Pearl Harbor V. Titanic?

[Jedieb]

I was just thinking that PH has some things in common with Titanic. Both are based on major historical events. It can be easily argued that PH was a far more important event in world (not just U.S.) history than the sinking of the Titanic. And while we've recently seen historical WWII fiction on the big screen (Saving Private Ryan, Enemy at the Gates) it does seem that PH has been given more of a B.O. treatment than those other films. I just wonder if the makers of PH have tried to add elements of Titanic in order to produce B.O. gold. Will there be a tragic love story? Will there be a long build up to the "big" special effects heavy event? Remember, before Titanic was released no one was predicting it would rake in $600M and take the top spot. In fact, the buzz was that Cameron's epic would be lucky to break even and could end up costing the studio tens if not a hundred million dollars in losses.

There are plenty of differences between the two films. They're being released in different B.O. seasons. PH is sure to have more competition. But other B.O. champs (ANH & E.T.) over came summer competition to claim the top spot so it's possible. Personally, I DON'T think PH has much of a chance of breaking $600M, but I didn't think Titanic had a chance of breaking $300M, let alone $600M when I saw it. It certainly seems like the kind of film that COULD take the top spot. Will it be good enough to garner both critical and audience praise? Can it become an "event" picture? Can it bring people who usually skip the movies into theaters? Can it draw a wide range of movie goers? (Grandmothers, teenage boys AND teenage girls) The recipe seems to be in place. Just how well will it work?

[CMJ]

Well it does have a love triangle, that much I know. I've also read that the IS about an hour buildup to the bombing. It DOES seem to have bits of the TITANIC recipe...but the is Michael Bay we're talking about. :) My hopes are not TOO high, even though it's trailer is one of the best I've ever seen.

[foxdvd]

I think the only diff is that James Cameron did not directed PH Jame Cameron is a master director while MB has yet to show anything. Cameron has shown in the past the ability to make movies that people love.


Still it will be number 1 this year, even with MR making 70 million this weekend.

[CMJ]

This is at Newsweek.com
***********************

May 14 issue — Whatever else you can say about “Pearl Harbor,” when it comes to the money sequence—the Japanese bombs wreaking havoc on the U.S. fleet that fateful morning—Michael Bay’s epic delivers. Ninety minutes into this massive movie the attack commences, and the spectacular images come hurtling like fireballs. This is, let’s be honest, what we’re here for, and what most Jerry Bruckheimer-produced movies serve up best: the poetry of destruction. Fighter planes swoop between buildings like something out of “Star Wars.” A battleship flips sideways in the Hawaiian harbor, the crew clutching to the edge like something out of “Titanic.” Drowning soldiers are shot underwater, enemy bullets strafing the ocean like something out of “Saving Private Ryan.”

VIOLENT AND THRILLING, these images go directly to your central nervous system. But Bay isn’t making a movie about war’s horror. It’s more like a roller-coaster ride. Nor is it really a movie about history: if you want to know the step-by-step events that led up to Dec. 7, 1941, rent the turgid, impersonal “Tora, Tora, Tora.”

“Pearl Harbor,” which sets the Japanese attack in the heart of a two-guys-and-a-gal love story, is above all a movie about its own movieness. From its prologue in Tennessee in 1923, where our two flyboy heroes (Ben Affleck and Josh Hartnett) are introduced as airplane-obsessed kids, to its climax after the James Doolittle-led bombing of Tokyo in 1942, everything is larger, louder, more picture-perfect than life. Hollywood movies don’t get more Hollywood than “Pearl Harbor.”

There is a price to be paid for so much cinematic self-consciousness. An air of unreality hangs over most every scene. Bay approaches the romance between fighter pilot Rafe (Affleck) and volunteer nurse Evelyn (Kate Beckinsale) with the same pow-kabang! cartoon energy he brought to “Armageddon.” Our lovers meet cute, at a New York induction center, where cocky Affleck drops his pants and no-nonsense Beckinsale gives him a punishing hypodermic thrust in the rump. It must be love. Next thing you know, they’re enjoying an idyllic interlude on a boat, then bidding goodbye through a hotel’s revolving door as Rafe volunteers for duty in England.

It’s all told in shorthand, as if the filmmakers assumed we were so hip to the conventions of movie romance that they needn’t bother laying the relationship’s emotional foundation. Without the familiar prop of action to fall back on, Bay seems worried that we might get bored. He doesn’t let his scenes breathe, and they come off feeling both fussy and truncated. The first hour of “Pearl Harbor” looks like a highlight reel—a trailer for itself.

The three leads are all appealing and they’re lit for maximum glamour. But as written by Randall Wallace, Rafe, Danny (Hartnett) and Evelyn are just templates waiting to be filled by a movie star. Who is this pretty, brave nurse whom both men fall in love with? What did she do before the war? Almost every line of dialogue sounds like it came from an old movie.

In England, Rafe’s plane is shot down. Back in Hawaii, Danny brings the bad news to Evelyn. You can guess what happens next. After mourning briefly, Danny and Evelyn make love in the airfield hangar, their perfect bodies artfully draped in designer parachutes. Surely I’m not spoiling any surprises by revealing that Rafe is not, in fact, dead. Astonishingly, Bay bungles Rafe’s dramatic reappearance, rushing through it so hastily it has no emotional impact.

The bombing comes not a moment too soon, and for 40 minutes the movie dazzles us with fireworks. Once America enters the war, the tone shifts to flag-waving. FDR, cleverly impersonated by Jon Voight, is treated so reverently you almost expect a halo to crown his head.

“Titanic” showed how hungry the world was for old-fashioned, epic love stories, and the grandiloquently kitschy “Pearl Harbor” is strenuously aimed at the same audience. But will Bay’s postmodern artifice tug the heartstrings as James Cameron’s sturdily classical movie did? Only once did I get a lump in my throat. But what we critics say may not matter. Superbly marketed, “Pearl Harbor” is the very model of a modern blockbuster. Will it matter that almost nothing about its human drama rings true?

[Darth23]

The only review I could find at rottentomatoes comared PH to Titanic. Tht fact that this guy did Armageddon makes me even less likely to ever see the movie in the theater.

Interestingly enough, PH is made by Buena Vista (Dinsey) and the Disney owned ABC just showed Armageddon on their network like TWO weeks in a row.

Coincidence?

:-P

[Jedieb]

Thanks for the review CMJ. I see I'm not the only one to make the link between PH and Titanic. It's fairly obvious when you think about it. We'll just have to wait and see if Bay is able to push the same kind of buttons that Cameron was able to. Although Cameron is a much better and more original directot IMO. Bay has always come across to me as a "studio" director. The kind of guy studios pick to direct whatever action pic they have in the works or the kind of director you settle for when you can't afford Spielburg or another heavyweight. At least Cameron had Aliens and the Terminator films to bolster his resume.


The bombing comes not a moment too soon, and for 40 minutes the movie dazzles us with fireworks. Once America enters the war, the tone shifts to flag-waving. FDR, cleverly
impersonated by Jon Voight, is treated so reverently you almost expect a halo to crown his head.
DAMN STRAIGHT! FDR! FDR! FDR! FDR! FDR! FDR! FDR! FDR! FDR! FDR! FDR! FDR! FDR! FDR! FDR! FDR! FDR! FDR! FDR! FDR! FDR! :)

[Jedi Master Carr]

I think PH will be a very good movie of course that is just my opinion. I am certain it will be #1 movie of this year probably making somewhere between 250-350 million. After reading that review the movie also sounds familar to the film Wings made back in the 20's. In that movie there was a love triagle too between two airplane crazy kids. How similar PH is to that movie I guess I will have to wait and see.

[swooshdark]

At this pace, it looks like teenagers will own the summer. I wouldn't be surprised if Tomb Raider does more business in the long run than even The Mummy Returns.

A lot of the success with Titanic had to do with timing. As is the case with such pheonmenon's it arrived right at the perfect time. I think Pearl Harbor will do about the same business as Armageddon.

The biggest movie released this year, technically, will
likely be The Lord of the Rings (FOTR). Globally, I think that one will rip apart anything and everything in its pace and probably put a little heat on Lucas to come up with something better than Episode I for the second installment of the prequel trilogy.

[JonathanLB]

Well, your point about ANH overcoming tons of competition isn't really true. ANH faced nearly no competition, which is a trademark of any movie that reached #1 at the box office. You cannot do it without some help, or TPM probably could have made it there even.

Titanic had no competition for about fifteen weeks, literally, no competition. Not a single movie that was fit to challenge its superiority.

ANH was an underdog because of its low budget, it's small release, and the fact that everyone in the industry thought it would fail. Beyond that, though, the summer was slow, and ANH outgrossed the nearest movie that year by a margin of 4:1, or far worse than what Titanic did to The Lost World in 1997, which was not even close to 3:1.

ANH had more competition than Titanic by a good ways, but much weaker than TPM, much, much weaker. It wasn't the same movie marketplace; the holiday season was more lucrative in 1977 than the summer. Not so now...

