Wow, that's a lot of thinking you're asking me to do on a Friday afternoon ...

jaw-dropping stuff Aaman - maybe a brief conclusion at the beginning, like all those complex studies, would help clarify for the less perspicacious, like me

Did you really do this, Aaman?

I don't think anyone in Hollywood has any idea how to turn things around. The major studios are creatively, artistically and soon perhaps financially bankrupt.

70s remakes are not the answer, despite the success of Dukes of Hazzard.

That is all.

Thanks Eric,

I'll put in a summary up front - unable to save in MT for some reason.

And yes, Bob, I did these - not very difficult really, and still incomplete as far as where I want to take it.

Blockbuster sequels aren't helping evidently

Adjusted for inflation, I think Gone with the Wind tops Titanic.

Tan,

You've pointed out something basic that I missed in my calculations - please excuse me while I revise and republish my charts

Well, you can make a separate article on Classic Hollywood movies list

this one can just be a modern hollywood movies list

No - I used the wrong multiplier, which is why Classic Hollywood was underrepresented in the list - am republishing - the new list of top films is quite interesting - and shows even more strongly my main point that the good films are all in the past

Aaman, if I ever lose my mind, sell my soul, and run a major studio, I'll hire you as a number cruncher.

That is all.

What striked me as interesting about this list is that while some of these films are both 'blockbusters' by design and also very good films, the top film is really neither. There's nothing about Titanic which automatically screams blockbuster except for its high budget, and frankly its not really a great film. There are probably a dozen better acted, better scripted and more interesting films released every year. Titanic is also the only 'chick' film to make the list, which I think may be significant in some way.

I look forward to seeing the revised version.

Dave

It's also interesting that in your Star Wars ranking the lowest grossing film is unquestionably the biggest critical and dramatic success in the series, but also the darkest of the 6 films.

Dave

hell, if i were rich enough, i would hire Aaman just to keep my silly self honest...

..:::bows, hand over fist:::..

awesomely done, as usual...

am suprised not to see Casablanca, It's a Wonderful Life, Wizard of Oz and some others...good stuff for thinking on

Excelsior!

>>am suprised not to see Casablanca, It's a Wonderful Life, Wizard of Oz and some others...<<

It's not a ranking of GOOD films, but of top grossing films.

Dave

d'oh

point taken

Excelsior!

Reworked - I'm sorry for the calc error - the table is more interesting now - especially the Star Wars elements.

Wow, that was fast...

quick question - are the Star Wars numbers based on the actual grosses of each year? Cause I know each of the original trilogy films were rereleased. Are the numbers from each calculated differently from the original release dates to the special edition release dates?

There have been some excellent articles over at Slate about box office numbers that factor in the dwindling attendance numbers - and by dwindling, we have to say that about 1/3 as many people go to the movies today as did sixty years ago. The rise of home entertainment has been a significant long-term factor.

But that does raise a question in my mind: if contemporary films also make considerable sums in TV licensing and DVD sales - and many people simply don't go to see them until they are released later - how helpful is it really to compare box office figures to determine when the "good" movies were released?

Total revenues might be a more accurate form of comparison if we're going to try and compare today's multiple distribution stream environment with the past, when for many years the theater was the primary (if not only) option.

Just a thought. :)

Total revenues are not easily available, but may be a subject for a separate study.

Tan - these are the gross revenues, incl. the re-release, theater-only.

Note the absence of the LOTR series and the second SW trilogy in the top ten. Some pretty nice movies actually in this top ten.

Looks like people had better taste then:)

Very interesting stuff...

Another good site for box office figures and comparisons is this

Thanks, Chris. I've linked to boxofficemojo.com as well in my post, wish I had a pro-membership to them

Aaman

YEah, me too!

I use them for my Box Office Upate figures. Even without the pro, they have a lot of info!

Aaman -

I recognize that total revenues may not be easily available. But I think you need to focus on the fact that comparing box office results may not properly justify the conclusions in contrasting the past with the present.

In that regard, I offer Edward Jay Epstein's knockout stuff over at Slate - such as this article about where Hollywood really makes its money.

The best-kept secret in Hollywood, especially from Wall Street, is that the movie studios' biggest profit center is not theatrical movies, or even DVD sales; it is TV licensing. If the details of the profits remain clouded to outsiders, it is no accident. The studios purposely blur together their three principal revenue sources--the box office, video sales, and television licensing--into a single portmanteau category called "studio entertainment" in their quarterly and annual reports. Keeping audiences in the dark may be a time-honored Hollywood tradition, but this breakdown can be demystified by consulting the studios' internal numbers, which they furnish to the Motion Picture Association on a confidential basis.

Last year, the six major studios--Disney, Fox, Warner Bros., Paramount, Universal, Sony, and their subsidiaries--had total revenues of $7.4 billion from world box-office sales, $20.9 billion from world video sales, and $17.7 billion from world television licensing. Revenues, however, are what companies record, not what they earn. And, in the case of Hollywood, the revenues from movies, DVDs, and TV yield very different earnings.

Very interesting, Aaman.

With so many other entertainment options for people today, I'm not suprised by the results.

Bill Wallo's comment # 22 was also interessting.

Brilliant Aaman. Much food for thought, by commenters, too.

It's always Gone With the Wind at the top when they adjust for inflation. Many of the top grossing films of all time, whether in Aaman's calculations or those of others, are appealing to women and children. Many of the movies offered now now are not, and it costs them money, among other things.

Cerulean, you've got a valid point - the reason, perhaps, is that family and children's films mean more tickets per group of viewers, unlike the adventure thrillers, etc. which might mean sales of one or two tickets per viewing unit.

Another analysis, again not very easy, but I shall try, can be to assess returns exceeding the original investment on these films, adjusted to constant dollars.

What about the "Transformers" movie