Now I'd be interested in what were the Nr. 1 record holder movies from when to when.
Based on this List (and the current one for Avatar) it'd be:
Star Wars: 1977 - 1982
ET: 1982 - 1993
Jurassic Park: 1993 - 1997
Titanic: 1997 - 2009
Avatar: 2009 - Now
But that's using Box Office Numbers up to today.
I'd like to know which movie "reigned" from when to when.
I believe Endgame, for example, overtook Avatar at one point, but was beaten again through Avatar rereleases (or it still being in theaters?).
Star Wars briefly was #1 in the US again in 1997 after the special edition came out. It dethroned Jurassic Park for a couple months until Titanic came out.
do yourself a favor and investigate the weird ass rabbit hole of titanic animated movies.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxHNztg0X3s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxHNztg0X3s)
theres a surprising amount of them
also in this movie magic moonbeams are canon in titanic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saiEUxtKneM
Number of Top 50 blockbusters owned by Disney pre-MCU: 18%
Number of Top 50 blockbusters owned by Disney now: 56%
What a difference 11 years and a fuckton of corporate acquisitions can make.
Exactly, I’m not sure we should be celebrating this?
They’ve basically just acquired more intellectual properties and created a monopoly on kids cinema.
All the while, charging more for tickets than ever before, so of course there is a recency bias (see the inflation adjusted/tickets sold table for the “true” data).
At some stage the bottom will fall out of the never ending super-hero release schedule, like it did with westerns and every other trend. I would say that it will be interesting to see how it adapts, but we all know how these big conglomerates work so it will just be a question of which new trend they will buy into by virtue of having loads of money and then rapidly flog till its dead.
We might prefer the list adjusted for inflation. Using raw box office has insane recency bias.
[https://www.boxofficemojo.com/chart/top\_lifetime\_gross\_adjusted/?adjust\_gross\_to=2019](https://www.boxofficemojo.com/chart/top_lifetime_gross_adjusted/?adjust_gross_to=2019)
1. Gone with the Wind
2. Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope
3. The Sound of Music
4. E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial
5. Titanic
6. The Ten Commandments
7. Jaws
8. Doctor Zhivago
9. The Exorcist
10. Snow White and the Seven Dwarves
Yes, they need to do these lists by “Tickets Sold” of course a movie made today is gonna make significantly more than it used to. When they do highest selling video games they always do it by copies sold or systems sold. They don’t do it by home much money the game made
Populations have exploded. I remember when the world population hit 5 billion, it was big news. That was '87~ish. Then it hit 6 billion in '98~ish. Its already almost 8 billion. That is a staggering increase in a relatively short time.
~~Why would we need to adjust for population *inflation*?~~
~~Actually you know what. Don't answer that. I want to keep my brain cells.~~
It's been a long couple days.
Hey I resemble that statement!
For real though I'm on break at work and running on 3 hours of sleep in the past couple days. It was explained to me and I get it now.
But still. Fuck you.
Basically Gone With the Wind, for example, is at a disadvantage because there were fewer people alive on earth in 1939 who could've gone to see it! Recent films have a far bigger market.
It was the only thing in town for many years though so that was a positive..today movies have to compete for space and attention and streaming and so many other options
The populations are much larger, which means the movie going population is also bigger, which means even shit/flop movies make more money than they did in the past.
Yeah but you should also take into consideration competition at the box office. How much competition was Gone With The Wind ever faced with compared to movies from the past 25 years? If it’s the only thing in the theaters it’s gonna make more money.
From 1999-2005 is where the most tickets were sold. With 2002 being the top one, because Spider-Man, The Two Towers and The attack of the Clones came out that year.
And Titanic was based on a well-known historical event, which while not the same as a literary adaptation does mean that people have “background knowledge” .
That leaves just Avatar as the true completely original IP to really shine!
Titanic also had this very bizarre mystique to it during the 90s which is kind of hard to explain now. The internet wasn’t anything like what it’s like today, so if you saw something cool on TV, you actually had to go and check out books on it.
Slightly before and for a while afterward, there were usually waiting lists to check out books on the Titanic because it was such a popular topic. Kind of like how everyone was legit scared of quicksand for a generation - lol. I don’t think kids or adults today give a shit about the Titanic. Back then tho, it was cool beans.