I guarantee Pearl Harbor will be a much better movie than Titanic, lol. That's not too hard to imagine. One is a sappy, stupid love story with some sweet effects and fake looking CG, another is an incredibly advanced film technologically with some absolutely awesome effects and lots of cool explosions. As for the human drama, what a load of crap, nobody who is going to see the movie cares about that. I just want to see some awesome scenes and some s**t being blown up. :)

[CMJ]

***********************
I guarantee Pearl Harbor will be a much better movie than Titanic, lol. That's not too hard to imagine. One is a sappy, stupid love story with some sweet effects and fake looking CG, another is an incredibly advanced film technologically with some absolutely awesome effects and lots of cool explosions. As for the human drama, what a load of crap, nobody who is going to see the movie cares about that. I just want to see some awesome scenes and some s**t being blown up.
***********************

I'm usually a pretty big defender of you Jonathan, BUT that may be one of the most unintelligent posts I've ever read. All you want to see is s**t being blown up?? PEARL HARBOR has a hell of a lot more potential than that. If thats all it is it will be a huge dissapointment. I doubt it will be as good as TITANIC, but I hope it is. I always want movies to suceed. I am cautiously optimistic about PEARL HARBOR, but this ealry review makes me wary. I'll wait to see what other's say.

[Jedieb]

[qoute]Well, your point about ANH overcoming tons of competition isn't really true. ANH faced nearly no competition, which is a trademark of any movie that reached #1 at the box office.[/quote]
I beg to disagree. ANH had as much competition as any other movie released in the mid to late 70's. In fact Smokey and the Bandit was also released that year and it went on to become the #2 movie of the year. What ANH did was outperform and crush everything else in sight. ET did the same thing. All of these movies had plenty of competition from studios. I'd say ET had even more than ANH. Both films just ended up dominating everything else that was released against it. Even Titanic had Goldeneye which grossed well over $100M domestic and had a great international run as well so I'm not sure what 15 week period you're talking about Jon. Each of those 3 films had other releases to go up against as films in years before them. They just dominated their comptetion, but the competition was there.
1977
ANH
Smokey and the Bandit
The Spy Who Love Me
Close Encounters of the Third Kind (Nov. release)
Saturday Night Fever
Annie Hall
Carrie
Slap Shot
(Encounters and other late releases are worth mentioning because ANH was still playing in many theaters late in 77 and early in 78!)

1982
ET
Poltergeist
Tootsie
An Officer and a Gentleman
Rocky III
Star Trek II
48 Hours
The Verdict
The Toy
Blade Runner

Again, these films had competition, the competition just didn't make it to the top of the box office chart. But you can find many solid BO hits there and a few of these films can be found on the top 100.

And again, ANH's budget was not small. You read Empire building. ANH's budget was the biggest EVER for a sci-fi film. It's fair to say that the $10 or so spent on ANH in 77 would easily translate to $100M plus today. Especially if you look at all the money Dkystra and FX people spent. One of the reasons people thought it would fail was because it would have to make more money than any other sci-fi flim ever released just to break even. Lucas was already considered one of the hottest young directors in Hollywood. That and Guiness's credibility and star power gave the film some weight. It was an underdog, but it did have some recognition going for it.

We've talked about competition before. Sure Titanic had less competition than summer releases, but it was also released at a slow time in the year. And it did things internationally that not even ANH did. So its success can never be attributed to just slow competition. (I know you're not saying that's the ONLY reason Jon.) As for Titanic's CG, I thought it was excellent. It was far less ambitious than TPM so Cameron and Co. had less to put on the line but what they did worked very well. By comparison,, TPM had some shots of Jar Jar and Boss Nass that are going to look dated 20 years from now. They may even look dated by the time EP3 rolls around.

You need some "human drama" to help carry the film. Films that challenge the top spot NEED to have that or they won't reach a wide enough audience. Grandmas and teenage girls aren't going to get carried away by just explosions. And you need those groups to do HUGE business.

In the end I think PH will see a BO run similiar to Armagedon. The higher opening should result in larger final tally, something between $250-$350.

[Darth23]

ANH's budget was the biggest EVER for a sci-fi film.


Um, sorry, I think that's wrong. 2001's budget was 10 million in 1969. In 1977 Star Wars' budget was like 9.5 million.

(If I'm remembering that correctly)

[Jedi Master Carr]

I don't put too much stock into that Newsweek review mostly I guess because they had the audacity two years ago to come out two weeks early and bash TPM, I saw that move as very unethical because the film was not due to hit theaters for another two weeks. It is the same, here. Really I think Newsweek's entertainment department likes destroying the big movies they either hate those type of films or our hoping by doing that they will sell more magazines, I have no clue which.

[JonathanLB]

Umm...you were around in 1977, yes or no? I know I wasn't, but I forget how old you are, Jedieb.

$10 million then was about $30 million or so now, a bit less actually. ANH had a damn small budget, actually, for a sci-fi movie, sure it was fairly impressive because there were few good movies in the genre at the time, but they had a very low budget compared to what they needed.

Take ESB, which cost about three times as much as ANH just years later! ANH was a cheap film to produce, but they still thought it would never make its money back. The budget was well less than $10 million, but they spent that much anyway; it went overbudget.

CMJ, lol, Pearl Harbor has the potential to be more, but remember who made the movie, and explosions and tons of cool effects and a classic war story IS enough to make a great film. If you have the story, which you do, and you have an impressive execution of the story with excellent effects, you could definitely have a great movie. Nobody needs stupid love triangles or any love story at all for a good film. I think they'd be better off just cutting the love story from most films. At least in the Star Wars series it doesn't get in the way and it's not so obviously put in there just "because it should be there," as Hollywood would say. It's much less in your face, which is how good movies should have a love story if they have it at all. I think it's just unnecessary clutter for the most part, and too many films rely on that nonsense just to draw different demographics, which is a terrible reason for adding anything.

Titanic had no competition, and yes you do know what period I am talking about, fifteen weeks from day 1 until it was unseated in week 16 by Lost in Space.

The ONLY film that made over $20 million during a weekend in Titanic's first 15 weeks was Tomorrow Never Dies (twice, both of its first weekends). That movie did not provide any significant competition to Titanic after the first two weeks, and even then, the marketplace around x-mas time can accomdate two big movies as it has proven. After that, Titanic competed against films making $5 to $9 million usually in second place, in other words, it had NO competition. There was literally nothing out.

I think you'd even further understand that if you read my book, especially after some of the theater chains' commentary that, aside from Titanic, the film product was weak during the first part of 1997, which led to low revenue in many cases.

E.T. had more competition than ANH, I will definitely agree with you there. ANH had some competition, as described in Empire Building, but it pretty much dominated, as you said. It mowed everything down.

Titanic had nothing to beat, it succeeded in large part because of its timing, and definitely not because of its wonderful story. Most people who describe their feelings about Titanic today are not very positive, even those who saw it in theaters 3-6 times. My sister is one of them, but in my French class, there are about three girls who saw it 6 or 7 times, ugg, sickening, and today they don't think it's a big deal. They just describe it as a fad like any other, which is more or less what I expected would happen. Titanic had only faddish appeal, no lasting impact on American culture as a film, only the event means anything. The film is just a blip on the map of the 1990's.

You are definitely right about most people not feeling ANH could make its money back, but the point remains, Lucas would have enjoyed having a larger budget, even though Fox was already pissed about "that space movie" costing them so much cash.

Competition in the 1970's was far different than it is today, as I think you were alluding to, and movies typically could remain in theaters for many months. The competition was far less.

Ok on to this:

"I think that one will rip apart anything and everything in its pace and probably put a little heat on Lucas to come up with something better than Episode I for the second installment of the prequel trilogy."

Umm...LOTR by Peter Frickin' Jackson is going to put heat on GEORGE LUCAS?! Yeah, whatever. The Phantom Menace is a masterpiece, far better than anything Jackson could ever create and far better than the overrated Lord of the Rings nonsense. I look forward to seeing those films, and they look really interesting, it's a wonderful story, but not Star Wars. That is the best way to summarize that: not Star Wars.

LOTR won't put pressure on anyone or anything. TPM was an awesome film.

[Jedieb]

Umm...you were around in 1977, yes or no? I know I wasn't, but I forget how old you are, Jedieb.

SPEAK UP SONNY BOY! AND SAY IT INTO MY GOOD EAR WHILE YOU'RE AT IT!! ;) Yeah, I was around back then. Although I was only 6 when ANH came out and 7 when I saw it, but I do remember growing up with ANH quite vividly. I still have to say that ANH's budget was as big as any other film released in 77. The movie that Lucas made on a shoestring budget was American Graffiti. Remember that Lucas even went over budget on ANH and had to go back to FOX a couple of times for more money. He also had his FX built from scratch and had spent over $1M before he even had 1 workable shot.Where Lucas saved money was on his cast, besides Guiness he didn't have to shell out much cash for his talent. By comparison Burt Reynolds probably received around $1M for Smokey and the Bandit. And that was at a time when he was the highest paid actor in Hollywood. If he were that hot today he'd receive the $20M paychecks of today's stars. I wouldn't be surprised if S&TB had a budget equal to or only slightly higher than ANH. And S&TB was a stunt filled action flick with as expensive a cast as you could put togther in 77. I've tried to find S&TB's budget before but haven't been able to. That would be a great barometer as to how expensive ANH was compared to other 70's films. I remember the price tag for Empire being close to $40M as well. My point is, the movie that Lucas made on the cheap was AG, not ANH.


