There has been recently a lot of talk about how successful a movie can be in connaction to a certain actor when the news broke that Ben Affleck will be the new Batman.

This led me to do some research on the highest-grossing films worlwide. While the commonly found lists in the press are largely meaningless for comparing films widely separated in time, I put together a list of the highest-grossing films adjusted for inflation. It's important to take a) ticket sales, b) production & distribution costs and c) the inflation in general into account.

Just as an example for the US market: the United States had a population of ~130 million when "Gone With The Wind" was released in 1939 and ~300 million in 2008 when "The Dark Knight" was released. In the US alone, "Gone With The Wind" had 283,100,000 admissions compared with 74,455,400 admissions for "The Dark Knight". You don't need to be a math genius to realise that when a studio promotes its film these days by "highest-grossing film of all time" it's just a marketing campaign to attract more cinema goers. What really counts is the list adjusted for inflation.

I'm sure some of you will be surprised by the results as you won't be finding any recent superhero movie or Harry Potter/Lord of the Ring movie in the list.

TOP 10:
1. Gone with the Wind (1939) - Total gross US$5,362,000,000
2. Avatar (2009) - Total gross US$2,782,300,000
3. Star Wars (1977) - Total gross US$2,710,800,000
4. Titanic (1997) - Total gross US$2,413,800,000
5. The Sound of Music (1965) - Total gross US$2,269,800,000
6. E.T. (1982) - Total gross US$2,216,800,000
7. The Ten Commandments (1956) - Total gross US$2,098,600,000
8. Doctor Zhivago (1956) - $1,988,600,000
9. Jaws (1975) - US$1,945,100,000
10. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937) - Total gross US$1,746,100,000

Interestingly two of the highest-grossing films (Titanic and Avatar) have both been directed & written by James Cameron. And when you look at the list five out of the ten films were so popular among movie goers because of their then new special effects.

Although the final numbers always vary from a bit from source to source, I took the numbers from Guinness World Records which should be most accurate.


And for the James Bond fans among you, here's a list of the highest-grossing James Bond movies worldwide adjusted for inflation:
1. Skyfall (2012) - Total gross US$1,107,973,134*
2. Thunderball (1965) - Total gross US$1,014,941,117
3. Goldfinger (1964) - Total gross US$912,257,512
4. Live and Let Die (1973) - Total gross US$825,110,761
5. You Only Live Twice (1967) - Total gross US$756,544,419
6. The Spy Who Loved Me (1977) - Total gross US$692,713,752
7. Casino Royale (2006) - Total gross US$669,789,482
8. Moonraker (1979) - Total gross US$655,872,400
9. Diamonds Are Forever (1971) - Total gross US$648,514,469
10. Quantum of Solace (2008) - Total gross US$622,246,378
* The Skyfall numbers are up to date as of March 23rd, 2013.

As for Goldfinger, costing only $3 million to make, the film raked in just under $125 million at the box office. That amounts to $22.4 million in costs and $912 million in profit in today's dollars which technically makes Goldfinger the most successful Bond movie of all times when you also take the production costs into consideration to the total gross. Just for comparison, the estimated production budget for Skyfall was ~US$200 million and the total gross was only US$1,107,973,134.
What can be said for sure is that the James Bond franchise is the highest-grossing franchise in film history. Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings and any super hero doesn't even come close to that.

I hope you've enjoyed the lists and maybe that's the start of a new constructive-minded discussion

What is interesting about the James Bond list is that only three Bond Actors had films in the list: Connery, Moore and Craig.

quote:

Originally posted by barobehere:
What is interesting about the James Bond list is that only three Bond Actors had films in the list: Connery, Moore and Craig.

