Economics
How Scarlett O'Hara Stole Titanic's All-Time Box-Office Crown
Even before he directed the box-office record holder Titanic, James Cameron worked with the impunity and swagger of a man who knew someday he would rise to the top of his craft. Today, with a new batch of adjusted numbers culled from the Hollywood record books, he can return to that underdog position — at least until Avatar arrives this fall to restore his crown. But it has a long, long way to go to catch up with the Southern belle who surpassed him.
Bloomberg reports today that Gone With the Wind is the No. 1 domestic-grossing film of all time when adjusting for inflation, which lifts its 1939 total of $198.7 million to a mindblowing $1.46 billion in 2009 dollars. Star Wars trails it in second place ($1.28bn), followed by The Sound of Music ($1.02bn), E.T.: The Extra Terrestrial ($1.01bn) and even The Ten Freaking Commandments ($940mm). Titanic doesn’t even rank in the top five, with its adjusted $600 million gross ($921.5mm in 2009 dollars) earning it a measly sixth-place finish just ahead of Jaws. The Dark Knight slumps somewhere out of the top 25, idling pretty much where it ended last year at $533 million.
Cameron is no doubt brushing off the revised numbers this morning, arguing that you can’t adjust 11 Oscars (versus GWTW’s eight) for inflation and trash-talking director Victor Fleming’s notably downmarket visual effects. I think we can all give him that, as long as we can recalibrate Avatar’s eventual billion-dollar-plus windfall for its 30-percent 3D/IMAX premium. In any case, let’s not even think of the angry e-mail Michael Bay is probably sending Paramount right now.
· Gone With the Wind Is Top Grossing Film of All Time [Bloomberg via The Guardian]
More interviews
- UCB Cofounder Matt Walsh on Amy Poehler's Ascent, Improv, and His New Show Players
- One Life to Live's Brett Claywell: 'We Told a Story in a World Where Most People Are Afraid to Tell It'
- Michael Shannon on The Runaways, Kristen Stewart's Sophistication, and Getting Picked Up By James Franco
- Dakota Fanning and Kristen Stewart: The Movieline Interview
- Emilie de Ravin on Remember Me and the Learning Curve of Lost
Lost
American Idol
Oscars
Lists
Obsessive compulsive: all topics, one link!
Lost American Idol Oscars Lists
Past Virtual Newsstands
More in TVLine
About | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Information | mail.com | Hollywood Life | Deadline Hollywood
Copyright © 2009 Movieline LLC All rights reserved.
Posted 07 Jul 2009, 12:27 PM
It's not too late for added scenes, Jimmy!
Stick in that Octochick or maybe one of the "Real Housewives of..." casts and you'll be able to claim #1 again!
(That's the way we seem to be headed as a viewing audience, sadly.)
Rock on, Jimbo. You can DO it!
Posted 07 Jul 2009, 1:03 PM
I'd say something snarky, but I'm still stuck in that cheesy "moment of silence" Cameron demanded at the Academy Awards.
Posted 07 Jul 2009, 1:05 PM
Yeah, but if u take GWTW's non-domestic and add that, then its total only doubles (well, foreign was about 3 mill more than domestic), whereas adding Titanic's wrldwide would TRIPLE its adjusted, leaving it only a couple of hundred mill behind once adjusted, and thats without talking about how EVERYONE would have gone to see GWTW (i mean, name any significant competition), whereas Titanic had a full modern box office to contend with. Jim is the king. End of.
Posted 10 Jul 2009, 7:33 AM
Name any significant competition?
The year GWTW was released is widely considered to be the best year in film history. And not just because of GWTW. You only have to look at Sweetbiscuit's comment to see just a portion of the competition GWTW faced. GWTW was, indisputably, the most anticipated film of the year. But hardly the only hit/classic to come out of Hollywood that year.
Posted 11 Jul 2009, 5:29 PM
You have to be kidding me. Melanie is right. Besides GWTW, there was Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Stagecoach, Dark Victory, Goodbye Mr. Chips, not to mention The Wizard of Oz. Titanic didn't come close to having any real competition. Cameron had a good and titanic movie but it is NOTHING compared to Gone With the Wind in the scheme of history...when the playing field is totally leveled.
Posted 07 Jul 2009, 1:43 PM
The Ten Freaking Commandments ? Hmm, I must've missed that one. Was that the one starring Sasha Grey?
Posted 07 Jul 2009, 3:15 PM
Avatar is going to be the shit, son.
Posted 07 Jul 2009, 3:18 PM
Especially impressive for GWTW as the population was considerably smaller back then, along with far fewer theaters.
Regardless, box-office sport has become a pathology, and an obsession for pea-brains. The substance of the film is what's important.
Posted 07 Jul 2009, 5:55 PM
Also impressive for GWTW when you consider what were considered the other "best pictures" for the year (and competition for the almighty box office dollar in the day): The Wizard of Oz, Stagecoach, Wuthering Heights, Love Affair, Goodbye, Mr. Chips, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Of Mice and Men, Dark Victory, and Ninotchka.
The "best pictures" in 1997 were As Good as It Gets, The Full Monty, Good Will Hunting, and L.A. Confidential.
It's all relative, James.
Posted 10 Jul 2009, 6:49 AM
First of all, this is nothing new. Boxofficemojo has been calculating total revenue adjusted for inflation for years.
Secondly, GWTW's tally is less impressive if you think about the era it was released. There really weren't other similar entertainment options back then. No internet, video games, or much television. More importantly though, there were no DVDs or VHS tapes or any other way to watch the movie at home. Since the theater was the only place people could watch movies, they often showed the same ones for years. These days a movie will play for a few months at most, then go to video.
Posted 10 Jul 2009, 8:20 AM
GWTW is also less impressive considering that it has been out since 1939 as been released, rerleased, and released again. Also there was no waiting for VHS or DVD when it first came out. You either saw it at the movies or not at all. This was the same when it was rereleased the first few times. Titanic came out in 1997 and has only been released once. So 70 years vs. 12? I mean come on!!!
Posted 10 Jul 2009, 10:16 AM
You also need to consider the timing of everything. When Titanic was released in the 90s, we were financially booming as a country. When GWTW came out, it was one of the harshest years of the Great Depression. Escapism was at a high because there was nothing to hope for so people went to the theaters to escape their sad existences. GWTW wasn't necessarily a pick me up, but it did allow folks to lose themselves for a few hours.
GWTW's tally is incredibly impressive considering the fact that there were fewer theaters, the Hollywood marketing machine didn't exist as it does now, and it was a highly competitive year. To reiterate a point, 1939 is often considered the greatest year in cinema history with the most classic films coming from it.
Oh, and if I remember correctly, Titanic was in theaters for over a year. I remember going camping in Pennsylvania during the summer of '98, and while driving by some rinky-dink theaters, I noticed they were still showing that movie.
Posted 10 Jul 2009, 12:14 PM
Nothing new here. People who are interested in these things knew this even when Titanic was sailing out of theaters the first time.
Posted 10 Jul 2009, 12:27 PM
of course the REAL #1 box office film of all time is the 1915 D.W. Griffith masterpiece THE BIRTH OF A NATION.
Posted 10 Jul 2009, 1:26 PM
C'mon, we all know that unadjusted numbers make for bad comparisons. "Gone With the Wind" was made in 1939, when there was no such thing as home video or even movie that played on TV. The only place people saw films was in theaters. Nowadays, films make 25% of their revenue in theaters. So take that $1.46 billion that "Gone With the Wind" made and divide it by four, and you get $366.5 million.
So this whole article is wrong. "Titanic" still retains its crown. The other five movies that "beat" it when adjusted for inflation were all made before home video existed. You have to take these things into account.
Oh, and the title doesn't really make sense. "How Scarlett O'Hara Stole Titanic's All-Time Box-Office Crown." If GWTW claims the crown as you say it does (which it doesn't), then how could Scarlett have stolen the crown? Wouldn't she already have had it and not needed to steal it?
Posted 10 Jul 2009, 4:50 PM
Ryan you forgot that there were still Radios around with top stars with there own shows,Music programs highlighting all the musical stars,Radio theater, Plus phonographs provided music when wanted. so there was compitition for movies back then.
Posted 10 Jul 2009, 5:19 PM
The comments about GWTW being re-released several times whilst TITANIC had been released only once may be true, but the conclusion is flawed (and not just because of the inflation adjustment). At the time of its initial release and all subsequent re-releases, GWTW (like ALL movies) played on one single screen in each city where it was released--which was fewer than 100 cities across North America. In many places--and certainly in all rural areas--people often had to wait a full year or more to even have the chance to see a big hit movie. During the sixties, the big movies had "road show" engagements, where one bought reserved seats it advance, like going to see a play.
TITANIC opened in, literally, thousands of venues in virtually every city and town all at once. It wasn't until the early seventies that single-screen cinemas lost their vogue/profitability entirely and multiplexes opened everywhere. It wasn't until after STAR WARS became so successful that cinemas generally playing a given movie on more than one screen at the same theatre. This means that, today, a vastly successful movie like DARK KNIGHT opens in a saturated booking scheme pattern that gives it a serious advantage over even the most popular classic films.
The inflation-ajusted stats have, indeed, been available for years, and not just on BoxofficeMojo. What these adjusted figures do not, and cannot include, however, are anything resembling reliable statistics for non-U.S. revenues, since they were never reported and cannot be estimated with any confidence. So, the adjusted figures for GWTW (and older hits like THE SOUND OF MUSIC and THE TEN COMMANDMENTS) are still incomplete vis-a-vis modern films. The article ought to stress this fact because the older hits are not only more successful, the ultimate world-wide adjusted figures would make them look puny in comparison.
Posted 10 Jul 2009, 6:14 PM
Hi!
I just would like to say that Gone With The Wind is one of the best films ever made as they did not have computers for special effects back in 1939 so for this reason and this reason only is why Gone With The Wind is still one of the best films ever made.
Posted 10 Jul 2009, 6:32 PM
"Fiddle-de-dee, Melly! The Yankees are at it again!"
Posted 10 Jul 2009, 9:41 PM
gwtw was made with no computor help and looks like it was made today (brilliant) Titanic, although brilliant looking, was only made possible by computer. Look at the movie night to remember, still a good account of the Titanic but without all the razamataz. Give us a goos story, great actors and we will come to the movies no matter how they are made.
Posted 10 Jul 2009, 11:56 PM
About the only way you're going to be able to compare apples to apples is if you compare a film's take with the cost of production on a percentage basis.
As for those people who are carping about the fact that there was no home video in the day of GWTW, my reply is "so what"? Movies like GWTW, Wizard of Oz, Stagecoach, and every other film listed from the Golden Year of 1939 are now available on video....so they're getting their share of that pie now. Is anybody including those sales, btw?
Now, if Titanic can still attract sales seventy years after it was released (like GWTW or Wizard of OZ), the day may come when it tops revenue lists, even if adjusted for inflation. Until (or if) then, GWTW is tops.
Posted 11 Jul 2009, 12:25 AM
This list is the same somewhat erroneous list that BoxOfficeMojo uses. Anything that has Fantasia at #20 is bogus. Don't get me wrong--I love the film and deem it a masterpeice, but Fantasia did not turn a profit until after '68, and most of its gross has come from the last three rereleases, including 25 mil in 1990. How that all gets adjusted to over a half billion is anyone's guess. Unless the adjusters can verify that they are actually going into every rerelease for Gone With the Wind, Original Star Wars, and other such films and adjusting from there, I look upon these articles as just another spacewasting justification for a staff writer's paycheck.
Posted 11 Jul 2009, 5:40 AM
All of this misses the point- Hollywood was, and is now, concerned about the bottom line, and none of this addresses the simple fact that GWTW had it's faults, but was all around a better movie than Titanic!
Posted 11 Jul 2009, 10:48 AM
This is old news. [i]Titanic[/i] has always been the highest-grossing film of all time, while [i]Gone with the Wind[/i] has always been the most successful film in the U.S. adjusting for inflation.
Posted 11 Jul 2009, 3:21 PM
According to IMDB Gone with the Wind was released in 1939 and re-released in
1942
1947
1954
1961
1967
1974
1989
1998
All of these releases count toward the total boxoffice take so adjusting all of those to 1939 numbers is a little unfair.
Posted 11 Jul 2009, 5:22 PM
Perhaps the number one film should be the one that sold the most tickets. I think adjusting for inflation compares total revenue the films earned then translates that into 2009 $. GWTW domestic $200 million at 50 cents a ticket is 400 million people. Titanic $600 million at $6 or $7 a ticket is less than 100 million viewers.
I think GWTW is a better and more entertaining picture with better characters, richer story...
Cameran is a pretty good director. I hope Avatar will be okay. What if it turns out like that mediocre TV series he did.
Posted 11 Jul 2009, 5:56 PM
how is this new news?? Anyone who has followed movies for any amount of time knows that Gone With The Wind has been the champ... this report should have just moseyed on over to IMDB and found the information there, where it has been proudly on display forever!
Posted 11 Jul 2009, 6:48 PM
I saw titanic once...that was once too many times
Posted 11 Jul 2009, 7:25 PM
It's always annoyed me that every year, movies are "breaking" box-office records. I've always thought that records should be set by NUMBER of ticket sales, not the price of each ticket, but I like this adjustment for inflation, too.
Posted 12 Jul 2009, 6:03 AM
"measly sixth-place". Yea, how lame is that, 6th biggest movie of ALL TIME.
Posted 12 Jul 2009, 8:26 AM
Yeah, the whole "there was no home video" idea is kind of lame, because radio was a major competitor to movies at the time. In fact, many movies were also adapted for radio dramas, often with the same stars (there was a radio adaptation of Casablanca with Bogart but someone else as Ilsa, I believe), which meant that people could theoretically to get the same stories for free.
And contrary to what Karl Cooper claims, 1939 was one of the greatest years for movies, period. The winter Titanic was released, the only major competition was Tommorow Never Dies, a decent but not substantial James Bond effort. Early 1998 had such stellar movies as Spice World, Sphere, and Blues Brothers 2000.
Posted 12 Jul 2009, 6:30 PM
And this is news how? It's been known all along that GWtW leads domestic box office when adjusted for inflation. There's nothing new here, only that the writer of this article seems to be a little slow. What's next, are we going to finally find out who shot J.R.?
Posted 13 Jul 2009, 12:31 AM
You might see A Christmas Carol making more money than Avatar, depending on how good it is.