The NEW Boxoffice King

[Black Breathalizer]

Look out, Titanic. Your reign as the world's boxoffice king will soon be over. Either at the end of TTT's run or at the very beginning of The Return of the King, movie ticket sales will mark LOTR as the most popular story ever seen in cinemas.

Okay, it's true that Titanic was one movie and LOTR is three. Maybe this means LOTR will have to have an astrick. But there is no denying the fact that unlike Star Wars, OO7, Indiana Jones, Terminator, or other movies with follow-up sequels, Lord of the Rings was always designed as ONE STORY told through three movies. So I do believe it is valid to add the revenue from all three movies together when comparing it to Titanic and other movies.

It's just more piece of evidence that Tolkien's story continues to strike a responsive cord with generation after generation. It has been Number 1 with book sales now it's Number 1 in movie ticket sales. Add to the ticket sales, the DVD sales and tape rentals and you have the biggest blockbuster by far of all time.

So move over, Star Wars and Titanic fans. We're No. 1!!! We're No. 1!!! :)

[Elvellyn]

Yes I agree with you. LotR is one story.
Go LotR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:D :D :D :) :) :)

[Nurvingiel]

LotR is one story, it was written that way, and the movies are designed along the same lines.

I'm just paraphrasing here, but PJ said he wanted the transition from FotR to TTT to be like you went out into the lobby for a 1 year long pop-corn break, and then came back to your seat, and TTT was playing, seamlessly.

So LotR totally deserves to be the Box-office King, not only is it a great movie, but it's ten hours long!

[Andúril]

Uh, isn't Star Wars one story told through six movies?

[Elvedans]

Kind of, but each one has it's own mini saga so I suppose you could say that they just have a common theme. Well actually you're right! I don't know I confused GET ME OUT OF HERE!

[Andúril]

BB:
Look out, Titanic. Your reign as the world's boxoffice king will soon be over.Why? What film do you think is going to gross more than $1,835,400,000 worldwide? (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/?PHPSESSID=bfd6c4b96436fd38ef2c81d3ff2ad648)

Oh, and while you think about that, remember that LotR is not a film. :cool:

[Insidious Rex]

on a related note: something Ive never understood. How did Titanic manage to make so much money? Did people really go out and see it like 10 times each? I dont remember really.

Anyway, Lord of the Rings is currently the 5th most grossing film of all time and Two Towers could very well pass it when its all said and done (currently its 12th). But it would take quite a finish for it to surpass that incredible Titanic number.

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Andúril
Why? What film do you think is going to bring in more than $1,835,400,000?Add the take for FOTR and TTT together. Then add another billion in ticket sales for ROTK. The sum = a new box office king, LOTR.

Regarding SW: Lucas wrote Star Wars. It made alot of money so he decided to expand it into 9 parts (later revised to 6.) But Star Wars was written, produced, and filmed as one single story. If it had bombed, there would have never been an Empire Strikes Back or Return of the Jedi. From the very beginning, LOTR was a totally different deal.

[WallRocker]

Originally posted by Andúril
Oh, and while you think about that, remember that LotR is not a film. :cool:

How is LotR not a film?:confused: Also, BB I think that the LotR moives should be the box-office king(s), but I don't think the masses will see it that way:( sigh.

[Black Breathalizer]

I understand that most people won't see it the same way we do, but I still believe it's a very valid way of looking at it. Parts of the Academy Awards evidently agree because some categories have decided not to recognize many of the people who worked on TTT because they were already recognized in FOTR. They view it all as one production.

So I say we should take that view a step further. From now on, LOTR should be viewed as one production when looking at box office totals and DVD sales. This will be especially true when all three are out on DVD and sold as a package. The reason why this won't be accepted (at least right now) is because we've become conditioned to Star Wars II, Nightmare on Elm Street 6, etc, movie sequels and so a lot of film people don't understand how dramatically different LOTR is from a typical hollywood sequel. Am I the only one who was irritated last December to read about "LOTR 2", the sequel to the popular first LOTR film???

The sad thing is that Jackson and New Line have TOTALLY REDEFINED the concept of the sequel but no one seems to have noticed or paid any media attention to it.

[Nurvingiel]

I can see your point there BB, and I think it sucks too. But if you make a movie and it's huge, and it gets talked about in the media, eventually, it will get Hollywoodified. It just something we have to accept, like gravity. This doesn't take away from the fact that LotR is a better movie than Titanic, IMO.

Besides, how much movie a movie makes doesn't reflect on its quality - partly because of vastly inflated ticket prices. The true box office king, over the course of history, is Gone With the Wind. But it's hard to compare movies of different eras, which is why LotR is the King today.

To help out the masses, tell people to think of TTT not as a sequel, but as part 2. Because that's what it is.

[Lollypopgurl]

I agree too. Didn't Tolkien want it all to be one book???

[BeardofPants]

Star Wars is one story as well. That is why they're called episodes.

[Nurvingiel]

Could an episode be considered a sequel? I really enjoyed the original Star Wars, and it flowed easily between episodes, but I still thought of them as sequels.

[BeardofPants]

ep·i·sode Audio pronunciation of episode ( P ) Pronunciation Key (p-sd)
n.

An incident or event that is part of a progression or a larger sequence: “South Africa may remain one of history's most tragic episodes” (Bayard Rustin).
One of a series of related events in the course of a continuous account. See Synonyms at occurrence.
A portion of a narrative that relates an event or a series of connected events and forms a coherent story in itself; an incident.

[Nurvingiel]

Okay, so Star Wars is one movie too then, even longer than LotR! Except... would the first three be considered a set, and a prequel to the last three?

[Huan]

This box office record thing is what has all but killed movies. Okay, the original Star Wars flicks are my favorite movies, but in terms of box office, they have contributed to the studios' fixation on the idea that setting some record is more important than letting a good quality film gather its own following. No film today gets the chance to survive past its first couple weekends. And the box office records are meaningless anyway, since one blockbuster begets more. It's just a big arms race. First there was Jaws, then Star Wars, then The Empire Strikes Back, then ET, then Return of the Jedi, and years later people are still yapping about how big a deal it is that Jurassic Park beat the previous contender, then it's Titanic, and soon it will be Lord of the Rings, maybe. This particular factor has ceased to mean a thing, but the studios will keep churning out utter ca-rap while they still believe box office records mean something.
And yes, Insidious Rex, Titanic did that kind of repeat business, believe it or not. The guys liked the special effects, and the girls just kept buying tickets. My ex dragged me to that thing like nine times in the theaters (of course, I dragged her to the Star Wars re-releases thirty times, so I win!).

[Black Breathalizer]

Star Wars (the first movie) was a self-contained story with a beginning, middle, and end. Lucas realized he had a blockbuster on his hands and evolved it into a larger story with with a more episode-like nature with the Empire Strikes Back. At the time, one of the negative comments about the film was the way the audience was left hanging regarding Han Solo's fate.

The LOTR movies were always designed - like the books - to be one continuous story. One of the reasons that Rouper of Siskel and Rouper panned FOTR when it first came out is because he complained the movie didn't have an ending. (duh) But even when it was explained to him that it was one of three parts, he said at the time that a movie should always have a beginning, middle, and end, no matter what. The funny thing is, Rouper changed his tune this time around with TTT. I guess he decided he didn't want to continue looking like a complete idiot.

[Aranwe]

LOTR can't be considered as one movie, because if you want to see the full story you have to pay for 3 movie tickets. That'd be like someone having to pay 3x as much to go and see titanic.

I think LOTR is way better but the only thing you can compare it with is Star Wars eps. 1-3. Episodes 4-6 were made years ago - they've had longer to make money but they were also released when cinema tickets didn't cost the same as they do now.

If ONE of the LOTR movies beats Titanic thats different, but I doubt any will. Titanic was crappy tho :(

[Elf.Freak]

Originally posted by Aranwe
Titanic was crappy tho :(

i agree!:D

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Star Wars (the first movie) was a self-contained story with a beginning, middle, and end. Lucas realized he had a blockbuster on his hands and evolved it into a larger story with with a more episode-like nature with the Empire Strikes Back.

Actually, no. He had the whole story planned in advance, but faced with the uncertainty that he could only release one film, and not his whole vision, he made Star Wars the way he did. It is still an episode of only part of his whole story.

[Andúril]

BB:
Anyway, Lord of the Rings is currently the 5th most grossing film of all time and Two Towers could very well pass it when its all said and done (currently its 12th). But it would take quite a finish for it to surpass that incredible Titanic number.First, there is no such film as "Lord of the Rings". The full title of that film is "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring", and it is normally refered to "The Fellowship of the Ring".

Second, The Two Towers will never pass Titanic, because it does not have the legs. In fact, it is bringing in less money than FotR did at the same time last year.

From here (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=fellowshipofthering.htm) and here (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=twotowers.htm):

Week of 11 Feb '02: FotR daily domestic gross from Monday $295,000
Week of 10 Feb '03: TTT daily domestic gross from Monday $229,338

FotR Tuesday $372,000
TTT Tuesday $259,670

FotR Wednesday $364,000
TTT Wednesday $252,027

FotR Thursday $638,000
TTT Thursday $251,277

FotR Friday $962,000
TTT Friday $820,000 (est.)

FotR Saturday $2,046,000
TTT Sunday $1,335,000 (est.)

FotR Sunday $1,694,000
TTT Sunday $995,000 (est.)

Additionally, as of 9 Feb the US domestic gross for TTT made up 40.8% of the worldwide gross. The final US domestic tally for FotR made up 36.3% of the worldwide takings.

Even though TTT has overtaken FotR domestically, I highly doubt that it will beat FotR worldwide, since: It started out with a bang but lacks the endurance of FotR, as demonstrated. To date TTT has earned more on the US domestic standings than FotR did, but that can be explained by taking into account the good start and the increased proportion of the US contribution (40.8% as opposed to 36.3%).More:
Add the take for FOTR and TTT together.No, those are two movies.

FotR + TTT (to date) = 2/3 LotR = $1649.5m

PM + AotC = 1/3 SW = $1573.5mMore:
Then add another billion in ticket sales for ROTK. The sum = a new box office king, LOTR.Nope. FotR couldn't hit $900m, and TTT doesn't look like it is going to pass FotR. I see no reason to add $1bn for RotK.

In any event, if we are just going to group movies together, we end up with this:

Of SW, episodes 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 = $3381m + $600m est. for Ep. 3 = $3.98bn. And that's without adjusting for inflation.

Therefore, RotK will have to bring in not $1bn but (allowing an additional $100m for then rest of TTT) arround $1.63bn. I think not.More:
Regarding SW: Lucas wrote Star Wars. It made alot of money so he decided to expand it into 9 parts (later revised to 6.) But Star Wars was written, produced, and filmed as one single story. If it had bombed, there would have never been an Empire Strikes Back or Return of the Jedi. From the very beginning, LOTR was a totally different deal.That's right. It was supposed to be three movies filmed at the same time (which did not exactly happen, since they filmed additional footage for TTT after FotR was released, and they will/might do the same for RotK). My point stands. FotR = one theatrical release; box office tallied accordingly. Titanic = one theatrical release, box office tallied accordingly.

If you want to think of FotR and TTT (and RotK) as one movie, which you are doing by combining their takings, then you should also combine the running time of each into one hypothetical movie. That would be roughly nine hours. A movie of that length would be a complete disaster at the box office, because: Practically, you would only be able to screen it once a day Hardly anyone would be able to see it (work/school), and how many people would sit through nine hours, even allowing intermissions?

[Andúril]

Wallrocker:
How is LotR not a film?:confused:The same way Austin Powers is not a film. It is only a part of the title of a film, which has not yet been specified.

[Legolas_Frodo_Aragorn]

Originally posted by Andúril
The same way Austin Powers is not a film. It is only a part of the title of a film, which has not yet been specified.

rrrrrriiiiiiiigggggggghhhhhhhhtttttttttt

[Legolas_Frodo_Aragorn]

i hated titanic....it was such a chic-flic and it sucked

[Andúril]

LFA:
rrrrrriiiiiiiigggggggghhhhhhhhttttttttttDo we have a problem, my dear?

[Elvedans]

Originally posted by Andúril
The same way Austin Powers is not a film. It is only a part of the title of a film, which has not yet been specified.

You are right of course. Austin Powers is not a movie, LOTR is not a movie and Star Wars is not a Movie. You could say tho that LOTR The Fellowship of the rings is a movie, Star Wars A New Hope is a movie etc. but you are right.