Yeah, I was surprised too that none of Pierce Brosnan's Bond movies made it into the top 10. To be honest, I didn't like them too much because of their overuse of unrealistic gadgets that Bond uses, but I would have thought that at least one of his movies would make it into the top 10.

quote:

Originally posted by estephano:
TOP 10:
1. Gone with the Wind (1939) - Total gross US$5,362,000,000
2. Avatar (2009) - Total gross US$2,782,300,000
3. Star Wars (1977) - Total gross US$2,710,800,000
4. Titanic (1997) - Total gross US$2,413,800,000
5. The Sound of Music (1965) - Total gross US$2,269,800,000
6. E.T. (1982) - Total gross US$2,216,800,000
7. The Ten Commandments (1956) - Total gross US$2,098,600,000
8. Doctor Zhivago (1956) - $1,988,600,000
9. Jaws (1975) - US$1,945,100,000
10. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937) - Total gross US$1,746,100,000

And when you look at the list five out of the ten films were so popular among movie goers because of their then new special effects.

Just curious but which five films are you thinking of ? I can see Avatar for its new 3D CG effects, Star Wars for its new computer controlled camera moves for action FX but which are the other three ? E.T. wasn't big on FX and neither was Jaws. In fact Jaws was famous for the poor FX for the shark as that's why we rarely caught a glimpse of it. Snow White drew audiences as the first ever feature length animated cartoon not for any new special effects. The effects in Titanic were old hat not new as most had already been seen and used in TV series.

quote:

Originally posted by Kevin F:
Just curious but which five films are you thinking of ? I can see Avatar for its new 3D CG effects, Star Wars for its new computer controlled camera moves for action FX but which are the other three ? E.T. wasn't big on FX and neither was Jaws. In fact Jaws was famous for the poor FX for the shark as that's why we rarely caught a glimpse of it. Snow White drew audiences as the first ever feature length animated cartoon not for any new special effects. The effects in Titanic were old hat not new as most had already been seen and used in TV series.

1. Jaws: the film led many viewers to fear going into the ocean because they thought what they saw on screen was so realistic (although it's only been full-size pneumatically powered prop sharks). While you call Jaws' special effects poor for today's standards, it was bloody realistics for the audience back in 1975.

2. Star Wars: George Lucas' then newly founded special effects company ILM set completly new standards for special effects being used in a film. Again, new special effects for the time back then, 1976/1977.

3. E.T.: So you think an Academy Award for Best Visual Effects and a Saturn Award for Best Special Effects isn't good enough? Italian special effects mastermind Carlo Rambaldi (reminds me of ALIAS by the way ) did a marvelous job and created what would become film history.

4. Titanic: Cameron pushed the boundary of special effects with Titanic and also used very realistic computer-generated images (such as water, people, smoke) and awesome model shots that looked like the real thing which led Titanic to have ground-breaking special effects for the time it was produced (1996/1997).

5. Avatar: No need to say much about the special effects that were being in Avatar. Cameron is a director who specializes in special effects, and he's been at the cutting edge since Aliens. In 1997 people would name Titanic Cameron's masterpiece. Well 12 years later Avatar became Cameron's new masterpiece and it might take another 10 years to top that film in terms of special effects (though Avatar doesn't have the classic special effects but computer-generated images and 3-D effects instead).

These gross figures of course do not tell us if the film was any good, only how many people paid to go and see it, this can be the only reason why Diamonds are Forever appears on the list, easily the worst Bond film ever made.

quote:

Originally posted by wolfie:
These gross figures of course do not tell us if the film was any good, only how many people paid to go and see it, this can be the only reason why Diamonds are Forever appears on the list, easily the worst Bond film ever made.

Wrong! What you're describing is a subjective view on a film. Gross figures won't tell if a film was any good in your personal opinion, but they tell if a film was good in the general audience's opinion. Otherwise none of the films above would have made it to the top 10 list of the highest-grossing movies worldwide adjusted for inflation.