Titanic had no competition, and yes you do know what period I am talking about, fifteen weeks from day 1 until it was unseated in week 16 by Lost in Space.

The ONLY film that made over $20 million during a weekend in Titanic's first 15 weeks was Tomorrow Never Dies (twice, both of its first weekends). That movie did not provide any significant competition to Titanic after the first two weeks, and even then, the marketplace around x-mas time can accomdate two big movies as it has proven. After that, Titanic competed against films making $5 to $9 million usually in second place, in other words, it had NO competition. There was literally nothing out.

You mean Goldeneye right? At least that's the Bond film I remember being released around Titanic. And that's just the thing, you said no competition but Bond is pretty decent competition, especially the Bond film that revived the series and had a great BO run. By a strange coincidence, ANH also had a Bond film to go up against it that summer. That Roger Moore flick did very well and was a top ten film that year. But by comparison, it was clobbered by ANH the same way that Titanic outgrossed Goldeneye. But neither of those 2 Bond movies could be described as weak. They were strong BO performers, they just weren't all time chart toppers like Titanic and ANH. BOTH those films would have outperformed anything released in the same year regardless of winter or summer release dates. I'm probably just nitpicking about the use of the phrase "no competition" as opposed to "little competition."

Those 16 weeks of the year you mentioned don't see much BO business anyway. Titanic made summer blockbuster money in the dead of winter. Sure it had less competition, but it made it at a time when less people go to the movies in general. So you could say that cancels out the competition factor.

[swooshdark]

I know a lot of people who got hyped up for The Phantom Menace
today also feel a lot more negative about that film as well. I feel more indifferent to the film, really. It's nice, but I don't find myself wanting to watch it, even though I always get a craving to watch the original trilogy once or twice a year.

And Pearl Harbor may be a hit, but pheonemon's aren't created by the "cookie cutter" styled philosophy you're taking about (add two cups explosions, some guns, a little bit of good old fashioned Americana, and half a teaspoon of romance, and voila! the best movie ever!). If that was the case, Armageddon would the be the no.1 money maker of all time. I think Pearl Harbor will open faster than Armageddon *but* it will fizzle even quicker, as June rolls around and the second wave of summer blockbusters step onto the scene. Armageddon played almost untouched through the summer of '98 (I think Something About Mary was like its closest competetion).

[JonathanLB]

Actually Jedieb, hehe, I DO mean Tomorrow Never Dies.

Goldeneye was in 1995, Tommorrow Never Dies was 1997, and The World is Not Enough came out in the year of The Phantom Menace, 1999, and it is 2001 right now, no Bond movie in sight I don't think. I heard there would be a small lul in action, but I hope they're going to do another fairly soon.

Tomorrow Never Dies and the other recent bond movies only opened big to fade quickly, they had very little staying power. No shame in that for Bond, it's a great series, but that is how they perform at the box office because of the huge built-in fan base. Star Wars has a similar built-in fanbase, but it quickly crosses into every other demographic, easing the declines as seen with all four films.

Titanic was neck-in-neck with Bond for a few weeks, then sailed on after running over it on the third weekend or so. Bond never again competed with the film, and Titanic had an open slate. It competed like a summer film and performed like a summer film because it WAS a summer film -- only released in the middle of winter. I don't know why more studios don't try that, but the moviegoers have proven time and again that when something is out they want to see, they go to the theaters no matter WHAT time of year it is!!! Remember Hannibal? That had a massive, massive opening, and in a weird month too, who would have thought that? People wanted to see it, very simple. People don't say, "Gee, it's February, guess I won't see this movie." That's totally illogical, yet I think some executives think that way. When a great movie is out, people go see it, no matter what that film is. Although the winter is typically a weak and slow season at the box office, it was especially so for Titanic, which really didn't face one legitimate contender (after Bond) until March was nearly over, so until spring basically. Usually, there is much more competition than that, Scream 3, Hannibal, anything, but something seems to make $15 to $20 million or more in February, yet nothing did in 1998.

Titanic benefitted greatly from its time of release, no question, and TPM probably sufferred somewhat from the crowded marketplace of 1999, at least I believe that is irrefutable. It wasn't as much that the other films took away dollars, but they took away theater space (screens), and when TPM began to lose screens, it of course began what can only be called an unnatural decline. In early July, it was beginning to settle in and find somewhat of a "floor" to the grosses, losing only 7-10% the week before July 4th weekend, but then it lost a massive number of theaters and couldn't hold on, so it probably ended a good $25 to $40 million below what I think it could have made, had the competition been weaker. What do you expect for summer, though? It's always busy, and that's the price you pay for competing there, but there are advantages too.

[Darth23]

Well I consulted the Book of Geek (my old sci-fi/Star Wars scrap book) and the few articles that mentioned SW's budget put it between 8 and 10 million. (1977 dollars).

[foxdvd]

I have also heard the number 11 million for ANH...I guess the only source to trust would be from the horses mouth.


Smokey and the Bandit had a very small budget even for 77 of 4.5 million, and it would be unfair to compare it to other movies of that time.

A better movie to compare it to would be Close Encounters of the Third Kind...a movie with less special effects then STar Wars, but with more money to actors..still to give you an example.. it cost over 32 million to make.

[foxdvd]

To go with other movies...1977..budgets..

Spy Who Loved Me budget 13 million

A Bridge Too Far 26 million

[JonathanLB]

Ok, let me say I understand what you are saying, Jedieb, in that movies simply didn't generally cost as much in 1977, even adjusted for inflation, so what you're saying is not that ANH would be literally $100 million today, but that just as $100 million is considered a huge amount for a film now, $10 million was stilly pretty huge back in 1977. Is that what you're saying?

I still think it's not quite a good analogy because as Fox points out, some films in the same time frame cost nearly triple as much. So, I'd say ANH is more like a $60 million, mid-budget type of film, but huge for sci-fi I think, at that time.

I don't know, I'm not trying to be argumentative, and I see what you are saying. Your point is seen.

Fox, you are right, I have heard $11 million too, so...umm...I'm not really Sure. Fair to say $9-11 million I think, it wasn't less than $9. I'd have to check Empire Building, but you know, this is how it always works.

The Phantom Menace was reported to cost $100 million, $105 million, $111 million (hehe), and the real number I heard was $115 million final price. Though, I'm not sure, in the end, it is more or less just a range. Come to think of it, I'm not so sure I ever mention the budget of TPM in my book. That's an oversight if it's not there...Let me check on that.

[swooshdark]

Its true Titanic had less competetion (although Good Will Hunting managed to do $100 million plus during Titanic's run, and The Wedding Singer also did solid box office), but the flipside is would The Phantom Menace have made more than $430 million if it opened in winter of 1999? I doubt it.

Kids and teenagers are in school in the winter months, and summer always has far and away the biggest movie going months.

Another reason why no other movie made a lot of money during that period is because the country was simply totally infatuated with Titanic. It was on Saturday Night Live. It was on the news. It *dominated* the Oscars. The soundtrack was number 1 on the Billboard charts. People went to see it in some cases just to see what the fuss was all about (I'm sure this happened with TPM as well). It wasn't just teenage girls going, older people went, married couples, famalies, younger kids...everyone. By the Valentine's Day weekend rolled around in Feburary of 1998, the movie was already a certified pheonmenon. The world fell in love with the movie, totally, I can't explain why things like that happen...such is pop culture.

I think Austin Powers 2 and some of the Jar-Jar backlash really hurt TPM. Austin Powers 2 just came out of the gates and would've blow anything away because it had developed such a monsterous following among teenagers on video.

[CMJ]

I'm glad someone mentioned GOOD WILL HUNTING. I'll throw onto that AS GOOD AS IT GETS. You know why those films performed. They were OSCAR contenders. The slow winter months typically feature long sustained runs by Oscar contenders. TITANIC had the best of both worlds...it was BIG and and Oscar contender.

[Jedieb]

That's what I'm trying to say about ANH's budget Jon. It was a pretty solid budget for 77. You could translate anywhere from $50-$100M in today's dollars. That $60M guess is probably as good as any you could make. Swooshdark gave us a couple of other solid BO performers that Titanic went up against. And the Wedding Singer targeted one of Titanic's strongest audiences, the date crowd. (My wife and I saw it and we enjoyed all of the 80's references immensely, it was hilarious. His ex wears a Van Halen t-shirt and they end up breaking up... oh the horror.) I just believe that Titanic would have taken the top spot whether it was released in winter or fall and TPM would have fallen short even if it was released in the dead of winter with little competition.

Even though TPM had strong competition week after week it still managed to have small declines. For it to have taken the #1 spot it would had to have performed the way those other #1 films had; strong openings and then virtually no declines for several weeks with at least 1 spike somewhere early in its run.

[Dutchy]

Titanic was neck-in-neck with Bond for a few weeks, then sailed on after running over it on the third weekend or so

Only the 1st weekend ($29M - $25M). After that: $35M - $20M and $33M - $14M. Not neck-in-neck at all.

[Darth23]

That's because the Stolen Star Wars money wasn't going to BOTH movies.

;)

[JonathanLB]

Dutchy, you know what I meant. The films were still close on 2nd weekend and Bond was still some competition, but by the third weekend it really was hardly even a factor.

I agree that Titanic could have succeeded anywhere, but would it have become #1 if it were released in July 1997? I'm not so sure about that, it's possible.

I doubt TPM would have done better in the winter, either. Star Wars films benefit from summer openings because of the high number of kids who see the films, and they're off during the summer so can see it many times. Star Wars is all about the summer, hehe. :)

I don't think it was too realistic to hope for TPM to be #1 anyway, it is the fourth part in a series of films. Its success was absolutely amazing, and when you consider it is just another film in the series, even more incredible. The media hype led me, and I think many, to believe it could topple Titanic.

I still think a Star Wars movie will reclaim #1 within 7 years.

[Jedieb]

Man this Nyquil is starting to kick in...(jedieb takes a quick nap....)

I bet you're thinking EP3 has the best shot huh Jon? Who knows, with enough time and inflation working in its favor maybe. But I think the dark tone is going to hurt it. Personally, I'm really looking forward to these next to films being darker and more action oriented. I'm really excited about Hayden's Anakin. I have a gut feeling that he's really going to deliver. There are so many things to look forward to. I think my all time prequel moment will be the "birth" of Vader! I can't wait.

A summer release of Titanic may very well have stopped it short of $600M. But I think it would still have had a shot at $500M. We'll never know but just imagine if it hadn't been pushed back or experienced delays, who knows what could have happened.

Must surrender to the Nyquil...Must surrender to the Nyquil...Must surrender to the Nyquil...Must surrender to the Nyquil...Must surrender to the Nyquil...Must surrender to the Nyquil...

[JonathanLB]

Yeah, inflation might help Episode III a good bit, but I'm not so sure it will be a prequel that reclaims #1. I said 7 years because I feel almost 100% certain Lucasfilm will release all six films again after the final prequel, maybe a year later, maybe two. Rick McCallum even said as much in a recent interview, recent as in maybe five months, but he did mention it. He said it is a dream of his, and he wants to make it happen, I believe.

So, if that happened, it's not entirely impossible that A New Hope could bring in another $140 million and pass Titanic. Inflation has already taken its toll, and heck, by that time, $140 million in 2007 dollars or whatever will be more like $80 million in 1997 dollars, so I'm saying, yes of course it'll sell far less tickets than the Special Editions, but it still might be enough.

I am not sure, it will come close probably, though. I still honestly believe Episodes II and III have some chance. III has the best chance, first because of inflation, but also because it is the last Star Wars film. The "dark tone" of the film you speak of could very well have an effect on the box office gross, because look at ESB. The proof is there that it could make an impact, but it might not make much of a difference either, not if it's a great movie and the fans absolutely adore it. What if, for once, the critics actually feel Episode III is an awesome movie, maybe the second best of the saga, or at least a great, solid, 3.5 to 4 star film (can't expect too much out of critics), and then the public takes to it, even though it is dark, and everyone really enjoys it. I still think it could make, say, $500 to $550 million, and if it did that, who is to say a re-release a few years later might not push it over the top, if not just from Star Wars fans saying, "Let's do this." There are not so many SW fans that actually care that much, but $50 million isn't so much money either, and if it made it to $550 million, you have to think it could get the remaining $52 million or whatever it needs.

Oh well, if no SW film beats Titanic soon, it will happen eventually, maybe on ANH's 50th anniversary, haha, who is to know. Not me. Still, it is not that important, Star Wars is a way bigger phenomenon than Titanic ever could be as a film.

[Jedieb]

There's one re-release on the way that may make some noise and that's ET. If I recall they're going to be adding some scenes and sprucing it up a bit. I think they're even going to add the scene of Harrison Ford as Elliot's principal. I don't think it will be as succesful as the SW SE's, but a gross from $50-$100M wouldn't surprise me. Years from now we're bound to see a Titanic re-release. Although I don't see that being anywhere as successful as a SW or ET re-release.

[JonathanLB]

No, a Titanic re-release wouldn't create much waves, excuse the pun.

I bet E.T. will do well, your range seems reasonable, but I doubt it makes it to $100. Always possible, though, as the SE's proved! Nobody thought that would happen, except the die-hards, hehe, and the die-hards were right!

[Ashedrav]

True, that one day ANH might topple TITANIC, but I think it's would be sad realizing that the only way a SW film could topple TITANIC would be through multiple releases. Obviously, I don't believe that either EP2 or EP3 will beat TITANIC, for I feel that if a SW movie could do it, it should've been EP1. In the long run, which ever is #1, TITANIC will still have the satisfaction of saying that it made all that damn money in one release in a slow box office season.

Just my .02

[Jedi Master Kyle]

Do we all seriously think that Titanic will never be re-released? Like for the 100th anniversary of it's sinking? And when the cost of admission is $30?

[Ashedrav]

Will TITANIC ever be re-released? Seriously, I really don't think so. Like Jon said, SW has one of the most unbelievable followings, so the idea of re-releasing SW is a better finanicial descision than re-releasing TITANIC even despite the boatloads of money it made.

However, that is not to say it wouldn't make some money if it did, but probably not much.

As for SW being more culturally impacting than TITANIC...that is true, but let's not forget that TITANIC was truly impacting. For four months, nobody could stop talking about this movie and it is the film that practically put Hollywood back on the map. Films made in that fashion simply had not been made in a long long time and it's success story was of true Cinderella fashion the likes of ROCKY.

Once again, just my .02

[JonathanLB]

I really don't think Titanic had any lasting impact on Hollywood or the movie industry in general. It made no permanent mark on the culture, it was merely a fad. If you can prove otherwise, please provide some facts to sway me. I just don't see it. It made lots of money, was very popular for a few months, then left never to be talked about again, except by a very few people who can't let the past just sink with the ship. lol.

ANH has sold way more tickets than Titanic, what are you talking about? The only reason it's not ahead already is because of inflation, so there is no shame in ANH beating Titanic on a re-release. You don't need to beat a film in one release to be triumphant. Yes it would be nice if Episode III could kill the boat in one release, but it's not necessarily. Star Wars is successful because of continued appeal, and if that same appeal exists for Titanic, surely they can re-release the boat movie over and over to compete with Star Wars. If not, you know which film is more popular. Don't say, "Well if they don't re-release Titanic I guess we'll never know." No, that means we already DO know; Hollywood studios aren't stupid, if they could make any money from doing it, they would!

Titanic is not even worth discussing, that film's success it utterly puny compared to even The X-Files.

[Jedi Master Kyle]

The thing is, the movie didn't have to make any lasting impressions on out culture, because the actual sinking of the titanic is already engrained in our popular culture. I know this because I knew the whole story of the Titanic when I was maybe 7 years old, just as I knew about Star Wars. Yes, the movies was a $600 million fad, and in 11 years from now, it can be a fad once again, albeit a much shorter lived one.

[Ashedrav]

Guys, don't jump down my throat so fast.
I clearly stated that if TITANIC was re-released, it would make some money, but not much. You guys are acting as if I said it would be the 2nd coming of christ or something. It's not the type of movie to have an unbelievable fan base as are all movies that don't have 5 sequels or prequels. People love the movie as they do others but not to the extent people might love SW because it is this entire universe of material and TITANIC is just one story with no possible sequels or anything.

Thats not to say that just one movie can't have a loyal fan base, but I don't know of many other chat forums dedicated to just one single movie. If there is, I simply don't know about it.

Also, I clearly stated that SW was more impacting than TITANIC in the beginning of my post. However, it is in my opinion that TITANIC still left a scar on the movie industry, thats just what I think as do many others, but being in a SW forum discussing this I suppose makes me the minority which is quite understandable and is not ment to be insulting so please don't take it that way. :)

Personally, I still think that it is more of a triumphant accomplishment to reach #1 in one release than multiple despite that the fact of it being impressive that a film can generate still solid sales after years out of the theaters.

Besides, being a 600 million dollar fad is not bad, is it?

[Jedi Master Kyle]

dude, just for the record, I agree with you. :)

[Force Master Hunter]

Look, Titanic is imprinted on our culture just as much as Star Wars is. The difference being is that Star Wars is future and hope, while Titanic is a symbol of man's stupidity and what it costs as a tragety. Titanic the ship has a signifigance that transends age barriers and cultural ones too. That is why Titanic the movie went off like it did. It tapped into that signifigance and created it's own momentum in the end. Yes the movie was crap, but you cant deny the underlying cultural factors that helped it.

Might I add, Star Wars does have that factor to a degree.... but there are people who will never see Star Wars and hate it because it's a SF movie and boring. Titanic was seen by everyone + dog, maybe not for the love story, but to find out a bit more about what is marked as one of histories best known disasters. It appealed to just about anyone who knew any details of the disaster.

Hey, there was a bloody awful song called Down among the Dead men by Flash in the Pan that did huge things many years ago. It too tapped into the Titaninc signifigance.

You also forget, Titanic made 1.2 BILLION O/S, so it says something for the knowledge of this boat worldwide, right? Compare that to TPM or even Star Wars. Star wars is quite Western. titanic transended that and appealed to all cultures. But in the end, Titanic the SHIP will remain in our poplular concious. The moive will more than likely be dissolved.

Tho.... I was witness to something that really makes me wonder about that. A 5 minute scence to Titanic was played to about 100 people. I was the only person to express my dislike... everyone else sat there like zombies. And we are not talking of little girls in love with Leo.... it was EVERYONE. A well marketed re-release in 20 years may do a lot better than what we think it will.

[zoar]

Not 20 years but closer to 10. In 2012, that will be the 100th anniversary of the sinking. If Titanic is going to be released again, that would be the best window of opportunity to maximize its profit potential as a re- release. Titanic meant a lot of things to a lot of people and not just the love story. Being able to see the film again in conjunction with the 100th anniversary would be an opportunity that would be hard to pass up for a lot of people. After that the prospects of a re- release are more distant if not next to zero. But I think people are underestimating the impact of a Titanic re-release. It wouldn’t be anything like the first, but if the timing is right, It could leave a very nostalgic impact before finally fading along with the ship itself, which scientists say is rapidly disintegrating and soon will be completely gone.

[JonathanLB]

I agree with Zoar, it would make the most sense financially to re-release it in conjuction with an already significant event, the 100th anniversary...

I think a re-release could do alright, just nothing great. It would do alright.

Anyone who thinks Star Wars is a boring sci-fi series/movie is really stupid and wrong in two ways. First, they're not sci-fi films. They're very clearly fantasy films with roots in mythology, not science. Second, they're the most exciting movies ever produced, not boring at all. Boring is a musical or a love story or most foreign films outside of Asia, hehe.

Titanic is a very significant part of the culture, just not the movie. The ship. The movie was just a flash in the pan, one very big success, no denying that. Massive success. But it was just a fad like most blockbusters, ultimately, no shame in that really. ID4 was the same thing. It's not like you see an ID4 fan club and ID4 fans meeting and talking about how ID4 changed their lives!

Come on, can you imagine anyone saying something like, "The Mummy Returns changed my life!" I think not. Star Wars changed many lives, and guess what? I'm now part of that "Star Wars changed my life" group.

I used to read about them, the people who chose a particular career because they loved Star Wars, etc.

Now, I wrote a book about Star Wars and that landed me a top New York literary agent, and hopefully soon a deal with a major publisher. That literally changes my life, and for the better, of course. I have broken into the industry, and honestly without Star Wars that would not have been possible. My writing is very good, but it's the marketing potential of a Star Wars book that sold it to an agent, and will sell it to a publisher; not my "wonderful writing." I picked an extremely commercial project, and it definitely has paid off thus far. I still expect it to pay off further. Star Wars is pretty incredible.

Also, Star Wars enhanced my interest and love of movies, which made me consider a career in film. Now, I'm a Film Production Major at Loyola (entering next year). So, for me, Star Wars isn't just a movie, for anyone to say that is absolutely insulting. I still hear that from some people on the net, some people at school, etc. "Oh it's just a movie, get a life, it's not important." Excuse me? Star Wars defines who I am today, and I love the saga. It's more than just a few movies, it's a huge part of the culture that has made a positive impact on hundreds of thousands of people in very important ways.

Even looking solely at the friendships I would have missed without Star Wars is enough to make me think the saga is extremely valuable. Many of my online friends I met because of Star Wars, and I met a guy who referred me to an agent because of posting on this very Star Wars messageboard (!), and the book I wrote in the first place is about Star Wars, so clearly that whole part of my life would fall through and not exist without the saga.

If you can say that about the movie Titanic, if anyone can say all that about Titanic, I would be very surprised (though that would be great, I just don't think it exists). Just a movie, ha. Shows what they know. That has to be one of the most ignorant statements I've ever heard, not to mention factually incorrect (if Star Wars is just a movie what am I sleeping on every night? Star Wars bedsheets, and that ain't a movie, but it is Star Wars).

[zoar]

Quoted: “If you can say that about the movie Titanic, if anyone can say all that about Titanic, I would be very surprised (though that would be great, I just don't think it exists). Just a movie, ha. Shows what they know. That has to be one of the most ignorant statements I've ever heard, not to mention factually incorrect (if Star Wars is just a movie what am I sleeping on every night? Star Wars bedsheets, and that ain't a movie, but it is Star Wars).”


JonathanLB being in the film business then you will probably want to check this out. I just finished reading a book, “Titanic, Anatomy of a Blockbuster” This is not a book written by Titanic fans but rather is a collection of essays from various professors and department directors of advanced film/cultural studies in prominent universities through out the United States and Europe. Each essayist gives his point of view as to what made Titanic the success it was. They are almost universally agreed that Titanic was undoubtedly a major cultural phenomena. It was a very fascinating and informative read

[Jedi Master Carr]

I just don't see Titanic the movie impacting our culture to that degree especially now. For example a good indercator of what I mean is the DVD sales, when it was released on DVD it did not do that well, even today it is no where near the top 10 on DVD. If it had made such an impact on our culture why did it not do well on DVD. And that is why it would not do that well on a re-release like any post 1990 film would not do well on re-release because it is available on so many different mediums. Who wants to shell out 7 bucks to see Titanic again when they can watch it home for Free. It is slightly different with Star Wars especially the last release it was the special Edition and they added a bunch of new scenes plus Star Wars is meant to be seen on the big screen and not on Video. Of course this will change when it comes on DVD, then I think they can never re-release it again and expect to make money off it. I do think E.T. will do well again because it is not on DVD and they are adding never before seen footage. I doubt it will make over 100 though because most people will not shell out money for something they can see for free.

Now back to Titanic I don't think the movie has really impacted our culture that much if it has then why was there never any impact in merchandise. Just about every culturly important movie has had impact there, Star Wars, Back to the Future, Ghostbusters, Indiana Jones, and E.T just to name a few. The merchandise really never worked for Titanic because it was just a one year event and I think that is why so many people don't care about it now. For example my sister loved the movie when it first came out and for a year so loved everything about it. Now she hates it and trashes it anytime someone brings it up. There has been a backlash I think because it was so popular and people watched it so much that now people are finally sick of it.

I want to make one other point I have no clue why Titanic is so important to our culture, sure it sank and people died but worse events have happened in our history that I think our way more important, The Holocaust, Pearl Harbor, Hiroshima, The Vietnam War, The Kennedy Assination, and the bombing of Oklahoma City. None of these events have really created a movie that did as well as Titanic. Of course the movie Pearl Harbor could change this I am sure but the others have all had movies and none were as well recieved fiancially as even ID4. I am not sure if its the subject matter and if people don't like seeing tragedy to the scale of the Holocaust, which is probably is the case. I guess I am just sick of hearing people putting Titanic on that scale of tragedy, (not really on this board just people in general) because it really didn't not impact the history of the US or anywhere else for that matter and is mostly just a trageic footnote in the history of the United States. I think I will end my rant now and let people react.

[foxdvd]

my dad can beat up your dad...


Good point about the DVD sales of Titanic...also check out the really bad ratings for the movie the first time it played on tv....I think Titanic was strong for almost 2 years, but then died off...

[Ashedrav]

"when it was released on DVD it did not do that well, even today it is no where near the top 10 on DVD."

True, but lets not forget these little factoids: 1 - the DVD and Laserdisc(the DTS versions sells for close to 100 on EBAY) was released one year after the VHS (which sold tons), the amount of people owning DVD players in 1999 to now was scarce in comparison, and the DVD was bare-bones with no special features and not even a 16x9 transfer. Even if it had been released in 1998 with the VHS, it probably would not have done well because of DVD's very small userbase at the time. Films don't have to be commercially successful to be impacting as well. IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE was a commercial and critical disaster when it was released and is now considered one of the best films ever made and watching it is almost a ritual for family's every X-mas. If that's not culturally impacting, I don't know what is.

As for merchandising, I can't recall seeing any TITANIC merchandise with the exception of after the film's success, but all I saw was a t-shirt or two. I'm sure when making the film, Cameron and Paramount didn't utter to themselves, "Geez, we gotta start thinking about merchandising." I wonder if films like GLORY and SAVING PRIVATE RYAN did well in the merchandising area as well. C'mon. The films that were mentioned, like Raiders, Ghostbusters, films like that have merchandise out even before the film is out. I bet the film SMALL SOLDIERS did great in terms of merchandising, does that mean it is more culturally impacting? Are we saying that merchandising sales determine how culturally impacting a film is?

On another note, for the record, I stated that TITANIC was impacting on the film industry. I will also say it was culturally now as well. However, I think that GREASE too was culturally impacting, but does its poor re-release box office take say that its not?

[foxdvd]

nope..dvd sales were bad. Many movies, some that have been out on vhs for years, some that never came close to the money Titanic made in theaters, came out around the same time as Titanic, and blew away Titanic sales. Heat, a movie that was already on vhs, and was not really big in theaters, sold more then Titanic, though they both came out about the same time. Even WHEN Titanic came out it was not top 10 at that time. Sure it set a record for most DVDs sent to stores, but did not sell them.


Saving Private Ryan, a movie that did good in theaters, and a movie that was already on VHS for a long time, Out-sold Titanic MANY MANY times over on DVD. The list goes on. Titanic did not sell DVDs, even when compared to sales at that time.

Right now Titanic would not even be top 20, top 30, or top 40 DVD sales of all time.

[zoar]

What killed the sales of the Titanic DVD was it’s lack of extra goodies. That is one reason to buy a DVD is you get all the extra stuff that you can’t see with VHS. However there are rumors that another Titanic DVD with two disks is in the works. This will include all the extras that people come to expect from a DVD release. Whether or not the rumors are true, I think an enhanced Titanic DVD is a good bet. Just look at some of the films now. Gladiator released after Titanic on DVD has a second disk with extra features. The Mummy is now an enhanced 2 disk DVD although the original DVD contained extras to begin with. Two Disk DVD’s with all the extra material on a second disk seem to be the coming thing. As far as Titanic leaving a cultural impact on people I would have to say Yes. Sales of Titanic artifacts from the ship from auctions have fetched astronomical prices since the movie was released. Since the movie there has been more interest in the ship itself than any other time in history. Last summer I was in Chicago and went to the Titanic exhibition at the museum of Science and Industry. Not only did you have to make reservations to get in to see the exhibit, there was an hour wait in line when you got there. And all this 3 years after the movie was released. If it hadn’t been for the movie, I don’t think too many people would have really cared about seeing it.

[JonathanLB]

Well, the terrible DVD sales (for a major blockbuster) were an indicator of Titanic's waning popularity, but not sufficient to pass judgment.

Though, when it played on HBO, ratings were just decent. When it had its major national broadcast premiere, they were just not impressive at all. Nobody watched it, and you can't defend that. Most movies that do very well in the box offices do well on TV, even if everyone already saw them.

Low DVD sales and poor ratings on television give no reason to believe that Titanic is popular anymore, but further prove it's just a very big fad that took the nation by storm and did very well.

Zoar, that book sounds interesting. I had no idea they had a whole book like that, sort of reminds me of my own book, hehe. That's probably an interesting read :)

[zoar]

The record VHS sales of Titanic could have had something to do with DVD and HBO performance. If you already have the VHS, why buy the DVD or watch it on HBO unless you are a really die hard fan? Speaking of DVD’s “Star Wars” has still not been released on DVD. What’s with that?

[foxdvd]

As I said above, movies have already been on vhs, but then when they come to DVD they do better then Titanic. The VHS came out when Titanic was still strong, so the sales were good. A year later nothing. Why is it a movie like Heat, that did not do well in theaters, had a strong after life on vhs, then go on to do better then Titanic as a dvd? Esp when Titanic on DVD was almost given away at the time. Extras? Name one extra on the DVD of Heat. Even Saving Priavte Ryan has little extras, and sales many times more then Titanic.


As for the high price of the DTS laserdisc, people will pay a lot for anything that is rare. Why else would they pay over 300 bucks for The Killer criterion, or that much for Salo?

[JonathanLB]

haha, yeah I'm not even joking, I remember seeing tons of specials that said, "BUY TWO DVD'S AND GET TITANIC FREE!"

As Variety said, Titanic was sold as "a loss leader." It was just to attract customers, ultimately, because it didn't make any money for most stores. Sales really sucked. It was the first DVD to SHIP a million copies, but Matrix was the first to SELL a million. Titanic just sat around, I have no idea what the final sales total was, but I am guessing by the time any Star Wars movie comes out, it'll outsell Titanic at least 10:1, but more likely 20:1.

lol.

[Ashedrav]

"Saving Private Ryan, a movie that did good in theaters, and a movie that was already on VHS for a long time, Out-sold Titanic MANY MANY times over on DVD. The list goes on. Titanic did not sell DVDs, even when compared to sales at that time."

Not quite, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN was not priced to own til the DVD was released so that statement is kind of irrelevant.

"The record VHS sales of Titanic could have had something to do with DVD and HBO performance. If you already have the VHS, why buy the DVD or watch it on HBO unless you are a really die hard fan? Speaking of DVD’s “Star Wars” has still not been released on DVD. What’s with that?"

Thank you, apparently somebody might have read my last post. But I'll once again re-state: the VHS sold in record breaking #'s, the DVD userbase was much much smaller in 1999, the DVD was featureless.

Nearly everybody bought the VHS. Why would anyone want to watch it on TV or a buy a DVD that offers nothing extra if they already have the tape?

[foxdvd]

your logic is not working. Movies like Jurassic Park, even with a huge vhs market , and other top 20 movies, did well on TV. These other top 20 movies, even though a lot of people had seen them and a lot of people had watched it on vhs, rented them or the like, still had strong tv ratings.


Vhs sales.... most people who own a DVD at the time Titanic came out had the vhs version (or laserdisc)of that movie as well. To say "Well a lot of people had the vhs..25 million, so that is why it sold less then 100,000 dvds at the time" will not work because there are movies, that sold 5-10 million vhs..and these owners went on to buy 100,000-300,000 thousand dvds. When a movie like Jaws, or Animal House comes to dvd, trust me there are not a lot of people who have never seen them before or owned them that went out and bought them.

Die Hard did better then Titanic on DVD. Die Hard had no extras. Die hard was seen in theaters by a lot of people, had sold many vhs copies, and laserdisc copies. Are you trying to say that Die Hard was bought by a lot of people on DVD because they had never seen it before, and did not have it so might as well get the dvd version? When Die Hard came out there was a lot of talk about a special edition soon, though that took longer then expected, it still was spoken of, and while that might have hurt sales a bit, it did not keep it from doing better then Titanic.

Is it so hard for you to see that a movie that does almost 2 billion world wide, and sets records on vhs sales for a non-animated movie, and was such a big hit, should at least have a top 20 dvd sales rate? Or that it would do better then a fox tv show on sunday night when it hits tv? Why is that so hard to admit? Is it becasue if you do say "Well it should have done better then that" then you are really saying "Yes the fad had died off"

Heck I went to the stupid movie 3 times in theaters. I liked the movie a lot in theaters. My wife called it her favorite movie of all time. The VHS came out I bought it. The Laserdisc? I bought it. The DVD...I bought it, but we have not watched our dvd yet. No reason. I find the movie does not hold up over time, and my wife could care less about it anymore.


Also, Titanic on DVD had a LOT of press. Talk about the great sound, how it would be showpiece for your system. It had a lot of free press, and was given away at many online stores for 10 bucks or so. Other stores had the price so low, it was hard to pass up. All this free press, these low prices, all this, and it still could not sale that many copies.

[foxdvd]

on top of that, while older DVD titles cont. to do well even 2 years after they came out, as the DVD market grows, Titanic cont. to not do well.

Pulp Fiction, a dvd with no extras, and one that was cut by many reviews as a bad DVD, and came out over a year before Titanic on DVD, is still ranking in the top 200 DVD sales per week, while Titanic is not even in the top 700.

[Ashedrav]

You bring up some good points, but perhaps the more I think of it, the sales were a victim of TITANIC overkill. For almost a year it was in the news and everybody was talking about it. Hell, here we are almost 4 years after its release discussing it in a STAR WARS forum. Obviously, it was just a little impacting. Can somebody even count how many threads have been dedicated to TITANIC here?

But when you talk about how well other DVD's did in comparison, perhaps provide some evidence. If you're right, you're right, but at least a little proof to back up you stats.

You say that most people who own the DVD own the VHS too? Of course, the DVD is gonna continue to do poorly. Like I've said, it is one of the most highest selling VHS's in history. Why would those people buy it if offers really nothing different from the VHS. Not many people are Dolby Digital equipped and the DVD is not even anamorphically enhanced.

True, Pulp Fiction may have sold well as well as Die Hard, but it's not as if they rank as one of the highest selling VHS in history. Compare the # of VHS copies of those two to TITANIC's.

The TITANIC DVD was purely a victim of too little too late. When it is re-released in the future with extra material, I'm sure it will sell extremely well, it may not break any records, but I'm sure Paramount will make out okay.

[foxdvd]

Two places that will help are dvdfile.com who keeps records of sales (I know Jon you hate the place, but they do have numbers)

and of course, amazon.com, being the largest online store, keeps good records of sales, and I find that their sales ranks are close to what comes out by the statistics.

My point though is that when a dvd sales 1 million it is a big deal. Early Dvd owners were movie nuts. Before DVD these people, especially the people who bought the first 5 million dvd players, were big owners of laserdisc and vhs. They are movie people. These people owned the vhs and laserdisc of the movies before they bought the dvd, if it was on vhs or laserdisc first. Now today that is not always the case because DVD is starting to become mainstream. So when a movie like Titanic comes to DVD, many of those dvd owners had the vhs, true..but also many of those dvd owners have the vhs of other movies as well. Big movies, that are already on VHS, all have the same "buy it again?" problem that Titanic faced. It does not matter how many vhs copies were sold, because among early DVD owners as long as a movie was popular, those people probably already had it.