[olsonm]

The only reason TTT hasn't passed FOTR on the worldwide boxoffice is because TTT hasn't been released in Japan yet.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Huan
And yes, Insidious Rex, Titanic did that kind of repeat business, believe it or not. The guys liked the special effects, and the girls just kept buying tickets. My ex dragged me to that thing like nine times in the theaters

*shudder* God how awful for you. I would have lost her after two showings. Probably one and a half. Please show me a girl who thinks Titanic was way too smarmy to deal with more then once (if that) and theres a chick with some taste.

Now as for this 3 films are 1 film thing: I really dont think you can make the argument that the trilogy should be counted as one big fat movie because thats just not gonna work. i mean you cant have a 10 hour movie. BUT that being said I cant recall ever three movies (or two for that matter) being filmed all at once, placed in the can, then doled out once a year as three different films. Has anything like that ever been done before? I mean keep in mind there are scenes for the Return of the King that were shot before hobbiton was completed. So this is a different animal all together. But its definitely three movies.

Now someone already said they havent released it yet in Japan and Im pretty sure the same is true for India as well. Two pretty big markets. So the question is will Two Towers push its way to second place all time by the time its finally done?

[Elvedans]

Titanic was OK but after about an hour of water and ice I found myself just wishing the ship would hurry up and sink!

[Black Breathalizer]

LOTR is three films BUT what I am saying is that it is ONE single storyline versus the traditional movie trilogy of three separate stories tied together.

The LOTR trilogy is NOT the original Star Wars trilogy. The only similarity is that they both involve three films. Star Wars (it WASN'T A New Hope when it first came out, folks) was a single movie. Lucas claims to have had some big masterplan in mind when he wrote Star Wars but if this were really true, why did he have old Ben tell Luke that Darth Vader killed his father in the original? Why create unnecessary plot logic difficulties for himself?

More importantly, each sequel was written, produced, and filmed years apart from each other. The sequels were clearly written to pay homage to, and capture the "feel" of, the original.

In the case of LOTR, TTT and ROTK were essentially "in the can" before FOTR ever hit the big screen.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Lucas claims to have had some big masterplan in mind when he wrote Star Wars but if this were really true, why did he have old Ben tell Luke that Darth Vader killed his father in the original? Why create unnecessary plot logic difficulties for himself?

It's called a METAPHOR.

[Nurvingiel]

I don't really know much about Star Wars, but let's just say, for the sake of argument, that Episodes I through VI are part of one movie. Why can't LotR be the new King?

[Andúril]

BB:
LOTR is three films

*snip*Exactly. Case closed. Nobody combines box office takings for multiple films regardless of whether they are one story or six. Box office represents individual theatrical releases.BB:
The LOTR trilogy is NOT the original Star Wars trilogy.I should hope not.More:
In the case of LOTR, TTT and ROTK were essentially "in the can" before FOTR ever hit the big screen.I think the word "essentially" has been underplayed here. Parts of TTT were filmed during 2002. Parts of RotK either will or might be shot during this year.Nurvingiel:I don't really know much about Star Wars, but let's just say, for the sake of argument, that Episodes I through VI are part of one movie. Why can't LotR be the new King?As I demonstrated before, LotR is not a movie. Likewise Star Wars is not a movie (anymore). But, if you want to combine all of the LotR films into one LotR film, then I can do the same for Star Wars. And, as has been demonstrated, RotK would need to bring in roughly $1.6bn before it passes Star Wars. And that is why LotR will never be the box office king.

Therefore, either way, it loses. Take each film separately, as the box office does, and none of the LotR films will come close to beating Titanic. Combine the films because of the storyline and it will never come close to beating Star Wars.

[Draken]

Wonders if any crown previously worn by "Titanic" is THAT worth having....

[azalea]

Lol, Draken, good thought.:)
As for 9 hours being too long, it reminded me of a movie my brother told me about: the guy who made it filmed himself sleeping for eight hours. (it was actually produced, not just some home movie.)

