SJW Awards
POSTED BY: JEWELSTAITEFAN
UPDATED: Friday, March 16, 2018 23:24
VIEWED: 4806
PAGE 2 of 2
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:Quote:
Hollywood is terrified of making anything new.
On this one count, you are right.
You actually agreed with more than this one thing, but yes I am right about this. This has been a huge problem for a long time in Hollywood, and if they don't wake up from it then everything will be over.
Quote:
People are waking up to that and are tuning out.
Quote:
Not according to Box Office Mojo. We are on record pace for 2018.
Of course, that is not the end all and be all. But there's no accounting
for taste.
While Box Office Mojo certainly doesn't account for taste, it doesn't account for actual ticket sales vs ticket prices either. It's not hard to keep touting movies every year as the biggest sellers of all time when inflation seems to hit ticket prices disproportionately hard compared to other sectors of the economy. This likely has more to do with over-inflated paydays for big name actors and ever-increasing special effects budgets than the inflation stats though. It probably has a lot to do with pirate sources of revenue lost with sagging DVD sales and free streaming services. Even the paid streaming services available such as Netflix are cutting a lot of the after-theater recouping of costs they used to be able to rely on.
Here's a list of the top movies of all time based off of ticket sales, from Box Office Mojo themselves believe it or not. There's 300 on the actual list in the link, but I'm just showing the top 25 here:
1 Gone with the Wind MGM 202,044,600 $198,676,459 1939^
2 Star Wars Fox 178,119,600 $460,998,007 1977^
3 The Sound of Music Fox 142,415,400 $158,671,368 1965
4 E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial Uni. 141,854,300 $435,110,554 1982^
5 Titanic Par. 135,549,800 $659,363,944 1997^
6 The Ten Commandments Par. 131,000,000 $65,500,000 1956
7 Jaws Uni. 128,078,800 $260,000,000 1975
8 Doctor Zhivago MGM 124,135,500 $111,721,910 1965
9 The Exorcist WB 110,599,200 $232,906,145 1973^
10 Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs Dis. 109,000,000 $184,925,486 1937^
11 Star Wars: The Force Awakens BV 108,115,100 $936,662,225 2015
12 101 Dalmatians Dis. 99,917,300 $144,880,014 1961^
13 The Empire Strikes Back Fox 98,180,600 $290,475,067 1980^
14 Ben-Hur MGM 98,000,000 $74,000,000 1959
15 Avatar Fox 97,309,600 $760,507,625 2009^
16 Return of the Jedi Fox 94,059,400 $309,306,177 1983^
17 Jurassic Park Uni. 91,621,800 $402,453,882 1993^
18 Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace Fox 90,312,100 $474,544,677 1999^
19 The Lion King BV 89,146,400 $422,783,777 1994^
20 The Sting Uni. 89,142,900 $156,000,000 1973
21 Raiders of the Lost Ark Par. 88,526,800 $248,159,971 1981^
22 The Graduate AVCO 85,576,800 $104,945,305 1967^
23 Fantasia Dis. 83,043,500 $76,408,097 1941^
24 Jurassic World Uni. 79,049,200 $652,270,625 2015
25 The Godfather Par. 78,922,600 $134,966,411 1972^
The only movies made this century so far to break the top 25 are as follows:
1. The Force Awakens, at number 11 (2015).
2. Avatar, at number 15 (2009).
3. Jurassic World, at number 24 (2015).
Note that two of those three movies are sequels to other movies that made it higher on the list:
1. Star Wars, at number 2 (1977).
2. Jurassic Park, at number 17 (1993).
Also of note, recent movies being touted as smashing box office records are quite a bit further down the list:
1. Star Wars, The Last Jedi at 41 (2017).
2. Black Panther, at 56 (2018).
Again, one of them were a sequel to Number 2 on the list. The other has benefited from the huge Marvel Universe scam going on and has also been super hyped as the "first" black superhero movie which isn't even close to being true.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm?adjust_yr=1
Quote:
They won't be around in 20 years unless they make some huge changes to their business model.
Quote:
YouNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
6ix mentioned a 90 minute format, but does admit not seeing a new film in years.
Clint's 15:17 To Paris was the shortest film he's done, and has been the shortest in a while. 2 to 2 1/2 hours is fair common now.
Black Panther was 134 minutes.
Bladerunner 2049 was 164.
Valerian was 137.
Arrival, 116.
Thor 3, 130.
Wonder Woman, 141.
The Force Awakens, 136.
Red Sparrow, 140.
Annihilation, 115.
Jumanji, 119.
Phantom Thread, 130.
The Last Jedi, 152.
Rogue One, 133.
Shape of Water, 123.
Not true. I have seen some new films, just not many. Maybe only 1 to 3 movies a year compared to the 100+ I used to watch in my teens that have slowly dwindled down to now.
I see you're showing some movies in this list that are over 90 minutes, and they also seem to be some of the more popular movies that have come out recently. That's a good move by the studios, IMO. But how much longer can they stretch these movies out?
We might find out when "IT 2" comes out. A lot of people didn't go into that movie knowing it wasn't the full movie and were't too happy about it.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I was thinking each year you say you haven't seen any films from the current year. Sorry for confusion.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:Not true. I have seen some new films, just not many. Maybe only 1 to 3 movies a year compared to the 100+ I used to watch in my teens that have slowly dwindled down to now.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
6ix mentioned a 90 minute format, but does admit not seeing a new film in years.
Clint's 15:17 To Paris was the shortest film he's done, and has been the shortest in a while. 2 to 2 1/2 hours is fair common now.
Black Panther was 134 minutes.
