Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Josias

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Mar 10, 2006
1,908
1
This adjusts the highest grossing movie of each year between 1972 and 2010 to current US dollars. Re-releases aren't counted, and as you can see, Avatar is a fingernail short of Titanic, but given that it isn't even halfway through its theatrical run, it's very likely that it will beat it.

671df90f7a.jpg
 
This adjusts the highest grossing movie of each year between 1972 and 2010 to current US dollars. Re-releases aren't counted, and as you can see, Avatar is a fingernail short of Titanic, but given that it isn't even halfway through its theatrical run, it's very likely that it will beat it.

How exactly do they adjust them? Because a movie ticket back in the days of Titanic or Star Wars wasn't near what it is now. Even a matinee these days is $7.50-$8.50. Back in those days, the main price wasn't even that high. That's why I wish they'd rank movies by tickets sold, not amount. But maybe they have some voodoo math they use to equal all that out?
 
I read one article showing after you factor in thing on older movies that only had a very limited release in theaters because of the time "Sound of Music" is top dog.

Back when sound of Music came only a handful of theaters would get a movie and only a very select few could even go to the movies.
 
I read one article showing after you factor in thing on older movies that only had a very limited release in theaters because of the time "Sound of Music" is top dog.

Back when sound of Music came only a handful of theaters would get a movie and only a very select few could even go to the movies.

I don't think I understand your comparison? Also, SOM came out in 1965, not in 1504...
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.