]

^ Yea, crime films weren't much of a draw in those days...
Oh, they drew audiences, but NO crime film from the 30's ever made anything even close to what Gone with the Wind made, so I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

[TheMovieman]

No, I'm not kidding. That is my opinion. Of course, since we don't have a flux capacitor-equipped Delorean available, no one will know either way, will we :).

But I also think it is a bit disingenuous to assume that the films success is due to its technological innovations, or to assume that it could have been released with such innovations in 1939. What I meant (which should have been obvious) is that a superhero story as told in The Dark Knight would have had nowhere near the broad appeal in 1939 that it has today.

I do agree with that.

BTW, what kind of box office run would Gone with the Wind had? Reading up about the history of television, the first TV set debuted in '39 so the only form of entertainment was the radio, thus a motion picture of the magnitude and scope of Gone with the Wind would've been vastly appealing. And in that sense people were fascinated with technology.

Today, the number of households with at least one TV (as of 2003) was 98.2%. How many of those do you think own DVD players? Times are different so it's dumb to make the comparisons in that way. So back then you had touch econmic times but today there's so much more competition for the dollar...

[kefrank]

The purpose of adjusted numbers is to provide perspective and context with regard to the relative success and popularity of films from different eras. By showing that Gone with the Wind has an adjusted domestic gross of $1.4 billion, it reminds us that many, many more people went to see that film in theaters than have seen The Dark Knight, despite a much smaller population, difficult economic times, significantly fewer available venues, and no internet to fan the flames of fanboy love.
That would be true if the adjusted gross was only for its initial theatrical run, but it includes all of the theatrical re-releases of the movie throughout the last 70 years as well.

[RoboDad]

I know we're starting to get somewhat far off topic here, but FWIW, radio was insanely popular in the 30's, easily as popular as TV was in the first few decades following its introduction. Families would gather around the radio every evening for the latest installment of their favorite radio serials (including many crime shows), and during the depression that was a huge competition to the "cinema".

You are right that there are more media that compete with theaters today, yet there are more theater auditoriums operating today per capita than there were then. What's it all mean? I don't know. I guess there is still an innate desire for the community experience that a theater offers. Why else would any theater chains still be in operation? ;)

[RoboDad]

That would be true if the adjusted gross was only for its initial theatrical run, but it includes all of the theatrical re-releases of the movie throughout the last 70 years as well.
Well, you will note that nowhere did I mention 'in 1939' ;). Your point is valid, nonetheless. Does any site have a breakdown of the various releases of GWTW over the years? Box Office Mojo lists the "1939" release as having a gross of $189 million, but I kind of suspect that it is lumping a decade's worth of releases together.

[RichC2]

Well, you will note that nowhere did I mention 'in 1939' ;). Your point is valid, nonetheless. Does any site have a breakdown of the various releases of GWTW over the years? Box Office Mojo lists the "1939" release as having a gross of $189 million, but I kind of suspect that it is lumping a decade's worth of releases together.

GWTW was shown "road show" style through 1939 and 1940, it was released in "theaters" in the normal sense in 1941. I'm not sure how long it played in general release but in London, for example, it played consecutively from 1940 - 1944.

In the US it was re-released in 1947, 1954, 1961, 1967, 1971, 1989, 1998 and didn't debut on TV until it showed on HBO in June 1976 (and then NBC the following year).

The Gross on BOM considers its overall gross including re-releases (there is a ^ next to the year which denotes this). However, they didn't seem to break down the individual releases so, potentially unfairly, it could be getting all its grosses combined and the "inflation" may be held against the average cost of movie tickets in 1939 (who knows how much that was). Though maybe they have an actual list of admissions.

Considering the extra cost of the roadshow showings and seven re-releases, you can't really get a good feel for how many tickets were sold.

[JarJar Fett]

I saw this in another forum and I thought it might be useful here. I think this is a better representation of how popular a film really is.


By the end of this weekend, TDK will become one of the 50 best ticket-sellers in history, moving more than 62 million admissions after only 24 days in theaters.