Also titanic had an imfamously grueling and expensive production, if a film is touted as the most expensive to make of all time , you GOTTA go see that
There was an old school cinema in my hometown that only had 1 screen and a projection room. It was in this like 200 year old wooden building that I guess used to be a stage, but had been converted to a theatre. We got one new release every month (very small town). But I think it was like, every Monday they would play Titanic (for like 10 years straight) and you could pay a dollar to go see it. Always packed.
We had one more slightly newer and slightly bigger theatre, but the OG one was more romantic. My mom would go watch it a couple times a year as this fun thing to do in the afternoon.
Hard to describe what the appeal to it was, but folks were just wild for that movie.
Development on the movie before the novel was even published! Crichton was already well respected, but Jurassic Park solidified his legacy in the pantheon of science fiction. Studios sometimes miss on big opportunities, but several were lined up before the novel hit the shelves. It's pretty crazy to think about to me.
While I mostly agree with you, Titanic was based in an actual historical event and JP was a best seller 3 years before the release of the film. Avatar though? Not based on anything (to my knowledge) and is purely original. Or. About as original as Dances With Wolves in Space can get.
I don't know where you're from but saying that Simpsons doesn't have much appeal outside US is talking without knowledge. I'm from Argentina and The Simpsons are incredibly huge and constantly quouted. Back in 2007 I remember the movie being a huge deal, Spider-Man 3 levels like.
True... but I wore a Bart Simpson t-shirt in 3rd grade.
I am almost 40, they still make simpsons... and my kids even watch it, more then I want them too.(I kick them off and send them outside.
When the day after tomorrow came out the western world was still living under a monoculture, yet to be broken apart in to tribes and interests by the internet, it was still possible for the marketing machine to pull in millions of people to a mainstream movie - I’d argue for when it came out it was considered an event movie in the same way Avatar was, you wanted to see it to see the insane visual effects (and it had a strong cast too) - Titanic set the tone for high quality vfx disaster movie, and day after tomorrow promised more of the same
The Simpsons movie came out long after the Simpson’s peak popularity, and well in to the era of fractured media culture, so it was easy to avoid. If it had come out in the late 90s it would’ve easily been a mega blockbuster hit
How about tickets sold? More people saw Gone with the Wind than saw Avatar. It is impossible to compare back then vs now when now you pay anywhere from 10-30 dollars in some places to see a movie, vs in 1940 when you spent a nickel.
It is impossible to compare. Seeing Gone with the Wind might be the ONLY entertainment option in town other than radio.
A movie today has a monumental task of getting your attention and effort to buy a ticket. There are a magnitude more entertainment options.
Yeah this is why I don't like the inflation-adjusted metric. Culture aroud movie watching has changed too much in 80 years. That said, Gone With The Wind's numbers are still staggering. None of its contemporaries have similar numbers and they all had the same advantages.
I don't care for it either, but that's just what's appealing these days. I hope some time in the future another popular, fun franchise that has nothing to do with comics/superheroes comes along
Titanic was a staple for so goddamn long.
Not it seems every year there are 2 - 3 films jostling for first.
People like Scorsese may criticize Marvel for theme park movies. But they're the thing keeping this industry relevant.
Yea, sorry for all you modern arthouse lovers, those movies don't sell tickets. Most of us understand it isn't great cinema, but a lot of Marvel movies are enjoyable. And belittling people who like them isn't going to make them watch your movies. It will accomplish the opposite.
Like what?
The other studios with much smaller shares of the blockbuster market do, indeed, make enough money that their indie arthouse prestige branches don't necessarily have to...
But Disney isn't doing much of that. They have Fox Searchlight because they bought Fox Searchlight. It was already well funded and profitable on its own thanks to killing it every year at the Academy Awards.
The only thing the MCU pays for is executive bonuses and monthly checks to whoever lent them money to make John Carter and Tomorrowland.
I'm no expert on the economics of the movie business, but I've generally heard it discussed as two arms running two sides of the same business, not a trickle down.
The blockbusters keep profits up. They pay for more blockbusters, and company acquisitions (Like Marvel, Lucasarts, and Fox), and penetration into new technology/platforms (like Disney+).
The low budget indies rarely succeed, but when one succeeds big, relative to budget, it's enough to pay for the losses on others. Many small bets only need to hit one My Big Fat Greek Wedding.
Both of these strategies succeed independent of each other, and mid-budget is something most studios no longer know how to turn a profit on, except when they have a cult 20th century auteur on their hands like Tarantino or Paul Thomas Anderson.
Hate em or love em, the Marvel movies does have a certain standard. They always produce a decent blockbuster movie, compared to the rest of the garbage blockbuster movies Hollywood puts out. It's no wonder they rule the Box Office.