With that said, and with all the press over the Titanic DVD, it still did not do well.

I will try to find some more places for info. DVDfile updates once a week to their list, so if it is not up now, check back time to time.


At amazon, just go to the movie in question, it will list its current sales ranks..

[Jedieb]

Ah so much fun, so much fun...

I would have to say that Titanic HAS had an impact on our culture. The book mentioned earlier is a good example, or "fact", that would support that statement. You could even point out the many Titanic references we've seen in TV and other mediums of as proof that the film has had an impact. I can think of Titanic references in everything from the comic strip Foxtrot to TV shows like Spin City and Newsradio. And the references were scene specific, not just references to the sinking of the boat. Do I think that Titanic the movie has had as big a cultutal impact as SW? No, but it's had an impact nevertheless. And it achieved BO successes that ANH NEVER did. Yes ANH sold many more tickets, but Titanic did much better overseas setting #1 records in, I believe, country it was released. ANH didn't do that. (But ANH's domestic release had much more of an impact that Titanic's.)


Anyone who thinks Star Wars is a boring sci-fi series/movie is really stupid and wrong in two ways. First, they're not sci-fi films. They're very clearly fantasy films with roots in mythology, not science. Second, they're the most exciting movies ever produced, not boring at all. Boring is a musical or a love story or most foreign films outside of Asia, hehe.

Hey, we could say people who think love stories are boring are loners who've never even kissed a girl, hehe. ;)

I have no problem with someone who doesn't like SW or dismisses the films as "just" movies. I certainly wouldn't use their opinions of SW to rate their intelligence. That's just narrow minded. Do you think George Will thinks ROTJ and TPM are masterpieces? Would anybody here call him an idiot? An uptight dorky conservative that takes baseball WAY too seriously maybe, but an idiot? My point is, you can find plenty of accomplished and intelligent people out there that have no use for SW whatsoever.

I believe SW has influenced thousands of people in many positive ways. But you know what? So has Flash Gordon, Zorro, Hitchcock, Capra, Joyce, Faulkner, Spielberg, Sherlock Holmes, etc... There are countless examples of works of art that have influenced the lives and careers of people who've watched or read them. This isn't anything SW has a patent on. Just listen to GL and Spielberg and you'll hear names like Kirosawa(sp?), Flash Gordon, and Hitchcock. SW and GL are links in the chain, but certainly not the chain itself.

Yeah, the movie Titanic has faded, but it's still a part of Hollywood history. It's just up on the shelf right now, but that doesn't change the fact that when it was in its prime it was a BO sensation that set records around the globe. Plus, Leo died at the end. How can you NOT love that?

[foxdvd]

I would like to point out that when Star Wars came out, the box-office in other countries was very slim to none. There were not as many theaters compared to what was in America. Today, a big movie does 60 percent or more of it sales in other markets. Back when Star Wars came out this was not the case for an American movie. Heck, one of the reasons being blacklisted was so bad was America could scare other countries by saying their movies would not play in America if they used that blacklisted person. Today that would not be as strong a statement.

So it is sort of unfair to say that ANH did not do as well as Titanic did overseas. It never could have done as well.

[foxdvd]

Also, of course Titanic had an impact on our culture. But I think many people are confusing a few things. First, if Titanic was not based on a true story the impact it had would not be as strong. Because the story is based on true events, and because it is so tragic, the movie only helped bring interest back to the original incident. The movie and the true life event fueled each other. It was a perfect combination that rarely happens in movies, but when they do, even if the actual story in that movie is false, it goes on to make box office gold. Look at the box office champion adjusted for inflation, Gone With the Wind. Surrounding true life with a fictional story made it the most money making movie in history. When you take a story that registers with people, one that if you look you can find a lot of info about it, and then make a movie that is well made, and hits all the right marks, it will be big.

[foxdvd]

and I have NOTHING to back this up but to this day I still feel that 20-40 percent of what Titanic made was because of JAMES HORNER and CELINE DION...I think Titanic, more so then any other movie in history, other then musicals, owes its success to its music....

[JonathanLB]

Well, I don't have that much to say thanks to the fact that Fox over here is basically covering every point I would otherwise make! Bravo! :)

Fox, you have been around me too long, and vice versa, now we think as one.

"Hey, we could say people who think love stories are boring are loners who've never even kissed a girl, hehe."

I am a loner and I have never kissed a girl. But don't make generalizations of all people who hate love stories, haha! :)

Oh, and I wasn't suggesting that Star Wars is *THE ONLY* piece of art that has ever influenced anyone, hehe, of course not. There are tens, hundreds, probably thousands that have made major impacts on people throughout time and different cultures.

I will sum up some points Fox already made very well, but just to add the second opinion in a short version.

Most films play on television two and a half to three years after they arrive in theaters, and most of the films that play on major networks such as Titanic have already make a killing at the box office, then came to video and, likewise, did awesome. Videos come out before television. Even so, nearly every other major blockbuster that succeeded in theaters sold tons of videos, then went on to enjoy awesome TV ratings. Why couldn't Titanic do that? It's a valid question, and the only logical response is simple: it is not as popular as it once was. In fact, Who Wants to Be a Millionaire beat Titanic for one hour of its broadcast (the hour it played during). That's not very impressive. We're talking about a show that runs a few times quickly (didn't it? I don't keep up) and costs the network less than $1 million per show, usually, versus a blockbuster that the network paid in the tens of millions for. Fortunately, as I recall, the idiots at Fox and Paramount were incredibly stupid because they sold the rights to Titanic's broadcast before the film had even hardly begun its voyage at the box office. I think it went for something like $28 million, which anyone in the industry would consider an absolute steal! TPM was $80 million and almost any movie that clears $200 million should bring home $35 to $45 million for the broadcast. Titanic should have taken at least $75, so that is a really dumb mistake.

I don't buy the argument that since Titanic did well on VHS, nobody wanted the DVD. That's just not how it works, sorry. Refer to Fox's posts.

When ANH came out in 1977, there were no theaters in many countries. Laugh all you want, but it's true, U.S. films simply did not enter many of these markets. So, in some countries, or actually many countries, Titanic beat ANH by an infinite margin (because ANH didn't even play there originally, 'cept maybe as a Special Edition). Furthermore, there were far fewer theaters in any of the smaller countries, so even if it did play internationally there wasn't much grossing potential. In fact, Empire Building by Garry Jenkins, which I know Jedieb has read, says that the international box office "was an interesting side-business at the time," but he notes it was not considered very profitable whatsoever. Truly, it was an afterthought for most films.

Getting to the point, though, Titanic was a global success, a phenomenon in every country (ranked first in every country it opened, but not now, TPM is first in Russia and several other countries have also sunk the boat, not many though). Star Wars is a global phenomenon and bigger than Titanic in every country, but not necessarily at the box office. Star Wars is more popular in the first world, richer countries. Take Japan, Australia, the U.K., and the United States. It is not really fair to say it's "a Western thing," because Japan was the #2 country and they have always loved Star Wars, even since ANH debuted there in '77. Then, you can't say it's a big deal in just English-speaking countries either, because of Japan.

You could make a fair list that went something like:

US: Phenomenon.
Japan: Phenomenon.

Germany: Major blockbuster.

Italy: Blockbuster.

Korea: "Who cares? We pirate films, theaters suck!"

No seriously, though, most films do sucky in those little countries like Taiwan and Korea and whatnot because everyone pirated the hell out of TPM, hehe. They really should push for that "One world, one release" campaign. It would be incredibly difficult, but I think it would be worth the effort in $$$ and fan satisfaction.

Plus, how cool would it be to see Episode II go from nothing (well, ok advance ticket sales, but those don't count until it is out, let's say, hehe) to something like $350 million in one single week. It could happen, theoretically, if it opened in every country within a single week...

[buff jedi 2]

Ok my 2 cents worth (and thats about all its worth). Star Wars is and will (atleast in our life time) will be the measuring stick for blockbusters.Titanic was a fluke (a very good movie) but a box office fluke. IF- the box office numbers are true for it here is why .1 all the little girls dragging there boy friends to see it .I asked several guys who seen it , if they would have went and seen it if they were not forced to and they said no.Now lots of girls who loved leo than hate him now, if you ask them about TITANIC they say it sucked.Titanic was and is a great movie BUT not STARWARS caluber.Also the Box-office gross for TITANIC was FUDGEd(of course Id never be able to prove it) But the way most in society look at thing is ,everyone loves a winner you go on TV In MAGS and say this movie is making all this amount of money ,people for real go WOW that must be a great movie if all those people are going to see it, so I think ill go see it .TITANIC, and the MUMMY returns are 2 great examples)like with sports people leave there team thats struggling to rout for a winning one.Rest assure that IF hollywood has that much money invested in PEARL HARBOR we will see a huge box office gross JUST like TITANIC.People in hollywood know that most people beleave what thay see or read in mags and tv.so they will use it for all its worth.Star wars will never have that advantage because HOLLYWOOD IS jealous of Lucas and his success.Oh crap I got off track here and lost my train of thought so Ill do you all a favor and stop here :o


buffjedi/wookieboy

[foxdvd]

I would have went to Titanic if my wife did not drag me, though I would not have went the second or third time for sure...

