I don’t see why reissues wouldn’t count. GWTW was a phenomenon, people saw it over and over again. When it was first shown on TV in the '70s it scored blockbuster ratings and that was about 40 years after it came out. It was a spectacle the likes of which had never been seen on the screen before and it came out in an era with no television to compete with the movies.
You’ll notice that 7 of the top 50 on the adjusted-for-inflation list are Disney animated films that benefitted from a constant theatrical reissue cycling in the pre-video days that allowed their total b.o. numbers to accumulate over the years.
Is there anyone on the planet who goes to the IMDB for their movie reviews? Anyone at all?
Then you must remember that Titanic was not primarily a Paramount release. It was a Twentieth Century Fox release with Paramount footing part of the bill (60 million of the original 180 million budget). Paramount was handling domestic release, with Fox handling international.
And if you worked for Paramount’s Distributions Division, You should also know that the only reason Titanic was pushed to December 19th of 1997 was because Harrison Ford’s Air Force One was being released shortly after the July 4th holiday (July 25th) and Ford asked Paramount to delay the release of Titanic domestically to prevent a conflict at the box office, Paramount obliged (much to Fox’s disapproval. Cameron and company simply used that time to continue to polish the film.
There was also a dispute about money for the film. Paramount was unwilling to invest more into the film over the original amount they agreed on when the film crept over budget (something Cameron is famous for). Fox was held holding the bag on the overage on their own making for some uncomfortable dealings with the two distributors. Also Paramount insisted that their cut of the profits remain 60/40 until their 60 million investment was completely paid back and they remained inflexible throughout the release, causing Fox more headaches. Fox later returned the headache when they released the film internationally a little before Paramount could release it domestically on December 19th. Bad feelings all around.
The original surge upon release was as much because the film was a James Cameron release as it was a 13 year-old coo-fest. The pickup thereafter was all about the ladies and the word of mouth that it was a pretty damned good film.
Say what you will about Titanic, but there is no denying that the film was in the hands of a master craftsman at the top of his directorial game. Cameron has always killed himself and his crew to deliver the best film he can to his audience. He surrendered his writing fees for the script when the film began to creep over budget, and then gave up his director’s fee shortly after when the film continued to climb over budget. That’s dedication on a rare and wonderful level in today’s world.
edit: Also, the film succeeded despite the gossip that it was an over budget flop before anyone had seen the film. Every one was comparing it to Waterworld because of the budget. It went on to blow that perception out of the water, if you’ll pardon the pun.
People who think Titanic kicks ass, apparently.
Oh, I’ll deny it plenty. I’m not a Titanic-basher (there are plenty of worse films out there), but it can’t hold a candle to the first Terminator. That was Cameron at his best: lean, mean, relentlessly propulsive, and without a single superfluous moment. I’ll concede that there are very few people out there who could’ve achieved what he did with Titanic (which has some admittedly fine moments), but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t suffer from bloat, self-importance, and unnecessary pandering. Aliens and even The Abyss (non-director’s cut edition) show him to better advantage.
I wasn’t aware that imdb had reviews. I usually go to rottentomatoes.com for movie reviews.
I liked The Dark Knight. You can add me to the chorus of people who thought Ledger was great in the role. But I can’t figure out why this movie is doing as well as it is. A lot of repeat viewings? It does seem to get people in to the theaters. I mean, my folks went to go see it and they’re in their mid sixties.
The biggest reason for the disparity in the ammount of the budget is that building the Fox studios in Mexico was part of the budget. Fox was going to keep that asset for themselves, and charge it to the Titanic budget. So really the budget for the film was about 120 million and an aditional 60 million for building a film studio in Mexico. (They made Flipper there!) Yes, Paramount would not throw more money in than they agreeed to do so when it went over budget. Why should they? There was no good reason for it.
This is an Urban Legend. This story is simply not true. One, Titanic would not have been done in time for a July 25th release. Two Paramount and Fox worked together on release dates. Three, the choice of release date is perhaps the most important decision in releasing a film. This is done by looking historically at what films of the same type grossed on those weekends. Titanic was looked at fist as a James Cameron film. So the big summer release date was preferred. After it became clear that that date was going to be missed, it was looked at has costume drama/historical film and so the primo “Oscar contender” spot was chosen. Also advertising would be slightly out of place for a quick move to July 25th. TV spots, outdoor ads. The time and space for ad buys would not be available for those weeks in July. So July 25th was pretty much out of the question. We could have made some date in August but that is not a good time for movies. (historically box office wise) That’s the straight dope. Harrison Ford had nothing to do with that decision.
Also…
Even back in '97 there were plenty of movie screens to go around. Tomorrow Never Dies opened day and date with Titanic to a solid 25.1 million in box office (compared to Titanic’s 28 million) and going on to gross over $125 million. Mouse Hunt also opened the same day and all of those releases opened over 2000 screens. It is quite possible to have more than one hit at a time in the market place.
It’s called show business for a reason. Fox did ask/beg for more money but we had negotiated a good deal. We wouldn’t be responsible for the cost overruns. Fox would be. So they just had to suck it up and deal. Fox did not release the film early internationally. There were some premiers, and a screening in Japan, but you are incorrect about this part of the Titanic lore. (also it was a 50/50 cut) There were not really hard feelings between the companies that year. Heck,my Fox counter-part gave me a really nice Titanic windbreaker for Christmas that year. (before the film opened) The stories of the studios hating each other and such are greatly exaggerated. Mostly, both studios want the bragging rights to the film.
I think it’s a terrific film btw.
We screened the film for exhibitors in early November. (or was it late October, it was the day of the NYC marathon I remember) Everyone who saw it then thought it was going to be huge. And by huge they thought solidly 200 million domestic. The negative talk was gone by Thanksgiving in the industry. Maybe a few press like to flog a story about it being a disaster at that time but we knew what we had by then, or we thought we did.
Titanic was a great movie. It deserved every penny it made and every award it got and I think Kate was robbed.
I’ll have to do some checking to be sure, but I am certain that this is NOT urban legend.
It was reported by the entertainment media. So you may find a ‘cite’. It wasn’t true. The fact that Air Force One was opening on July 25th had no bearing on the decision.
I personally know the guys who made the decision. Why would I lie to you?
Count me in the contingent who will see The Dark Knight (once it’s playing at the local dollar theater) but who never saw Titanic. So at least that’s one dollar in TDK’s favor. Two, if I drag my wife to the theater with me. 
Dark Knight update:
26 million over the weekend, good for first place. That pushes it’s total to $441 million and third place all-time. Star Wars and second place is only $19 million away, which The Dark Knight should reach by this weekend.
I’m waiting for the inevitable organized “Batman viewing parties” to appeat to push the bat past the boat.
Saw it for the 2nd time this weekend. Waaaaaay back in my mind was the thought that I was helping push the numbers up.
The Dark Knight’s not going to beat Titanic, but I wonder what its sequel is going to do. Batman Begins was well-received, but not like this. It was word of mouth alone that got TDK built up like this, augmented by good reviews. Assuming they make another one in 2010 with the memory of Dark Knight to build up the hype and that movie is as good as this one, it could blow past a lot of records.
It also found its way into the Top 50 All-Time Adjusted. It should pass the original '89 Batman (at $445M adjusted) in a matter of days…
4 weekends over 25 million is impressive.
If it is still above 20 million next week it will be damn impressive.
It’s official, The Dark Knight has passed Star Wars and is now the #2 movie of all time. It’s at $471 million, well within knocking distance of Titanic of the Bat-fans go crazy and continue to see the movie a few more times.
But I don’t wanna!
Irrelevant. The reviews (as opposed to user comments) on IMDB aren’t written specifically for the site; they’re gleaned from media reviews that appear in the same sources people generally read if they want to check the reviews.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but Bat-fans won’t be enough. It won’t come anywhere near Titanic. It’s had a good run and congrats for making it to the 2nd spot, but The Dark Knight, as amazing as it performed, was only #1 for a mere 4 weeks. Titanic was #1 for 17 weeks, which included pre-and post-Oscar boosts.