Logic = gross sales on the first release of a movie. That's what is being considered. Adjusting for inflation is fine, but you have to back out re-releases, unless you want to put this discussion on hold for the next 40 years or so.
OT - New Star Wars is the Real Deal!
- Thread starter T2Kplus10
- Start date
----
Only if you want to compare it to "gone with the wind" ..... The other twenty something films with bigger ticket sales did not have many runs in the movie..... It seems fair to see if more people go to see this one than the 1977 one...
And yes, if you want to judge greatness, you certainly can do it by the number of times it was viewed.... I am not judging as you are, inflated ticket prices.......Butts in the seats is my standard......
If the movie is truly the greatest of all time it will be the most viewed.... And it may take time to determine that, I agree
Last edited:
So my question is ... how long are we supposed to wait until we can talk about it fully with spoilers and all before people stop getting mad?
Considering it came out before Christmas and people have had a couple weeks now ... at what point is it their fault for not getting around to seeing it yet?
One friend just had a baby is trying to go without spoilers until it gets released in stores. She'll be S.O.L. eventually.
Considering it came out before Christmas and people have had a couple weeks now ... at what point is it their fault for not getting around to seeing it yet?
One friend just had a baby is trying to go without spoilers until it gets released in stores. She'll be S.O.L. eventually.
That may just have a little something to do with the fact that 99.9% of leaders throughout history were male. Surely, you don't think women are more virtuous because of gender, if so, sounds like the work was done well before Star Wars.
There is nothing wrong with have Rey as a "badass" in the movie, nor Princess Leia as General. My problem is with equal depiction. Why not have an evil female leader of the First Order?
Carrie Fisher was always crazy short.
I know all the novels got wiped out with this reboot, but the explanation for the parsecs thing was that it actually was used as a unit of distance - there was a black hole cluster along the route that had to be avoided, forcing ships to go around it. The Falcon was apparently fast enough to fly slightly closer to the cluster without being pulled in, which allowed it to make the run in a shorter distance (and therefore shorter time)[/SWGeek]
I'd be curious to map people who didn't like this movie with people who are generally negative about the football program.
Some of the comments strike me like the "2/10 Would Not Bang" meme.
Some of the comments strike me like the "2/10 Would Not Bang" meme.
I've read through this entire thread and still don't see your the point of any of your political questions. Do you seriously think white males are being shorted because they're often the bad guys? That's what you took out of this movie? Seriously?
According to the chart, the totals for the original include the re-releases, which account for more than half of the total - the original release earned $220 million, and the total gross is $460 million (based on Wikipedia, but this is the kind of thing Wikipedia generally gets right). I would guess that, by that standard, TFA has a very good chance of passing the original in terms of ticket sales (and may have done so already).
By the way, TFA is expected to pass Avatar in gross today, which would move it up another couple of spots on the chart you posted to 19th all time, less than 3 weeks after it was released.
Yeah, the Star Wars: A New Hope numbers are a bit misleading. Original release looks to have run from May 27, 1977 to April 16, 1978... which is a ridiculously long run to begin with... where it made about $215M. It then got another short release in July of that year, where it brought in $10M+ (only one weekend is tracked in boxofficemojo). It then got another short release in August of 1979, where it pulled in another $7M. Overall, the "original release" - which ran from 1977-1979 - netted $307M (per boxofficemojo's total release numbers).
It then made another $15M in a 1983 release, then another $138M in the special edition release in 1997.
The site also gives an estimated average ticket price by year. Going by the original release and using 1977 average price of $2.23, SW sold about 137M tickets in its initial run. It then sold another 5M in 1983, and then another 30M in 1997.
The Force Awakens has sold approximately 88.7M tickets so far (based on current sales and average ticket price). I'd imagine it will pass Ep. 4's original release of 137M tickets, but probably not its total sales of over 172M.
Clearly it wasnt a mistake. They intentional added it in to jab at people like Skillet who look to Star Wars for any kind of science. Heres the thing - Star Wars isnt Sci Fi - its space fantasy. There should be no more expectation that the normal rules apply than that they do in Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings.
