top 218 movies

A place to discuss movies, books, music and other forms of non-interactive entertainment. It also keeps your food cold.

Moderator: Rao

top 218 movies

Postby TerraFrost » Mon Dec 23, 2002 7:55 pm

it's quite scary how high titanic is:
http://us.imdb.com/Charts/worldtopmovies
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Postby Nuxius » Tue Dec 24, 2002 7:18 am

Seeing The Phantom Menace that high makes me giggle. :lol:

And why in the hell is The Sorcerer's Stone above The Fellowship of the Ring?!? What is this world coming to? :puke
User avatar
Nuxius
Head Moderator
Head Moderator
 
Posts: 2608
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2002 8:39 am
Location: Texas!

Postby TerraFrost » Tue Dec 24, 2002 7:51 am

only kids could make pokemon a billion dollar industry - i bet it's those same kids, whose parents are really rich, and spoil there kids to no end. hehe.
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Postby Nuxius » Tue Dec 24, 2002 10:18 am

Heh, thank goodness Pokemon isn't in there (at least I didn't see any of the movies in there). :evil:
Image
User avatar
Nuxius
Head Moderator
Head Moderator
 
Posts: 2608
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2002 8:39 am
Location: Texas!

Postby Gigafrost » Tue Dec 24, 2002 4:26 pm

Personally, I think that's just plain stupid to rank movies by how much money they got from the box office...I'd rather see them ranked by money made *after* they got released for home video.
User avatar
Gigafrost
Frost Weapon
Frost Weapon
 
Posts: 4900
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 5:09 pm
Location: Here

Postby TerraFrost » Tue Dec 24, 2002 8:01 pm

actually, these rankings include both how much money it got from the box office, and how much money it made after it was released on home video. this also includes rentals, etc.

and anyways, i bet the mpaa likes these rankings better than ones just for money made by sells - esp. since the mpaa thinks that sales are harmed by pirates, which, in the mpaa's mind, would probably scew the results.
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Postby Gigafrost » Wed Dec 25, 2002 1:55 pm

actually, these rankings include both how much money it got from the box office, and how much money it made after it was released on home video. this also includes rentals, etc.

Actually, when I just looked at the page I noticed this at the bottom:
The table above includes movies that have grossed over $200,000,000 at the box office during their theatrical runs.

All amounts are in USA dollars and only include theatrical box office receipts (movie ticket sales) and do not include video rentals, television rights and other revenues. Totals may include theatrical re-release receipts. Figures are not adjusted for inflation
User avatar
Gigafrost
Frost Weapon
Frost Weapon
 
Posts: 4900
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 5:09 pm
Location: Here

Postby Nyufrost » Wed Dec 25, 2002 11:50 pm

True dat. Why do you think that ranking them by the home video sales figure would be better?

I can see the numbers would be drastically different. For example, sometimes the same person goes to see one movie 10 times at the theater but if they bought it and watched it 10 times, it would only count as one sale. Or, if an entire family goes to the theater, it counts as X number of sales whereas --again-- if they all watch the video, it only counts as one sale. So, I was just sort of curious as to why you think it would be better that way.

Anyways .... what I find truly amazing is that Gone With the Wind from 1939 is on the list at all, much less at #49 and not adjusting the figures for inflation! Wow! That's pretty incredible .... I wonder how much it translates into by today's dollar value. :shock:
<BR><center> "Snowflakes are one of nature's most fragile things, but just look <br> what they can do when they stick together.." ... Vesta M. Kelly</center>
User avatar
Nyufrost
Frost Advisor
Frost Advisor
 
Posts: 5534
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 7:03 am
Location: Out There

Postby TerraFrost » Thu Dec 26, 2002 12:49 am

oh, ok, heh. wow. then that's really increadible about titanic. of course, if titanic can do that well, then i guess that's how gone with the wind did that well. my mom sometimes watches the antique road show, and stuff from the premiere of gone with the wind sells for thousands of dollars...
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Postby Gigafrost » Thu Dec 26, 2002 6:47 pm

The reason I think it should include non-theatre stuff is because people will go to the theatre to watch it, say, because of the hype or with a group of friends or whatnot. It seems to me, though, that people who get it after it's on video have a much higher chance of actually *liking* the movie...