[Jedieb]

I was just kidding Jon, I'm glad you didn't take offense.:)

I'm glad that you mentioned the Jenkins' book Jon. Remember that Jenkins mentioned that SW didn't fare very well in countries such as Chile, the Soviet Union, and Scandinavia. Those countries had been playing American films for years and some of them had done very well, just not ANH. (Although I'd wager very few American films had ever done well in the USSR for obvious reasons.) Despite the foreign markets not being what they are today, ANH did set records in MANY of the foreign countries it played in; France, England, and even India saw new BO records. India was quite impressive in that foreign films their rarely did well but ANH succeeded nevertheless. So despite the foreign market not being what it is today, it still existed. There were records to be set and ANH set many of them, it just didn't set them to the degree that Titanic did.

As for foreing markets, in 75 Jaws made over $200M in foreign markets, more than it made in the US. The same year that ANH was released 3 other films made more than $100M overseas; The Spy Who Loved Me, Saturday Night Fever, and Close Encounters of The Third Kind. So the foreign market was there. And ANH did very well in it, it just didn't set records in virtually every country the way Titanic did.

Titanic made more than twice as much overseas as it did in the US while ANH made less overseas than it did domesticly. Titanic more than doubled the overseas record of Jurassic Park and Independance Day, and ID was released just the year before. By comparison, ANH failed to double up on the mark set by Jaws 2 years earlier. Again, I'm not saying ANH had a poor overseas showing. It was anything but, it was actually rather amazing. It just didn't measure up to Titanic's.

There is of course someone who could explain why this all REALLY happened. Jedi31.........

[JonathanLB]

I know many people who thought the movie was super great when it came out, but today feel it is just average or good. They've not seen it since then.

Fox, you said your wife is that way. My sister is that way. She saw it about four times in theaters, but now says it was a fad and she doesn't care for it anymore. She has an unopened copy of the film on VHS. She just never felt like seeing it again.

[Jedieb]

It will be interesting to see how Titanic holds up over time. Despite all its success I wonder if it will improve with age the way movies like Casablanca and Gone With the Wind have. I don't see it holding up as well as GWTW has. I sure as hell don't see people comparing Leo's Jack to Bogart's Rick 50 years from now. That's just plain madness!

[Jedi Master Carr]

Still, I think ANH would have done much better internationally today then it would have 25 years ago, mostly because there 10 times the theaters overseas now compared to then. Back in the 70's there were still many countries that despised our films France comes to mind, (I guess little has changed there:D ) But now American films do better overseas than they do domestically. I remember when Die Hard 3 made a little over 100 million in the US and 300 million world wide, who would believed that a film would have made 3 times what it made here overseas.

Back to Titanic, I doubt it will hold up to the other great classic love stories especially since the ones who loved it now hate it. I myself see Casablanca as a much better movie than Titanic even considering that Titanic is a modern film with modern effects but Casablanca just has a better story and way better acting. Leo is nowhere near the actor he is not even as good as Claude Reins.

[Jedi Master Kyle]

Well if Titanic is as popular 50 years from now as Casablanca is, let's consider it a sign of the apocalypse.

[zoar]

I think Titanic has had more of an effect on us then we care to admit. If it was just a passing fad, why on earth are we still posting about it here nearly four years after it has been released. And mark my words when EP2 is released Titanic will be a hot item of discussion as the next race is on. Let’s be honest with ourselves. As long as Titanic stays at #1, it is always going to be a shadow over Star Wars and a hot discussion item on SW boards. That’s pretty impressive for a movie that supposedly was a passing fad.

[foxdvd]

why on earth are we still posting about it here nearly four years after it has been released.

well this place was formed on the idea of Titanic vs TPM..of course we are going to talk about it.

[buff jedi 2]

tHATS TRUE,Zoar BUT its not all good what we say about Titanic(although I do think its a good movie)As long as Titanic holds the 1 spot it will always be brought up(as someone has said BUT not held up.



buffjedi/wookieboy

[JonathanLB]

Oh I am sorry Jedieb, I didn't see your post there, I guess I made mine just while you were writing yours.

Well, you make some good points, some I would never deny; they are facts. ANH and sci-fi in general simply are not as popular in some countries as they are in others. Sci-fi films are less universal in their appeal than a love story like Titanic. Though, these major "blow it all up" blockbusters like ID4 are more able to suck money out of foreign economies, hehe.

ANH wasn't as successful in many countries as other movies that are not as well acclaimed or remembered today. It is a cultural thing, and in some countries no Star Wars movie is a major event, just another blockbuster sent over from the U.S. They do well in every country, but "well" means just that, well, nothing amazing.

Still, there is no denying that ANH would have done far better internationally if it were released in today's market for the first time. Just as TPM made more than half its money overseas, but ANH made by far most of its money here in the states...

Zoar, that is just not so. People in the general public do not discuss Titanic much anymore, personally I've never heard it discussed in the last, oh, two years outside of the the context of Star Wars discussion, haha.

Now, I have seen Titanic references on TV shows and in movies, though, to be fair. I just haven't heard discussions about the film...

[Jedieb]

Still, there is no denying that ANH would have done far better internationally if it were released in today's market for the first time. Just as TPM made more than half its money overseas, but ANH made by far most of its money here in the states...

I agree with you, I think ANH would do better in today's market. Better than TPM IMO. I think ANH would have grossed a few million better than ID4 or Jurassic Park, possibly a few hundred million more. I just don't know if it would have raked in the money that Titanic did overseas. But you'd think it would have topped the boat flick in countries like Japan or some other countries that SW had done very well in.

[JonathanLB]

Yeah, that's probably true. It's hard to know...

[Darth23]

So I'm at work yesterday, working on the Help Desk like I do every Friday. It's lunchtime, the phones are dead and I'm bored. So I pull up the Pearl Harbor trailer from the net and I'm watching it with a co-worker. I'm looking at it, trying to get enthused about the movie but it's just not happeneing.

So I say "I don't know about this. it's just so......."

And my co-worker goes "Titanic?"

"Yeah."


:p

[Force Master Hunter]

Just seen the trailer for Pearl Harbour.

Ummm....

It's screams out CRAP!!!! to me. the effects looked like a cartoon. The CG just looks out of place, like as if they were done just because they could be. Smells to me like a huge opening weekend and a toilet drop following. No chance to even get close to Titanic.

[Jedi Master Carr]

The trailer looks cool to me, the special effects look amazing (they should be ILM did do them). I will be there opening weekend for certain. The question isn't the trailer, it is the story which will matter if the movie does well after Memorial Day. It will be the first film to 100 million in a weekend I think and it should easily pass 250 if the story is bad it will not make 300 but still be #1 movie of the year. If it has a great story it will make 300 easily and maybe more.

[JonathanLB]

I think that is one of the top five greatest trailers ever made. I don't understand how you could NOT be blown away by it. It's absolutely incredible. I cannot wait to see Pearl Harbor, which I think will be one of the best films of the year.

[Jedieb]

The comparisons to Titanic continue... Yesterday I saw something on TV about the Pearl Harbor soundtrack. Faith Hill will be singing some song for the movie. So it looks like the producers of PH continue to follow the Titanic formula. I have to say if I had a choice between watching Faith sing and seeing Celine Dion scrawny butt wailing away I'd take the country gal any day.

[Dutchy]

I know many people who thought the movie was super great when it came out, but today feel it is just average or good. They've not seen it since then.

That's because they can only watch it on video. I myself have only seen it once on video and don't really feel like watching it again. I saw it 4 times in the theater and I'd for sure go see it again if I could. It really is a theater-movie. Most of what makes the movie falls apart on TV.

[Darth23]

I have to say if I had a choice between watching Faith sing and seeing Celine Dion scrawny butt wailing away I'd take the country gal any day.

Well they're BOTH Can eh dians.

:p

[JonathanLB]

"It really is a theater-movie."

Yes, that is what most people say. Plus, the effects are better on the big screen with the superior sound and whatnot. It's made for the theaters. Of course, the Star Wars movies are truly best experienced in a very well equiped theater too. Fortunately, we've had a number of re-releases to take advantage of that. :)

[Hannibal Marzullo]

Hey, I have to agree with Jonathan about LOTR, who the hell cares or thinks this movie is going to be bug worldwidde? I didn't even know the damn thing existed until I saw the trailer. And I'm the average foreign guy.


Now, as far as Pearl Harbor, since i am a huge World War Two Buff, the trailer impacted me when I saw the scenes of the japanese flying over the people who were doing what they do every day, that s eemed really scary to me.

Jonathan, will you tell me the planes would have had the same impact if they were just flying by themselves without the kids looking at them?

You do need human drama, a love story I don't care about, but you do need the drama of the people who died during that devastating raid, I've read a lot about it, the trailer alone is beautiful in many ways, however, since this is Pog-13, we won't see Saving Private Ryan-Enemy At The Gates type of gore while people get shot and blown up, that's the only turn off I got from the movie.

Anyway, I am seeing this movie mainly because I adore WWII's history, second, for the incredible effects, and third, the actors, have some values once in your life.