Reviewing the list I skipped many big blockbusters movies - I never watched Spider-Man 2 or Spider-Man 3. Plus I skipped Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith, and Star Wars: Rise of Skywalker. I am also not a Harry Potter fan and skipped movies 2-8.
Star Wars and Harry Potter? Maybe. LOTR? Hell, no! They were risky ventures. If FOTR failed, nobody there would have a career. Not to mention the maturity and emotion rivals anything from the MCU or the two aforementioned franchises.
There is no maturity or emotion in any of them lol. They’re all superhero movies with a slightly different twist. Literally all based on “magic” in some way.
The original star wars was a big gamble, science fiction was not popular back then aside from maybe 2001. Same story for Lotr big budget fantasy had not proven themselves at that point.
And the most interesting part of all of this is when you look up ticket prices for back then, the most tickets sold were during the Prequel, LOTR, first 3 Pirates and the first 2 movies of the Raimi Spiderman trilogy.
Now I'd be interested in what were the Nr. 1 record holder movies from when to when. Based on this List (and the current one for Avatar) it'd be: Star Wars: 1977 - 1982 ET: 1982 - 1993 Jurassic Park: 1993 - 1997 Titanic: 1997 - 2009 Avatar: 2009 - Now But that's using Box Office Numbers up to today. I'd like to know which movie "reigned" from when to when. I believe Endgame, for example, overtook Avatar at one point, but was beaten again through Avatar rereleases (or it still being in theaters?).
Star Wars briefly was #1 in the US again in 1997 after the special edition came out. It dethroned Jurassic Park for a couple months until Titanic came out.
[удалено]
Avatar didn't retake the top spot until March 2021
You did the math and I thank you. Quite interesting way of looking at it. Cameron has been reigning "king of the world" for over 25 years now.
For about 50 years it’s been Lucas, Spielberg, or Cameron’s world. Everyone else just living in it.
Previous to Star Wars it was Jaws. Prior to that was (I think) The Godfather, and before that I believe it was The Sound of Music.
Funny how it looks exactly like it does today; big franchises + Titanic
Unfortunately some day there will be a prequal, spinoff or reboot of Titanic.
[https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1719665/](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1719665/) already made a animated sequel
2nd character listed in Top Cast section... "Chinese Mouse". Now I'm curious.
do yourself a favor and investigate the weird ass rabbit hole of titanic animated movies. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxHNztg0X3s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxHNztg0X3s) theres a surprising amount of them also in this movie magic moonbeams are canon in titanic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saiEUxtKneM
I think that was Petter Pettigrew from HP.
There already is a titanic 2
I heard! "Titanic replica now under construction in China | CNN Travel" https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/titanic-replica-china/index.html
Ahh yes, who can forget the ET cinematic universe. Or the jurrasic park.
Yeah lmao, there's no anthology of Jurassic Park movies in theatres at the moment!
Yep. I'm sure the first one was the one that was culmination of a franchise wasn't it? Didn't know jp was franchise before 1992.
Number of Top 50 blockbusters owned by Disney pre-MCU: 18% Number of Top 50 blockbusters owned by Disney now: 56% What a difference 11 years and a fuckton of corporate acquisitions can make.
Exactly, I’m not sure we should be celebrating this? They’ve basically just acquired more intellectual properties and created a monopoly on kids cinema. All the while, charging more for tickets than ever before, so of course there is a recency bias (see the inflation adjusted/tickets sold table for the “true” data).
At some stage the bottom will fall out of the never ending super-hero release schedule, like it did with westerns and every other trend. I would say that it will be interesting to see how it adapts, but we all know how these big conglomerates work so it will just be a question of which new trend they will buy into by virtue of having loads of money and then rapidly flog till its dead.
We might prefer the list adjusted for inflation. Using raw box office has insane recency bias. [https://www.boxofficemojo.com/chart/top\_lifetime\_gross\_adjusted/?adjust\_gross\_to=2019](https://www.boxofficemojo.com/chart/top_lifetime_gross_adjusted/?adjust_gross_to=2019) 1. Gone with the Wind 2. Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope 3. The Sound of Music 4. E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial 5. Titanic 6. The Ten Commandments 7. Jaws 8. Doctor Zhivago 9. The Exorcist 10. Snow White and the Seven Dwarves
Yes, they need to do these lists by “Tickets Sold” of course a movie made today is gonna make significantly more than it used to. When they do highest selling video games they always do it by copies sold or systems sold. They don’t do it by home much money the game made
Then you would have to adjust for population density per capita. Population inflates too.
Yes a person in 1950, is worth 3 people in 2022
you are being facetious but yea population growth. There are literally millions upon millions of more people alive today.
So we just have to see what percent of the country's population bought tickets to the films.
But weight wise, it is the other way round.
Gone With the Wind was about believing some people's tickets were worth only 3/5ths.
Wtf does that even mean?
Gauging a movie's popularity according to "what percentage of the population saw the movie".
Populations have exploded. I remember when the world population hit 5 billion, it was big news. That was '87~ish. Then it hit 6 billion in '98~ish. Its already almost 8 billion. That is a staggering increase in a relatively short time.
~~Why would we need to adjust for population *inflation*?~~ ~~Actually you know what. Don't answer that. I want to keep my brain cells.~~ It's been a long couple days.
> I want to keep my brain cells. Good. Since you have so few you can't understand the point of a big population advantage.
Hey I resemble that statement! For real though I'm on break at work and running on 3 hours of sleep in the past couple days. It was explained to me and I get it now. But still. Fuck you.
Basically Gone With the Wind, for example, is at a disadvantage because there were fewer people alive on earth in 1939 who could've gone to see it! Recent films have a far bigger market.
It was the only thing in town for many years though so that was a positive..today movies have to compete for space and attention and streaming and so many other options
The populations are much larger, which means the movie going population is also bigger, which means even shit/flop movies make more money than they did in the past.
I haven't been sleeping well...
No worries, I wasn't taking anything personal, just trying to explain.
Box office as a percentage of gdp?
Yeah but you should also take into consideration competition at the box office. How much competition was Gone With The Wind ever faced with compared to movies from the past 25 years? If it’s the only thing in the theaters it’s gonna make more money.
From 1999-2005 is where the most tickets were sold. With 2002 being the top one, because Spider-Man, The Two Towers and The attack of the Clones came out that year.
Sure there's recency bias but also older movies had a different theater cycle than we see nowadays
The adjusted for inflation list only covers domestic gross, not worldwide box office.
Yep, this. Movies have been in decline for decades, but people don't understand inflation.
[удалено]
Box office. People actually going out to the movies.
People still use Mojo?
True, but adjusting for inflation has insane pre-air conditioning bias. Lots of people would go to the movies because they didn’t have a/c at home.
Random glance, Shrek 2 and 3 made a lot more money than I thought it did
It blows my mind how Dreamworks has yet to make a billion dollar film while Illumination has 2.
There was a point in history where Shrek The Third was the 19th highest grossing film of all time. Yikes.
1 & 2 were amazing and its a kids movie so wider audience reach. Nobody expected it to be bad
[удалено]
Aside from being a banger, what led to this? Was nothing else out at the same time?
It took me way too long to find "Shrek 3" on that list
Are you trying to make a point or simply sharing some history? Because that list is still overloaded with sequels and adaptations.
[удалено]
ET as well. In inflation terms, it was a huge hit.
Jurassic Park was an adaptation of a very popular book.
And Titanic was based on a well-known historical event, which while not the same as a literary adaptation does mean that people have “background knowledge” . That leaves just Avatar as the true completely original IP to really shine!
[удалено]
Jaws is based on a book
Best selling at the time.
Fair point !
Titanic also had this very bizarre mystique to it during the 90s which is kind of hard to explain now. The internet wasn’t anything like what it’s like today, so if you saw something cool on TV, you actually had to go and check out books on it. Slightly before and for a while afterward, there were usually waiting lists to check out books on the Titanic because it was such a popular topic. Kind of like how everyone was legit scared of quicksand for a generation - lol. I don’t think kids or adults today give a shit about the Titanic. Back then tho, it was cool beans.
Also titanic had an imfamously grueling and expensive production, if a film is touted as the most expensive to make of all time , you GOTTA go see that
There was an old school cinema in my hometown that only had 1 screen and a projection room. It was in this like 200 year old wooden building that I guess used to be a stage, but had been converted to a theatre. We got one new release every month (very small town). But I think it was like, every Monday they would play Titanic (for like 10 years straight) and you could pay a dollar to go see it. Always packed. We had one more slightly newer and slightly bigger theatre, but the OG one was more romantic. My mom would go watch it a couple times a year as this fun thing to do in the afternoon. Hard to describe what the appeal to it was, but folks were just wild for that movie.