TOP TICKET SELLERS
(50 million-plus admissions)
#1 “Gone with the Wind” (MGM) 202.0 million (1939)
#2 “Star Wars” (Lucasfilm/Fox) 178.1 million (1977)
#3 “The Sound of Music” (Fox) 142.4 million (1965)
#4 “E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial” (Universal) 141.85 million (1982)
#5 “The Ten Commandments” (Paramount) 131.0 million (1956)
#6 “Titanic” (Fox/Paramount) 128.3 million (1997)
#7 “Jaws” (Universal) 128.1 million (1975)
#8 “Doctor Zhivago” (MGM) 124.1 million (1965)
#9 “The Exorcist” (WB) 110.6 million (1973)
#10 “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” (Disney) 108.9 million (1937)
#11 “101 Dalmatians” (Disney) 99.9 million (1961)
#12 “The Empire Strikes Back” (Lucasfilm/Fox) 98.2 million (1980)
#13 “Ben-Hur” (MGM) 98.0 million (1959)
#14 “Return of the Jedi” (Lucasfilm/Fox) 94.05 million (1983)
#15 “The Sting” (Universal) 89.1 million (1973)
#16 “Raiders of the Lost Ark” (Lucasfilm/Paramount) 88.1 million (1981)
#17 “Jurassic Park” (Universal) 86.2 million (1993)
#18 “The Graduate” (AVCO) 85.6 million (1967)
#19 “Star Wars: Episode I- The Phantom Menace” (Lucasfilm/Fox) 84.8 million (1999)
#20 “Fantasia” (Disney) 83.0 million (1941)
#21 “The Godfather” (Paramount) 78.9 million (1972)
#22 “Forrest Gump” (Paramount) 78.5 million (1994)
#23 “Mary Poppins” (Disney) 78.2 million (1964)
#24 “The Lion King” (Disney) 77.2 million (1994)
#25 “Grease” (Paramount) 76.9 million (1978)
#26 “Thunderball” (UA) 74.8 million (1965)
#27 “The Jungle Book” (Disney) 73.7 million (1967)
#28 “Sleeping Beauty” (Disney) 72.7 million (1959)
#29 “Shrek 2” (DreamWorks) 71.0 million (2004)
#30 “Ghostbusters” (Sony) 70.7 million (1984)
#31 “Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid” (Fox) 70.55 million (1969)
#32 “Love Story” (Fox) 70.0 million (1970)
#33 “Spider-Man” (Sony) 69.5 million (2002)
#34 “Independence Day” (Fox) 69.3 million (1996)
#35 “Home Alone” (Fox) 67.7 million (1990)
#36 “Pinocchio” (Disney) 67.4 million (1940)
#37 “Cleopatra” (Fox) 67.2 million (1963)
#38 “Beverly Hills Cop” (Paramount) 67.1 million (1984)
#39 “Goldfinger” (UA) 66.3 million (1964)
#40 “Airport” (Universal) 66.1 million (1970)
#41 “American Graffiti” (Universal) 65.7 million (1973)
#42 “The Robe” (Fox) 65.45 million (1953)
#43 “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest” (Disney) 64.63 million (2006)
#44 “Around the World in 80 Days” (UA) 64.62 (1956)
#45 “Bambi” (RKO) 63.7 million (1942)
#46 “Blazing Saddles” (WB) 63.2 million (1974)
#47 “Batman” (WB) 62.95 million (1989)
#48 “The Bells of St. Mary’s” (RKO) 62.7 million (1945)
#49 “The Dark Knight” (WB) 62.2 million (2008) projectd total after this weekend
#50 “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King” (New Line) 61.5 million (2003)
#51 “The Towering Inferno” (Fox) 61.4 million (1974)
#52 “Spider-Man 2” (Sony) 60.15 million (2004)
#53 “My Fair Lady” (WB) 60.0 million (1964)
#54 “The Greatest Show on Earth” (Paramount) 60.0 million (1952)
#55 “National Lampoon’s Animal House” (Universal) 59.9 million (1978)
#56 “The Passion of the Christ” (NewMarket) 59.7 million (2004)
#57 “Star Wars: Episode III- Revenge of the Sith” (Lucasfilm/Fox) 59.3 million (2005)
#58 “Back to the Future” (Universal) 59.05 million (1985)
#59 “The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers” (New Line) 57.63 million (2002)
#60 “The Sixth Sense” (Disney) 57.60 million (1999)
#61 “Superman: The Movie” (WB) 57.4 million (1978)
#62 “Tootsie” (Sony) 56.9 million (1982)
#63 “Smokey & the Bandit” (Universal) 56.8 million (1977)
#64 “Finding Nemo” (Disney/Pixar) 56.3 million (2003)
#65 “West Side Story” (MGM) 56.0 million (1961)
#66 “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” (WB) 55.9 million (2001)
#67 “Lady & the Tramp” (Disney) 55.7 million (1955)
#68 “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” (Sony) 55.6 million (1977)
#69 “Lawrence of Arabia” (Sony) 55.4 million (1962)
#70 “The Rocky Horror Picture Show” (Fox) 55.1 million (1975)
#71 “Rocky” (UA) 55.04 million (1976)
#72 “The Best Years of Our Lives” (RKO) 55.00 million (1946)
#73 “The Poseidon Adventure” (Fox) 54.9 million (1972)
#74 “The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring” (New Line) 54.703 million (2001)
#75 “Twister” (WB) 54.700 million (1996)
#76 “Men in Black” (Sony) 54.6 million (1997)
#77 “The Bridge on the River Kwai” (Sony) 54.4 million (1957)
#78 “It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World” (MGM) 53.9 million (1963)
#79 “Swiss Family Robinson” (Disney) 53.8 million (1960)
#80 “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” (UA) 53.7 million (1975)
#81 “M*A*S*H” (Fox) 53.7 million (1970)
#82 “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom” (Lucasfilm/Paramount) 53.5 million (1984)
#83 “Star Wars: Episode II- Attack of the Clones” (Lucasfilm/Fox) 53.50 million (2002)
#84 “Mrs. Doubtfire” (Fox) 52.7 million (1993)
#85 “Aladdin”(Disney) 52.4 million (1992)
#86 “Ghost” (Paramount) 51.5 million (1990)
#87 “Duel in the Sun” (Selznick Releasing) 51.0 million (1946)
#88 “Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl” (Disney) 50.6 million (2003)
#89 “House of Wax” (WB) 50.5 million (1953)
#90 “Rear Window” (Paramount) 50.35 million (1954)