Also, the amount of money gathered to see the movie is kinda pointless, what with inflation and all. It doesn't really say how many people saw it, and even if you see how many people saw it that doesn't include population growths. It's just a bunch of problems with it that make it unworth of the title "World top Movies" and it should just stick with "World top movies by gross income not taking into account inflation"

blah
User avatar
Gigafrost
Frost Weapon
Frost Weapon
 
Posts: 4900
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 5:09 pm
Location: Here

Postby TerraFrost » Thu Dec 26, 2002 8:30 pm

of course, you'd still have the same problems you described even only doing non-theatre stuff. ;-)

and also, just because you have a movie at home doesn't mean you'll watch it. a classic example of when someone gives someone else a generic gift (dvd's are pretty common for this), because they don't really know or care what the other person would really want. to this day, we have an unopened copy of some random batman movie. so those are bought on hype, and people rent on hype, and my sister / mom have actually bought dvd's that they've never seen, on no other basis than hype.

anyways, my point is that having a movie doesn't necessarily mean you'll ever watch it. however, when you watch a movie in a movie theatre, you *are* watching it.
Last edited by TerraFrost on Fri Dec 27, 2002 1:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Postby Nyufrost » Thu Dec 26, 2002 11:18 pm

True, but like Giga said, sometimes people go just to go ... not because they are especially interested in the movie. They go because all their friends went or to go with their friends or because it's new or whatever. They may talk through the whole thing, spend half the time at the snack bar or in the back row making out. Just because they are AT the theater doesn't mean they like the movie.

Purchasing it IS a better indicator as to whether a person actually likes a movie or not because most people aren't going to buy a movie they don't like or haven't formed an opinion of based on reviews by others whereas a whole lot of people go to opening nights of movies simply because its the "popular" thing to do and they want to see and be seen by others.

However, movie sales can't really tell how many people are going to see the movie so it's hard to know what is most accurate. :(
<BR><center> "Snowflakes are one of nature's most fragile things, but just look <br> what they can do when they stick together.." ... Vesta M. Kelly</center>
User avatar
Nyufrost
Frost Advisor
Frost Advisor
 
Posts: 5534
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 7:03 am
Location: Out There

Postby TerraFrost » Thu Dec 26, 2002 11:33 pm

i'm not saying that movies are the best indicator - i'm saying that purchases really aren't much better, either. i would honestly not be suprised if most dvd's were purchased durring the holiday season - not for themselves, but for others. and when you're purchasing dvd's for others, the fact is that you may not be concerned at all, whether you like or, or they like it. i mean, say you have a distant relative, and they don't know what to get you - a dvd is the perfect answer!

not only that, but in order to rent, people have to buy - if you don't think that people buy dvd's on a whim, what about video rental stores? they purchases dvd's en mass on a whim, all the time.

and what happens if you really *really* like the movie? if you bought the dvd, that's that. but, if you really like it, and its in the theatres, then you watch it multiple times. and what about family members? some family members may really like a movie, too, but if one family member gets the video, other family members who really like the video as well won't buy it.

and besides - piracy, if anything, will effect people buying the dvd - not people seeing it in the theatre. if you couldn't rent the dvd and rip it, or download it, then you might buy it. but people do rent dvd's and rip them, and people do download movies. now you can download movies that are still in the theatre, but... usually, the quality of those movies is horrible, and even if they aren't, you still don't get to see it with friends, on a 50ft screen, with 8 channel SDDS sound more powerful than anything you ever have a prayer of owning at home. this further scews how well dvd purchases represent how well a movie is liked.

