Les Mis set to be highest grossing movie musical of all time. - Page 15

[Kad]

Posted: 1/27/13 at 10:41am

When talking of grosses for films that had their initial theatrical release a substantial amount of time ago- does the number now include re-releases and sales from VHS/DVD/etc?

[metropolis10111]

Posted: 1/27/13 at 10:47am

^ no it does not

[JP2]

Posted: 1/27/13 at 11:07am

Re-releases, yes.

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/27/13 at 11:21am

It includes re-releases in some cases, but not all, which is where I think boxofficemojo.com falls down.

The Sound of Music grosses listed are for its initial release only, with no additional re-releases in the '70s listed or counted. (I saw it in a '70s re-release, and it was a big hit all over again).

If you go to Gone With the Wind or Star Wars, etc., you will see the re-release grosses as well.

So it's not exactly accurate.


Sound of Music - with no re-releases listed or counted.

Updated On: 1/27/13 at 11:21 AM

[DAME]

Posted: 1/28/13 at 1:18pm

Came so close to keeping this thread informative. I wish we could block the trolls like metropolis .

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 1/28/13 at 2:07pm

How do they factor in re-release figures for some films but not for all? That's not accurate reporting at all.

If they factored in THE SOUND OF MUSIC's re-release figures I'm pretty sure that it surpasses MAMMA MIA.

I saw THE SOUND OF MUSIC during a mid-70's run at Radio City Music Hall. I can't remember what year. I'm guessing I was about 4 or 5.
Updated On: 1/28/13 at 02:07 PM

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/29/13 at 6:25am

I think it was about 1975 (a 10-year anniversary), which is when I first saw it, too.

I'm not sure is if the re-releases prior to the '80s are already figured into the total grosses posted, or if they just aren't counted because the tracking wasn't available. Either way, re-releases (obviously) existed before the 1980s, yet I don't see any on boxofficemojo.com.

EDIT: And Carlos, you mean in today's dollars? Because in adjusted grosses (for inflation), The Sound of Music surpasses everything except Gone With the Wind and Star Wars. It's the third highest of all-time. Even in non-adjusted 1965 dollars, it made $158 million, which is still more than Mamma Mia! ($144 million) nearly 40 years later. In today's dollars Sound of Music would have made $1.1 billion in the U.S. alone. That's how big of a hit it was. It ran for over 2 years in the theatres, and that's in the "age of television." You can't compare any movie release to that today.

Updated On: 1/29/13 at 06:25 AM

[Dave19]

Posted: 1/29/13 at 7:18am

Wow. That's why the Sound of Music should be on number 1 in any list that compares the success of movie musicals.

[jo]

Posted: 1/29/13 at 7:26am

However for better comparability when considering foreign markets ( especially so that most financial hits rely heavily on foreign markets, such as in the case of Mamma Mia!), you are not just talking of inflationary or deflationary effects -- but the impact of adjusting for impact of changes in foreign exchange rates ( such as the US$ vs the Euro or GBPound or the Asian curencies or the Latin currencies, etc.) over the years should also be a factor. Kind of difficult for us financial laymen - all I am saying is that making outright comparisons based on non-comparable bases may lead us to erroneous conclusions. Maybe we should leave this kind of analysis to Forbes or WSJ or Mayor Bloomberg himself

Updated On: 1/29/13 at 07:26 AM

[metropolis10111]

Posted: 1/29/13 at 7:58am

^ No no no no no you can't bring real logic or numbers into the conversation Dame will have NONE of that! Les Miz WILL be the #1 musical of all time.

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/29/13 at 8:37am

I don't think DAME is blind to any of the numbers. But you seem to hellbent on saying it's been a disappointment financially, when it has not. No, it's not "Number One of All-Time," but it's one of the most successful movie musicals of the past 25 years. That doesn't equal "disappoint" to anyone ... other than you, right now.

I don't get the "Well, it's not THE best, so it failed," mentality. I see it everywhere. The manic-depressive approach to logic. Things are either "best" or they're the "worst."

It's a surefire setup for a life filled with disappointment.