Don't mix your personal views on a certain film with the general audience's view on it. This will lead nowhere except for a heated catfight on one's personal favourite films. The worst James Bond in my opinion was 'Quantum of Solace' but just because I didn't like it at all doesn't mean the film wasn't any good. Same can be said about 'Diamonds are forever': just because you didn't like it, doesn't make it any less good. Even 'Avatar' isn't the kind of films I usually watch, it's just not my thing. Does it make 'Avatar' a bad movie, just because I didn't like the 'Pocahontas goes soap-opera'-story? I don't think so...

quote:

Originally posted by estephano:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by wolfie:
These gross figures of course do not tell us if the film was any good,

Wrong! Gross figures won't tell if a film was any good in your personal opinion, but they tell if a film was good in the general audience's opinion.

what i'm trying to say is that people don't know if the film is any good until they have seen it, by then they have paid, the film could have taken thousands and everyone who came out of the cinema could have said it was rubbish.

quote:

Originally posted by estephano:
1. Jaws: the film led many viewers to fear going into the ocean because they thought what they saw on screen was so realistic (although it's only been full-size pneumatically powered prop sharks). While you call Jaws' special effects poor for today's standards, it was bloody realistics for the audience back in 1975.

That's the thing though. The special effects were thought of as poor at the time, what frightened people and got them to stay out of the water was everything you didn't see combined with the amazing music score. I know that was the case because I was around when the film was first being shown. It was the shark that cinema goers created in their imaginations that frightened them and made them stay out of the water after seeing the film. Scenes of a camera travelling underwater to give the audience a shark's eye view of things (without actually showing them a shark) with that famous theme running put their imaginations into overdrive. They didn't see a huge terrifying shark on the screen...but they knew it was there The brief appearances of the prop shark towards the end of the film were what wreaked the illusion for a lot of people.

quote:

Originally posted by estephano:
2. Star Wars: George Lucas' then newly founded special effects company ILM set completly new standards for special effects being used in a film. Again, new special effects for the time back then, 1976/1977.

As I said, no argument over Star Wars

quote:

Originally posted by estephano:
[b]3. E.T.: So you think an Academy Award for Best Visual Effects and a Saturn Award for Best Special Effects isn't good enough? Italian special effects mastermind Carlo Rambaldi (reminds me of ALIAS by the way ) did a marvelous job and created what would become film history.

There was nothing new about the effects in ET, it was just very well done. The Oscar was given for Best Special Effects not newest or most innovative. People went to see a little man dressed up as a cute Alien with a glowing finger tip and the cute kid who befriended him. The special effects were in the background where they belonged allowing people to follow and enjoy the story of the two main characters without any distractions. That's why they were declared to be the Best FX that year.

quote:

Originally posted by estephano:4. Titanic: Cameron pushed the boundary of special effects with Titanic and also used very realistic computer-generated images (such as water, people, smoke) and awesome model shots that looked like the real thing which led Titanic to have ground-breaking special effects for the time it was produced (1996/1997).

Again, I have to disagree here. The FX in Titanic were not ground-breaking, especially not the CG work. It had all been done before, using a lot of the same software, on TV for SeaQuest DSV (1993-96) and other similar series. I still don't know why so many people went to see Titanic when there was nothing new or groundbreaking about it in any way shape or form. It was a remake of an old story, it used existing technology and it was at least an hour too long....but that's just my opinion

quote:

Originally posted by estephano:[b]5. Avatar: No need to say much about the special effects that were being in Avatar. Cameron is a director who specializes in special effects, and he's been at the cutting edge since Aliens. In 1997 people would name Titanic Cameron's masterpiece. Well 12 years later Avatar became Cameron's new masterpiece and it might take another 10 years to top that film in terms of special effects (though Avatar doesn't have the classic special effects but computer-generated images and 3-D effects instead).

Again, no argument with Avatar for special effects.

quote:

Originally posted by wolfie:
These gross figures of course do not tell us if the film was any good, only how many people paid to go and see it, this can be the only reason why Diamonds are Forever appears on the list, easily the worst Bond film ever made.

I would put Moonraker and The Man with a Golden Gun in a tie for that worst Bond title over Diamonds are Forever.

But I am always leary of these movie lists where they factor in adjusted box office dollars, and then adjusted production budget dollars. And what about the number of screens that a movie was shown on? And the number of times that movie could run in a day? And let's not forget that there was a time when a theatre didn't get emptied after every showing and you could sit in a movie through multiple viewings without paying again. In fact I think they used to call it Day Care.

There are so many ways you can manipulate these numbers that you could probably make up any list of the most popular movies over the decades and the results would be just as reasonable as if you tried to crunch a bunch of questionable adjusted dollars.