$2.23 seems awfully low. IIRC, the 2nd-run theater in my home town charged $2 in those days, and Star Wars played in lots of premium theaters - it was sort of the original movie people wanted to see in 70 mm Dolby. Even bumping the average price up to $2.50 would drop the number of tickets by 10%.
I think thats the setup here. That she as one of the ones in Lukes academy, and like Luke was placed on a desert planet under the protection of a watchful eye (the old guy from the opening scene with the map in this case).
BTW, I just read an explanation for why the 12 parsecs line wasn't stupid - apparently in some later expanded universe stuff, they say that it really was a reference to distance, and that Solo cut a corner and went closer to a cluster of black holes than anyone else dared to do.
They are making five more movies in the next several years (two moer parts of this trilogy, plus a pre-episode IV movie focusing on Han, a pre-episode four movie focusing on the rebellion fighters, and one focused on Boba Fett). They are revaming both Disney theme parks to have alot more star wars stuff as well. They arent going to let their $4 billion investment go to waste.
Like I said, it's the model these days not just for Disney but for anyone who stumbles upon, creates or buys a blockbuster franchise. Why bother continuously creating new things when you have something you know is a hit just reproduce, merchandise, spinoff, market and mimic, etc... it as much as you can.
Yeah, it was in the Jedi Academy series of books by Kevin Anderson. The science in that series is also more than a bit dodgy, but at least they made an attempt to clear up the parsec thing.
Well for one - he was bleeding out. He had also had to fight off Finn first. Who has he been "training against" - there are no more Jedis, and the guy training him in the ways of the dark side seems to be a hologram, and his light saber is clearly a cheap homemade knockoff. In other words - for all of his training - its not like he was in the Jedi academy. Also, he had her on the ropes until he stopped and asked her to join him - then she surprised him with a strong counter attack. Shes had plenty of training in combat (even her moves with the light saber seem more like moves with a staff than a sword) Plus, as you say - its pretty much 99% assured at this point based on all of the hints that she is at least strong with the force, if not previously trained.
It gives Kylo even more reason to hate her, and clues the audience into the fact that she's special, not just some junkyard dog.
I dont think its feminist BS. I think its just part of the story. How does Luke not get slaughtered by Darth Vader in Episode V - given that Vader has a lifetime of training, including a decade with actual Jedi, but Luke only has a couple of days with Obi-Wan and a couple of weeks with Yoda.
Kylo Ren being weak is the point. He's clearly trying to be Vader but not up to it yet, which makes him angrier. Its a more real villain then the original all powerful Darth Vader. It has the potential for a good story arc. Does he become a Vader level badass. Does he get ditched for someone stronger. Who knows - but there is plenty of room to work with.
--------------
its all fair game.... they can re-release this movie in the future if they think sales will be strong... each movie stands on its own merits, its own sales potential... I like to look at the total tickets sales at the end of all its runs as the gold standard.... so the match up would be against the 178 million sales total for the first one, and it might require the new one to be re-released to come close to this....
this is why "gone with the wind" was such
an exceptional movie in the movie houses..... it kept coming back and kept people wanting to see it
over 200 million ticket sales..
Last edited:
What about the women in the metal storm trooper costume?
You white people are so touchy with this crap. Why cant you guys just take a joke already and stop complaining about these kind of microaggressions.
It's a national average. NJ/NY area is above the average ticket price. The average ticket price in the US for 2015 was $8.34, which also averages in matinee showings I believe (and may also average in child and senior ticket prices). Force Awakens also benefits from a greater percentage of 3D and IMAX tickets than the average movie, so the number of tickets sold to hit the $740M number is likely a bit lower.
True, but it's a hard gauge. Star Wars, for instance, hit theaters two decades apart, with a definite change in ticket price between showings. Gone with the Wind has benefited from the same.
The only way to really show a metric is to also include time. How much did each movie make in its first X days, first X years, etc. Until the Force Awakens is 87 years old (like GwtW), it's hard to compare it to a movie that's been around 87 years.