THE COUNT
(number of 50 million-plus ticket-sellers from each decade)
1930s: 2
1940s: 6
1950s: 10
1960s: 15
1970s: 20
1980s: 10
1990s: 13
2000s: 14 (thru 2008)

[RichC2]

I've seen a few of those admission lists, they appear to use a different source than the NATO admission cost averages but also seem to vary greatly.

[RoboDad]

GWTW was shown "road show" style through 1939 and 1940, it was released in "theaters" in the normal sense in 1941. I'm not sure how long it played in general release but in London, for example, it played consecutively from 1940 - 1944.

In the US it was re-released in 1947, 1954, 1961, 1967, 1971, 1989, 1998 and didn't debut on TV until it showed on HBO in June 1976 (and then NBC the following year).

The Gross on BOM considers its overall gross including re-releases (there is a ^ next to the year which denotes this). However, they didn't seem to break down the individual releases so, potentially unfairly, it could be getting all its grosses combined and the "inflation" may be held against the average cost of movie tickets in 1939 (who knows how much that was). Though maybe they have an actual list of admissions.

Considering the extra cost of the roadshow showings and seven re-releases, you can't really get a good feel for how many tickets were sold.
I know it isn't much help, but BOM does provide the breakout of the last two re-releases. The '89 release earned $2.4M, and the '98 release earned $6.7M. That leaves the $189M figure split between the main release, the road shows, and five other re-releases. While we can't get a completely accurate figure, I would be surprised if the road show + original standard release didn't account for a majority of the revenue.

[fumanstan]

Screw it, as far as i'm concerned Titanic is king at 600 million and whatever beats that, inflation, year, history or not, will be the new king. :p

[Mercury&Solace]

I could give half a shit about Gone With The Wind, that movie was boring and who really cares how many tickets it has sold, that movie is like 70 years old. Lets live in the now, The Dark Knight rules.

