NationStates Jolt Archive

You know that movie ticket rates change and are altered according to inflation, $100 million was the adjusted rate for a movie to become a blockbuster atleast in the USA. But I have seen a lot of movies do that really quick, the new pirates of the caribbean movie got ther in 2 days, superman has passed that quick to. With international money involved raising movies profits into $400 million plus, does $100 million sound like a fair number for a movie to be called a blockbuster?

What I really wonder about is entertainment news shows referring to big-budget movies as "Blockbusters" before they are released. They're not always blockbusters, people *cough Waterworld cough*

What I really wonder about is entertainment news shows referring to big-budget movies as "Blockbusters" before they are released. They're not always blockbusters, people *cough Waterworld cough*
Waterworld was a blockbuster too. It set a new financial benchmark.

Waterworld made $264 million worldwide.

This essentially means that 10 million tickets were sold – that really isn’t that many people. Not only does inflation need to be figured in, but population increases as well. You cannot compare how popular a new movie is in comparison to… Gone with the wind for example. Looking at how much money it takes in is less important than how many tickets are sold adjusted by the population of movie goers.

Over time the comparison of how much is taken in by the box office on opening weekend looses any usefulness for comparisons.

Now if you are only comparing it to other new movies, then I would say that whatever grossly exceeds average take for a major production by a studio of comparable size can be considered a blockbuster.

Of course, in the interest of making a biased rating, we should judge a movies success by the profitability – in which case Deep Throat is the greatest movie of all time ;)

Depends upon a number of factors, like the original price tag of the movie, the expected earnings, and the number of theaters shown. A small film like Napoleon Dynamite would be considered a blockbuster if it made $100 million, because it did not have conventional distribution or advertisements attached to it, it was shown only in a few theaters, it was not expected to do that much business, and it was not made for only a few million, thus making it very profitable. By contrast, if Superman Returns had only earned $100 million, that would have been considered a massive tank despite the fact that it's a crapload of money, simply because it of the exact opposite reasons a Napoleon Dynamite would be considered so successful.

By and large, however, whether a movie is considered a success or not is largely based on the whimsy of the people in charge or who's talking. I recall seeing The Majestic, for instance, and liking it because I'm a sucker for Capraesque films. It turned a fairly small profit despite being significantly underadvertised, yet I've never heard of it as anything other than a commercial and artistic failure. The primary reason for this has nothing to do with the movie itself, and everything to do with the fact that the story going around Hollywood is that Jim Carrey (the star of The Majestic) can only sell comedy movies, and no amount of success can overcome the fact that this movie hadn't sold like Carrey's comedic projects like Ace Ventura or Liar Liar. I'm wondering how this mantra has stood up since Eternal Sunshine, but that's just the way the business works.