So essentially you're arguing for affirmative action within the First Order?
Obviously. I was just filling in some detail to Cali's post. Its going to be everywhere and its going to be as nauseating as Disney rolling out a new Avengers movie every six months or so. But as you said, its the way of teh world - the big money is in franchises.
-----------
I don't look at the price of tickets at all, just the number of tickets sold.... for me, the number one movie is the one that got the most number of people into the movie house
Which is just as meaningless as ticket dollars. Things change. IN 1939 movies were it. Some huge chunk of the population saw gone with the wind - a figure which will never be matched in this country - because now there are dozens of options.
If you want any kind of absolute measure relative to the population and ticket prices of the day, then gone with the wind wins and will always win.
I gotta agree with you here. For a character that is named and appears in multiple merchandising products, she really is a very minor character.
Let's see what sort of backstory emerges for Rey in future episodes before calling her horribly flawed. Clearly, someone left her on Jakku when she was young. Who? Why?
I really liked Finn's character, although it was funny that he looked like the best shot of any stormtrooper we've seen in the Star Wars universe, and he was a deserter!
Maybe its the uniforms. Once he's free from the cumbersome mask and bulky armor, he's a great shot.
Very true. Gone with the Wind wasn't up against other massive releases in subsequent weeks. GwtW was released on 12/15/39... the next high grossing major release was on 2/7/50 with Pinnochio, and then Rebecca on 4/12/40.
Also, GwtW didn't have to compete with the various other forms of entertainment available today - movies were king in a way that no single entertainment medium will ever be again.
So, it's actually that much more impressive when a modern film can put up such massive numbers.
We also don't know what Phasma's role might be in future movies. If Rey/Chewie/Finn could get off of Starkiller base before it exploded, you can bet a ton more First Order types did as well.
Right now Phasma had about as much of a role as Boba Fett did in the first trilogy - little screen time, cool armor.
-----------
actually, I can see a picture like a star wars,, eventually selling over 200 million tickets and breaking the sales record
...but I do agree, back in 1939 there were not a lot of options....... still 200 mill gives the movie makers of today something to shoot for.
lets see how it stacks up against number two, the original star wars, also "the sound of music", "ET" in number of tickets, when all is said and done .... these three movies made a bit more recently, might be a fairer fight
Sound of Music was 1965, Star Wars was 1977, and ET was 1982. The first VHS VCR was released in the US after Star Wars was released in 1977, HBO didn't make it to all 50 states until 1980 (and didn't broadcast 24-hours until 1981), digital video media didn't happen until the mid-90s, and Netflix streaming not until 2008...
Those movies are still all largely in the movie theater heyday (with only ET having to start to fight against new competitors like HBO and VHS for eyeballs). The only movies in the Top 15 All Time Adjusted rankings that were made after 1985 are Titanic and Avatar (and soon the Force Awakens, which may end up in the Top 10).
More to the point - who cares. Freaking Jurassic world was awful and its one of the top selling movies of all time now. All this proves is that if you take great movies and update them, people will flock to them. To put it another way - Episode 1 is still in the top 10 in unadjusted gross domestically 15 years after its release.
I guess she looks taller naked.
My guess on the parsecs thing is that they just made a common mistake the first time, and put it back in again just for fun.
Physicists LOVE to be contrary (have a ton of friends and rellies who are physicists). So giving a unit of distance a name that sounds like time I'm sure delights them. Of course with lightyears, they are actually talking about time. The "secs" part of parsecs comes from the angle made by a line from the sun to a star and then back to the earth. So we can blame that one on mathematicians!
I agree with der here. I don't usually get hung up on the science aspect of movies as much as the logic. In double-cross spy thrillers, I'm the person who says, "If X was really the bad guy all along, why didn't he shoot Y in the opening scene?"
But I really liked the movie. Really liked the first three as well. The second three got a little bit "inside baseball" for me.
Have no idea what Harry Potter was supposed to be about and I saw all the movies. Same thing with LoTR, but you're not allowed to say that out loud down here!
Similar threads