The big question is will TDK give up #1 to Tropic Thunder this week?
I say TT does $42 over 5 days.

Olympics are not affecting TDK. Thats what DVR's are for.

[RoboDad]

Screw it, as far as i'm concerned Titanic is king at 600 million and whatever beats that, inflation, year, history or not, will be the new king. :p
Nothing wrong with that, I guess. But prepare to have your fave film be a short-lived 'king'. When Titanic was crowned 'king', it was expected to be there for a long, long time. But the proliferation of theaters, combined with significant increases in ticket prices, pretty much guarantee that something will come along to displace it within a few years.

That's why some of us try to bring the adjusted chart into the discussion. Otherwise, the 'king' is only wearing a paper crown. :D

[Quake1028]

Nothing is going to displace Titanic for a long, long, long, long time.

[NoirFan]

I could give half a shit about Gone With The Wind, that movie was boring and who really cares how many tickets it has sold, that movie is like 70 years old. Lets live in the now, The Dark Knight rules.

Another classic post.

[movieguru]

Nothing wrong with that, I guess. But prepare to have your fave film be a short-lived 'king'. When Titanic was crowned 'king', it was expected to be there for a long, long time. But the proliferation of theaters, combined with significant increases in ticket prices, pretty much guarantee that something will come along to displace it within a few years.

That's why some of us try to bring the adjusted chart into the discussion. Otherwise, the 'king' is only wearing a paper crown. :D

Titanic has held the title for almost 11 years now. E.T. held the title for more than 15 years. These movies don't come along all that often.

[DarkestPhoenix]

The real question is how much would the Dark Knight make if it stayed in theaters for, like, two years.

Fuck GWTW. It cheated.

[tonymontana313]

I could give half a shit about Gone With The Wind, that movie was boring and who really cares how many tickets it has sold, that movie is like 70 years old. Lets live in the now, The Dark Knight rules.

The big question is will TDK give up #1 to Tropic Thunder this week?
I say TT does $42 over 5 days.

Olympics are not affecting TDK. Thats what DVR's are for.
WTF are you talking about? Gone With The Wind is a timeless classic. 70 years from now, nobody would give two shits about the Dark Knight but Gone With the Wind will always stand the test of time. Only a person affected with ADD would ever think GWTW is boring. What the hell are teenagers thinking these days? :rolleyes:

[RichC2]

WTF are you talking about? Gone With The Wind is a timeless classic. 70 years from now, nobody would give two shits about the Dark Knight but Gone With the Wind will always stand the test of time. Only a person affected with ADD would ever think GWTW is boring. What the hell are teenagers thinking these days? :rolleyes:

I know many, many people (mostly in their 50s and 60s) who do not hold Gone With The Wind as a timeless classic. Times change, it happens. Casablanca seems to be better liked and remembered overall.

Of course, that's just a sampling. That said, it will be remembered because movie scholars will make it so. As a piece of popular entertainment? That ship has sailed.

[Michael Corvin]

Nothing is going to displace Titanic for a long, long, long, long time.

Exactly. Even with inflation and increasing theater numbers, shrinking DVD release windows are working against those factors to prevent another movie from touching the record.

[bee_01]

Was Gone With The Wind's box office take affected by the Christmas 1939 DVD sales numbers? I know that would've been the #1 must buy home theater demo disk for me that holiday season.

[Mr. Cinema]

The real question is how much would the Dark Knight make if it stayed in theaters for, like, two years.

Fuck GWTW. It cheated.
I wonder how much The Dark Knight would have made if it wasn't playing at over 4,000 theaters and close to 9,000 screens. That is a lot of exposure.

Does anyone have any idea how many screens Gone With the Wind might have played on back in the day? Even with all the re-releases, does it match the exposure of TDK?

[RichC2]

I wonder how much The Dark Knight would have made if it wasn't playing at over 4,000 theaters and close to 9,000 screens. That is a lot of exposure.



In the long run, probably just as much. Less theater in this instance would have just meant a smaller opening, but I'm willing to bet legs would have been a bit better.