Bladerunner 2049 was 164.
Valerian was 137.
Arrival, 116.
Thor 3, 130.
Wonder Woman, 141.
The Force Awakens, 136.
Red Sparrow, 140.
Annihilation, 115.
Jumanji, 119.
Phantom Thread, 130.
The Last Jedi, 152.
Rogue One, 133.
Shape of Water, 123.
I see you're showing some movies in this list that are over 90 minutes, and they also seem to be some of the more popular movies that have come out recently. That's a good move by the studios, IMO. But how much longer can they stretch these movies out?
We might find out when "IT 2" comes out. A lot of people didn't go into that movie knowing it wasn't the full movie and were't too happy about it.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
All of the films I listed were over 90 minutes. I don't even know when was the last feature film, in cinema, that was less than 90 minutes.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You're right. I haven't seen more "new" movies in the last 2 years than I could count on one hand.
I guess maybe you'd have to define "feature film" for me. I'd have a hard time believing that disposable rom-coms, unfunny comedies (ie: Post-50 First Dates Sandler movies/Horrible parody movies like the Scary Movie series) or trashy horror flicks (ie: "Saw/Paranormal Activity" type movies, not "IT" type movies) would be more than 90 minutes.
I'm assuming you mean that most if not all of the huge budget epic type movies are all around 2+ hours these days?
EDIT: My god... Ghostbusters (2016) was just 4 minutes shy of 2 hours, and there's an extended version that was 134 minutes!
That is one of the very short list of recent flicks I've watched, simply out of morbid curiosity. I did fall asleep during it, but I watched the rest of it when I woke up. It wasn't terrible. It didn't destroy my childhood. I just walked away from it thinking that it was a lot of wasted money on something that probably shouldn't have ever been made. Fieg could have had the same cast on a movie with a $40 million budget that had to do with just about anything and he could have tripled or quadrupled the money. It was really just a strange thing to happen. I bet quite a few people were fired over that one.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The two best "new" movies I've seen were ARQ and I Don't Feel At Home In This World Anymore.
ARQ was only 88 minutes without a single actor or actress that I recognize and a budget of under 2 Million dollars and filmed in 19 days in Canada. It was originally screened at 2016 Toronto International Film Festival., and was then released to Netflix.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARQ_(film)
I Don't Feel At Home In This World Anymore was only 96 minutes and starred Elijah Wood and Melanie Lynskey. I can't seem to find any info about the budget anywhere, but I don't imagine it was all that much unless the two stars got paid a crazy amount for an indie flick. It was screened at the Sundance Film Festival and then released on Netflix.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Don%27t_Feel_at_Home_in_This_World_Any
more
I do recommend both of these movies to anyone. Neither of them would hit my top 10 of all time or anything like that, but I found them far more interesting than anything that was released recently with a huge budget.
The last big budget movie I saw and actually enjoyed quite a bit was Edge of Tomorrow. There's no denying that movie was great.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I used to think you were older. Have you ever seen The Lost City of Children?
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
The two best "new" movies I've seen were ARQ and I Don't Feel At Home In This World Anymore.
ARQ was only 88 minutes without a single actor or actress that I recognize and a budget of under 2 Million dollars and filmed in 19 days in Canada. It was originally screened at 2016 Toronto International Film Festival., and was then released to Netflix.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARQ_(film)
I Don't Feel At Home In This World Anymore was only 96 minutes and starred Elijah Wood and Melanie Lynskey. I can't seem to find any info about the budget anywhere, but I don't imagine it was all that much unless the two stars got paid a crazy amount for an indie flick. It was screened at the Sundance Film Festival and then released on Netflix.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Don%27t_Feel_at_Home_in_This_World_Any
more
I do recommend both of these movies to anyone. Neither of them would hit my top 10 of all time or anything like that, but I found them far more interesting than anything that was released recently with a huge budget.
The last big budget movie I saw and actually enjoyed quite a bit was Edge of Tomorrow. There's no denying that movie was great.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I used to think you were older.
You did? Did something about my last post make me sound childish and change your mind?
Quote:
Have you ever seen The Lost City of Children?
Can't say I have. Couldn't find that on IMDB. Were you talking about The City of Lost Children? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112682/
I didn't even know that was a movie. I knew there was a Playstation game of that name when I was in high school, but I never played it.
It looks pretty interesting, and it pre-dates anything I've seen Pearlman in by about 5 years. Do you recommend it?
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Can't say I have. Couldn't find that on IMDB. Were you talking about The City of Lost Children? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112682/
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:You did? Did something about my last post make me sound childish and change your mind?
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I used to think you were older.Quote:
Have you ever seen The Lost City of Children?
I didn't even know that was a movie. I knew there was a Playstation game of that name when I was in high school, but I never played it.
It looks pretty interesting, and it pre-dates anything I've seen Pearlman in by about 5 years. Do you recommend it?
Do Right, Be Right. :)
In the past month or so you've mentioned things which place you in a different decade.
That is the correct title.
When it came out, people I polled who had seen it ranked it in their top 5 for that year. Everybody who did not include it in their top 5 had not seen it. It was bellwether film. The average person did not see it that year, when it was in cinema.
When viewing, use a really good screen, with vibrant colors. It was a visual feast in cinema.
It predates Pan's Labyrinth, but the tone felt similar.
Somewhere around here are threads mentioning it, with numerous endorsements. You should peruse some of the threads about best films, and older films, etc. Lots of great mentions in them. Before this Cinema forum, those threads were in places like Talk Story, General Discussion, etc. Look at the threads of the past year in various forums.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME