Yea it's already grossed 736 million bucks overall but it has not beaten Spiderman. Spiderman was fifth in 2002 its currently the tenth highest grossing film of all time.
Source : Box Office Mojo
Title Studio Worldwide Domestic / % Overseas / % Year As of July 22nd 2004
Mmm... I did interpret the statement incorrectly to an extent. I don't count the domestic earnings, I count the worldwide gross. When these films are placed in record books they are ranked by the total amount of money they garner. Spiderman is number 6 in America but !Newsflash! America isn't the only country on the face of the earth.
__________________
If we keep pushing technology, eventually it will push back.
OOO, so, I guess studios don't care about the extra money earned when a movie does well overseas either riiiiiiight???. Even if a movie has a mediorce or lukewarm run, but does exceptionally well overseas chances are sequel will be released which is responsible in part for the slew of crappy sequels we so often get that people like myself included, eat up. For example many, many movies gross more overseas than domestically. Hollywood is business and making movies WAS an artform.
e.g 18 Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban WB $673.7 WORLDWIDE
$239.7 DOMESTIC
$434.0 OVERSEAS
__________________
If we keep pushing technology, eventually it will push back.
Last edited by sonofasaiyan on Jul 23rd, 2004 at 05:13 PM
I didn't say they don't care about overseas gross but I guess you don't read very clearly anyway Harry Potter 1,2,3 have each opened between $80-$93 million in the US so your example proves nothing.
So what??? They have opened with those numbers in the US!!! my friend. Which brings us back to the fact the America is not the only country in the world. The budget and marketing costs are what determine whether a movie is a hit or a flop. The total cost of promotion and production of "Harry Potter and The Prizoner of Azkaban" is 180 million. So If it made 150 million which is more often than not considered a successful earning, it would not even break even. So the overseas gross is just as invaluable, if not more so than the domestic. And, movies with strong openings have still historically became flops so you sir are the one that has no point.
__________________
If we keep pushing technology, eventually it will push back.
Last edited by sonofasaiyan on Jul 23rd, 2004 at 05:24 PM
Actually it turns back around to you because the third Harry Potter made $240 million so far domestically. Which means it almost 100 percent guarantees a sequel with just that the rest is just a bonus. It did have a strong opening in the US and still is not a flop so what you said does not even apply to this.
I know I said IF! it had made 150 million it would be a flop. The bottom line is domestic grosses are too invaluble to be cast aside or ignored. While proportionately on the domesitic scale a gross of 240 million since June 4th is impressive, that does not change the fact that overseas grosses usually give us the figures that tend to make headlines, not just the domestic gross.
__________________
If we keep pushing technology, eventually it will push back.
KMC Community Forums
Aug 15th, 2001 11:17 PM
GOD, I hate Shrek.
you mixed up the domestic records with the worlwide records
is 180 million. So If it made 150 million which is more often than not considered a successful earning, it would not even break even. So the overseas gross is just as invaluable, if not more so than the domestic. And, movies with strong openings have still historically became flops so you sir are the one that has no point.