also, some movies may just appeal to people with lots of money, whereas other movies may appeal to people with not as much money. for example, if a rich person thinks a movie is "ok", they can buy it. however, is a poor person thinks a movie is "ok", they can't. poor people may think xXx is ok, but not be able to affored it, while rich people may think that AI is ok, but they could buy it. so in that situation, two movies, about as popular as each other (actually, xXx would be more popular, since there are more poor people than rich), but AI would appear more popular based on sales, simply because those that thought it was ok could affored to buy it. of course, thinking about it - if you were rich, and could buy movies that were "ok", you might not necessarily watch them. movies also take time out of your life. if your rich, and you like a movie, i think a much better demonstation of that like would be actually watching the movie. if your poor, you simply have a much harder time demonstrating your like for any given movie.

so i see five different reasons why purchases aren't a super good indicator of how popular a movie is.

of course, ticket sales may not be the best method, either. and neither are votes. the IMDB mantains a top 250 list - people online vote for movies. however, that's a scewed method, also. most people who vote on that are internet savy, while the majority of the US population -- not to mention the worlds population -- arne't internet savy. and internet savy people don't necessarily represent everyone, either.
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Postby Nyufrost » Fri Dec 27, 2002 1:26 am

Well, the rich person vs. poor person argument could also be applied to theater ticket sales.

How many poor people can afford $7.50 a ticket to see every movie they would like to see? Therefore, maybe they only go to something they really-really want to see. Or, maybe they cannot afford to go at all and just have to wait for it to come out on TV. However, people with more money than sense can pay to see the same movie over and over and over again or attend every movie that comes out.

Aside from income level, I think age is a big factor. Younger kids can't just go to the movies by themselves and certainly not over and over. Adults usually have other things to do and pay for and aren't into the "see and be seen" thing or the "let's see it 10 times" thing. Face it, how many times has your grandmother ever said "OMG! I just saw that for the 5th time and its only been out a week!" ... but she might go see it once, right? ;)

Therefore, ticket sales primarly reflect what teenagers are seeing, no? I don't think thats a real true indication of whether a movie is any good or not ... just that it was the "popular" thing to see. :p
<BR><center> "Snowflakes are one of nature's most fragile things, but just look <br> what they can do when they stick together.." ... Vesta M. Kelly</center>
User avatar
Nyufrost
Frost Advisor
Frost Advisor
 
Posts: 5534
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 7:03 am
Location: Out There

Postby TerraFrost » Fri Dec 27, 2002 1:46 am

well, as far as income lvl is concerned, i think the best determinent for rich people would be ticket sales. i mean, you can only watch so many movies. but you can buy as many movies as you want to. if you're rich, then you could, in one day, buy all of ST:TNG - all 7 seasons, probably around 150 hours. that doesn't mean you'll watch them all, though. unless you watch them in order, chances are you'll just watch your favorites. just like with movies. you can't watch movies 24 hours a day, every day. you have to excersize some lvl of discrimination, and pick and choose your fav. movies. if you buy a bunch of movies, and you've seen all of them already, what do you choose next? would there be some movies you wouldn't normally watch, or perhapes only have for a five minute scene? so anyways, that's why i think ticket sales are a better indicator than video sales for rich people :)

and that's a good point! the lion king may not have been on the list if kids didn't need their parents to transport them.

this sorta made me think of something else, also! :) long movies, like the lord of the rings can't really sell as many tickets as shorter films can. you have less time to fit on showings, the longer the movie is. so Lord of the rings might be higher if it weren't so long!

although that's not to say video sales are a better indicator than ticket sales. this just goes to show that neither are very good! :)

i guess it just isn't possible to say which movie is the most popular, so... if you're going to make a list, it doesn't really matter what it's based on because it doesn't have any hope of being accurate, anyways! hehe.
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Next

Return to Entertainment Igloo

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron