The following is a preliminary analysis and some observations on revenues and viewership of the Top Hollywood films of all time.
This demonstrates that if one discounts inflation, most of the good films are all in the past.
The sources of data are IMDB.com, the MPAA and box-office archives.
Firstly, the current report from IMDB.com provides the list of all-time top grossing films in the United States, using box-office revenues.
The curremt top-ten are:
| Rank | Title | USA Box Office$ |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Titanic | $600,779,824 |
| 2 | Star Wars | $460,935,665 |
| 3 | Shrek 2 | $436,471,036 |
| 4 | E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial | $434,949,459 |
| 5 | Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace | $431,065,444 |
| 6 | Spider-Man | $403,706,375 |
| 7 | Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith | $377,864,535 |
| 8 | The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King | $377,019,252 |
| 9 | Spider-Man 2 | $373,377,893 |
| 10 | The Passion of the Christ | $370,270,943 |
I applied a deflator to convert the top-grossing film revenues to constant 2005 dollars. I also retrieved a summary of historical ticket prices and converted this to constant dollars as well to use the same base.
The following are some interesting charts on the revenue generated by top-grossing films from 1937, the earliest data was available from IMDB.com:
Revenue in constant 2005 dollars per year generated by top grossing films
Trendline of revenue from top-grossing films
One notes that box-office revenues seem to be leveling off, despite spikes caused by the blockbusters of the last few years - mostly the fantasy trilogies.
Viewership for top-grossing films by year
One notes the peak in viewership for top-grossing films in 1939, and the significant drop since then, recently improved. One also notes that 2005 has not contributed much thus far, despite some huge block-busters being released.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Capn Ken
Wow, that's a lot of thinking you're asking me to do on a Friday afternoon ...
2 - Eric Olsen
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
3 - Bob A. Booey
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.
4 - Aaman
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
5 - Tan The Man
Adjusted for inflation, I think Gone with the Wind tops Titanic.
6 - Aaman
Tan,
You've pointed out something basic that I missed in my calculations - please excuse me while I revise and republish my charts
7 - Tan The Man
Well, you can make a separate article on Classic Hollywood movies list
this one can just be a modern hollywood movies list
8 - Aaman
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
9 - Bob A. Booey
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.
10 - Dave Nalle
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
11 - Dave Nalle
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
12 - gonzo marx
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!
13 - Dave Nalle
>>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
14 - gonzo marx
d'oh
point taken
Excelsior!
15 - Aaman
Reworked - I'm sorry for the calc error - the table is more interesting now - especially the Star Wars elements.
16 - Tan The Man
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?
17 - Bill Wallo
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. :)
18 - Aaman
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:)
19 - Chris Beaumont
Very interesting stuff...
Another good site for box office figures and comparisons is this
20 - Aama
Thanks, Chris. I've linked to boxofficemojo.com as well in my post, wish I had a pro-membership to them
Aaman
21 - Chris Beaumont
YEah, me too!
I use them for my Box Office Upate figures. Even without the pro, they have a lot of info!
22 - Bill Wallo
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.
With those kinds of numbers on video sales and world television licensing - almost five times as much as box office receipts - comparing the past with the present is an interesting exercise but doesn't really tell us all that much other than that Hollywood isn't looking to the box office for its money, and hasn't for a long time.
23 - Triniman
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.
24 - adam
Brilliant Aaman. Much food for thought, by commenters, too.
25 - Cerulean
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.