[gimli7410]

didnt the owners or the people who wanted to make the movie only wanted to make it one movie

[Black Breathalizer]

Originally posted by Andúril
As I demonstrated before, LotR is not a movie. Likewise Star Wars is not a movie (anymore). But, if you want to combine all of the LotR films into one LotR film, then I can do the same for Star Wars. And, as has been demonstrated, RotK would need to bring in roughly $1.6bn before it passes Star Wars. And that is why LotR will never be the box office king.The STORY of Titanic was told in ONE movie. LOTR is ONE story told in THREE movies. If we want to know how much money the STORY made, we combine all three movies.

There is a very real difference between producing sequels to a popular movie versus telling a clearly defined tale in more than one movie. The reason some of you seem to be having difficulty understanding the difference is because it was never really done before LOTR came out. Some of you have been "sequelized" (a form of hypnotism) :) into believing that anytime a greedy writer/director/producer decides to throw us another sequel to a hit movie, it was "always planned to be a part of the FULL story." yeah, riiiiight. You may buy that line from hollywood sequel-makers, but I don't. Maybe some of them may be pretty good at fitting newly invented story pieces together but its certainly not the same as telling Tolkien's story in three parts.

[mithrand1r]

Insidious Rex,

Back to the Future 2&3, I believe were filmed together.

BB,

Interesting point about Obi-wan's line in SW:ANH.

I thought they had an interesting way of glossing over that fact in SW:ESB (Obi-wan told a lie {or if you wish to be charitable, twisted the truth to suit his purposes})

Whether you are correct or GLucas would be hard to prove.

I think (My Opinion Here) that more than likely Lucas had a general idea of the entire (StarWars Ep.4-6, 1-3 and 7-9). He thought out Ep. 4-6 best and considered SW:ANH to be his best idea to sell to a studio. If it proved to sell well he would move on to ESB & ROTJ.

I think the distance (in years between ep.4-6 and ep.1-3 gives more credence to thinking that Lucas did not completely think out the "entire story" of SW episodes 1-9 before the filming of SW:ANH.

--------------------------------------------------

Does it really matter which film makes more $ in deciding which film is better?

Different ways can be used to interpret the $$$ and tickets sold. (Inflation, competition the film was against when it came out, How original the film was in idea, etc.) The $$$ made by a film does not (for me anyway) determine whether a film is good or not. Jurassic Park 2 for example.

I think the LOTR films are very good. Titanic is a rehashed idea (there were at least 3 previous films & a few documentaries) and it is about 3 hours to boot. For disclosure I only saw about 5 min. of recent Titanic (where they show the computer model of the Titanic sinking, nearthe start of the film), but I have seen the other Titanic films. I also have a bias against Di'Caprio, but I thought he was good in the Man Behind the Iron Mask (the 3 muskuteer based film).

I think the SW:4-6 were very good. I am generally disapointed with SW:1&2 and I don't expect much from SW:3

Sincerely,
Anthony
:cool:

[Andúril]

BB:
The STORY of Titanic was told in ONE movie.Box office figures are not concerned with stories.More:
LOTR is ONE story told in THREE movies.Once again, the story is irrelevant. The performance of individual theatrical releases is the only relevant factor in determining box office figures.

And Star Wars is one story told through six movies. Band of Brothers is one story told in 999 minutes through ten episodes. Days of our lives is one story told through how many episodes? Irrelevant. :rolleyes:More:
If we want to know how much money the STORY made, we combine all three movies.

*snip*If we want to know how much money the story made, we combine all six movies.

In an interview with Peter Bowes in Los Angeles last year:From here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/1986453.stm):
"I knew when I made the film that I was doing something that was not commercially wise - but I had a story to tell and to me this is one big movie. It's one 12-hour movie in six parts and it's a story," he explains.In an interview in Sydney last year:From here (http://www.starwars.com/episode-ii/feature/20020115/indexp2.html):
"And I've kept the style of all the movies the same so that it works as one piece."In another interview last year:From here (http://film.guardian.co.uk/interview/interviewpages/0,6737,716449,00.html):
In his head, Lucas sees the nine films as a whole.

[markedel]

LOTR isn't quite Titanic-Titanic drwin people because it made a lot of money-there were actually stories, not about the movie, but how much money it was maing. That piqued interest. Enough that even I went and saw it. Not so good, but it could be worse.

[Insidious Rex]

You saw it because it made money?