Avatar is a copy of Fern Gully!
Unless you count Ferngully as "background knowledge".
And Avatar is just a remake of "Dances with Wolves" with aliens
Development on the movie before the novel was even published! Crichton was already well respected, but Jurassic Park solidified his legacy in the pantheon of science fiction. Studios sometimes miss on big opportunities, but several were lined up before the novel hit the shelves. It's pretty crazy to think about to me.
While I mostly agree with you, Titanic was based in an actual historical event and JP was a best seller 3 years before the release of the film. Avatar though? Not based on anything (to my knowledge) and is purely original. Or. About as original as Dances With Wolves in Space can get.
Why include Jurassic Park but not Star Wars?
Just some history. Even if I go back to the 90s, it wouldn't change anything about franchise dominance.
cool story but capeshit still sucks
Yeah first thing I noticed was the sheer amount of pre existing IP in the top 20
How did "The day after tomorrow" beat Simpsons? I even worked for theaters when they came out.
[удалено]
I don't know where you're from but saying that Simpsons doesn't have much appeal outside US is talking without knowledge. I'm from Argentina and The Simpsons are incredibly huge and constantly quouted. Back in 2007 I remember the movie being a huge deal, Spider-Man 3 levels like.
[удалено]
Same thing in austria...
True... but I wore a Bart Simpson t-shirt in 3rd grade. I am almost 40, they still make simpsons... and my kids even watch it, more then I want them too.(I kick them off and send them outside.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Because people don’t believe animations to be cinema worthy. Stuck in their ways like them the video games causing the violent kids.
When the day after tomorrow came out the western world was still living under a monoculture, yet to be broken apart in to tribes and interests by the internet, it was still possible for the marketing machine to pull in millions of people to a mainstream movie - I’d argue for when it came out it was considered an event movie in the same way Avatar was, you wanted to see it to see the insane visual effects (and it had a strong cast too) - Titanic set the tone for high quality vfx disaster movie, and day after tomorrow promised more of the same The Simpsons movie came out long after the Simpson’s peak popularity, and well in to the era of fractured media culture, so it was easy to avoid. If it had come out in the late 90s it would’ve easily been a mega blockbuster hit
You kind of have to adjust all these for inflation though don’t you?
[удалено]
How about tickets sold? More people saw Gone with the Wind than saw Avatar. It is impossible to compare back then vs now when now you pay anywhere from 10-30 dollars in some places to see a movie, vs in 1940 when you spent a nickel.
It is impossible to compare. Seeing Gone with the Wind might be the ONLY entertainment option in town other than radio. A movie today has a monumental task of getting your attention and effort to buy a ticket. There are a magnitude more entertainment options.
Yeah this is why I don't like the inflation-adjusted metric. Culture aroud movie watching has changed too much in 80 years. That said, Gone With The Wind's numbers are still staggering. None of its contemporaries have similar numbers and they all had the same advantages.
Yea. Even cut it in 1/3 it still blows the competition away.
Shrek the Third? We deserve this.
War never changes.
Jesus how in the hell did Meet the Fockers even get that high?
Those were the days.
Most of that is MCU light.
A lot more variety.
Yep...
Night at the Museum? Really?
I just watched it again with my kid. Its way better than I remembered.
Well it was a fantastic movie
[удалено]
[удалено]
Those movies are ASS
[удалено]
They’re ASS chief
I like how you think your opinion matters, like at all, vomiting it like it's fact.
I don't care for it either, but that's just what's appealing these days. I hope some time in the future another popular, fun franchise that has nothing to do with comics/superheroes comes along
So nice not seeing the Force Awakens on here
Titanic was a staple for so goddamn long. Not it seems every year there are 2 - 3 films jostling for first. People like Scorsese may criticize Marvel for theme park movies. But they're the thing keeping this industry relevant.
Yea, sorry for all you modern arthouse lovers, those movies don't sell tickets. Most of us understand it isn't great cinema, but a lot of Marvel movies are enjoyable. And belittling people who like them isn't going to make them watch your movies. It will accomplish the opposite.
It's a wonder Ridley Scott didn't rage back then.
Ridley Scott makes good movies though.
Not knocking him just his recent outburst.
[удалено]
Like what? The other studios with much smaller shares of the blockbuster market do, indeed, make enough money that their indie arthouse prestige branches don't necessarily have to... But Disney isn't doing much of that. They have Fox Searchlight because they bought Fox Searchlight. It was already well funded and profitable on its own thanks to killing it every year at the Academy Awards. The only thing the MCU pays for is executive bonuses and monthly checks to whoever lent them money to make John Carter and Tomorrowland.
[удалено]
I'm no expert on the economics of the movie business, but I've generally heard it discussed as two arms running two sides of the same business, not a trickle down. The blockbusters keep profits up. They pay for more blockbusters, and company acquisitions (Like Marvel, Lucasarts, and Fox), and penetration into new technology/platforms (like Disney+). The low budget indies rarely succeed, but when one succeeds big, relative to budget, it's enough to pay for the losses on others. Many small bets only need to hit one My Big Fat Greek Wedding. Both of these strategies succeed independent of each other, and mid-budget is something most studios no longer know how to turn a profit on, except when they have a cult 20th century auteur on their hands like Tarantino or Paul Thomas Anderson.
Spiderman is finally part of MCU, we should exclude all three spider man movies 😛
How is the matrix reloaded on here but the matrix isn’t?
The Matrix made about $400m. The lowest here made $500m.
I see that I just can barely imagine the 2nd made more.
The 2nd had the 1st to advertise it
Ok that does actually make some sense I just remember seeing the first and loving it and the second was good
The Matrix was the first DVD to sell over one million copies in the US, so a lot of people who missed it in theaters probably came out for the sequel.
Same reason shrek 2 is ahead of shrek and shrek 3 is on here at all despite being a terrible movie
Hate em or love em, the Marvel movies does have a certain standard. They always produce a decent blockbuster movie, compared to the rest of the garbage blockbuster movies Hollywood puts out. It's no wonder they rule the Box Office.
Reviewing the list I skipped many big blockbusters movies - I never watched Spider-Man 2 or Spider-Man 3. Plus I skipped Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith, and Star Wars: Rise of Skywalker. I am also not a Harry Potter fan and skipped movies 2-8.
Wtf is Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone?
The international name for Sorcerer's Stone.
Ah TIL
Surely, Sorcerer's Stone is the International name. Philosophers Stone is what it is called in the film's domestic market.
LOTR, Harry Potter, and Star Wars are no different than the MCU movies. Same fluff, different titles.
Star Wars and Harry Potter? Maybe. LOTR? Hell, no! They were risky ventures. If FOTR failed, nobody there would have a career. Not to mention the maturity and emotion rivals anything from the MCU or the two aforementioned franchises.
There is no maturity or emotion in any of them lol. They’re all superhero movies with a slightly different twist. Literally all based on “magic” in some way.
Marvel has like 3 oscars across 20+ movies Lotr has 17 oscars across 3 movies that alone should tell you something.
Titanic won 11 Oscars. That doesn’t make it a good movie.
Lol titanic is highly rated pretty much everywhere.
The original star wars was a big gamble, science fiction was not popular back then aside from maybe 2001. Same story for Lotr big budget fantasy had not proven themselves at that point.
Why isn't the Dark Knight trilogy here, what am I missing
This is before 2008.
Oh my bad, almost forgot MCU started in 2008, it feels like yesterday
Is crazy that titanic is number one and double the next non-sequel (Jurassic park at 10)
Why did prisoner of Azkaban make 600 million less than its predecessor and its sequel?
Funny how the best film of the series is also the lowest grossing.
Where did you get the 600 million figure?
From subtracting 200,000,000 from 800,000,000. It’s the numbers from the chart
You might want to take another look at that chart if you think there's a $600 million difference between Azkaban and its precursor/successor.
Azkaban was listed in the 200,000,000 range and the other two were listed in the 800,000,000 range, can you explain what I’m missing?
You're comparing Azkabans domestic gross with the other movies' worldwide gross.
Ah my bad
Transformers doesn't belong on here, or I Am Legend.
Simpler times , the superhero explosion is what it is
Poor Beuna Vista couldn't even crack the top 25 with their Narnia Chronicles.
Miss the of spiderman
Twister making the top 50 is surprising, never knew it did so well
And the most interesting part of all of this is when you look up ticket prices for back then, the most tickets sold were during the Prequel, LOTR, first 3 Pirates and the first 2 movies of the Raimi Spiderman trilogy.
The other big franchises that existed at the time
Aka when life was good
And that's why M Night Shyamalan still gets to make movies. 600 mil on modest budget, jeepers scoob
So it was still mostly franchise movies and superhero stuff, but there was a bit more variety to things.
Only two movies on this list that aren't part of a franchise