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 1/29/13 at 9:40am

Grease during its original Australian release ran for 18 months in cinemas, along with Flying High ( Airplane ) which ran 22 months. The only way you saw movies back than was in a cinema and maybe two years after the cinema run ended it might be shown as a Sunday night movie on TV.

[peachesr82]

Posted: 1/29/13 at 10:08am

It had a budget of what, $61 million? It's made upwards of $300 million right? I don't know how that can be considered anything other than a success. It might not be the highest grossing ever but really that's not the be all and end all. Mamma Mia was always going to appeal to a much wider audience anyway.

Big picture, bright side, it's been a success financially, it has had award nominations, and at least one Oscar win looks likely now. I know reviews were mixed but if it's making money that becomes somewhat irrelevant.

If we want more movie musicals, even if it's just to give people on this forum more to bitch over, then the success of Les Mis has played an important part in keeping that train going.

Yeah, I know this ended up going off topic a little.

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 1/29/13 at 10:42am

I don't see how anyone can come on here and post that Les Miserables is not a success. It is an unqualified success on so many levels. To say or think otherwise is truly laughable.
Updated On: 1/29/13 at 10:42 AM

[ggersten]

Posted: 2/4/13 at 12:20pm

Les Mis should pass Mamma Mia's US gross this week. About 2.5 million to go (which is 50% of last week's gross) It appears that Chicago (170) and Grease's (18 domestic gross is out of reach unless the Oscars generates a big upswing.

Total worldwide is up to 340M, far far from Mamma Mia's worldwide gross.

[Overthewall]

Posted: 2/4/13 at 6:51pm

It's doing great and you can't deny that these are great numbers in only 6 weekends as opposed to the 36 weekends that Chicago was in release to get in to the $170's.

[StageManager2]

Posted: 2/4/13 at 8:28pm

No doubt Les Miz is a hit, but it won't reach Chicago's $170 million domestic gross or Mamma Mia!'s $609 million worldwide haul, especially with the Blu-ray coming out next month. I wonder why so soon? Chicago wasn't released on DVD until 8 months after it came out.

[Plum]

Posted: 2/4/13 at 8:46pm

Because DVD release windows have gotten shorter and shorter over time. Maybe to fight pirating?

[best12bars]

Posted: 2/5/13 at 8:37am

Obviously, the window between the theatrical and home video releases of "Les Miz" was planned before they knew the movie would do this well. By most educated guesses, it should have run its course in the theatres just prior to the DVD and BD street dates.

I wonder if we'll see them push it out now. Probably not, because changes in release dates can cost thousands (even in some cases millions) of dollars to redo and reschedule publicity campaigns and marketing materials. In the end, it might not be worth the expense. Plus, contracts were signed with various vendors, TV, radio stations, movie trailer ads, print ads, web ads, etc. All of that would have to be redone.

It's a pleasant surprise, and a good problem to have, but it should make studios realize that in their desire to make sure people haven't forgotten about the movie by the time the DVD and BD come out, they have also taken a gamble that the film isn't still performing well in theatres.

Updated On: 2/5/13 at 08:37 AM

[sueb1863]

Posted: 2/5/13 at 7:17pm

Well, nothing official has been announced yet, so they might wait until May or June to release it. You can pre-order the movie on Amazon.com but they have no release date listed.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 2/5/13 at 7:30pm

Just so the kids can follow the conversation: up through the early 1970s, blockbuster films used to be released in a manner that might remind one of a national theatrical tour today. A limited number of prints were made and then a print would go "on tour", playing in Miami for a year, then moving on to Fort Lauderdale (my hometown) for six months, and then to Tampa, etc. (The downside was that those of us who lived in smaller cities like Lauderdale didn't see the "latest hit" for two or more years--long after awards season had come and gone.)

So when best12bars says SOUND OF MUSIC ran for "over 2 years", he doesn't mean on 8 screens at every multiplex in the USA. But movie theaters were generally larger and premium prices were charged (in many cases comparable to live theater prices); many, if not most, theaters sold reserved seating for specific performances. And customers dressed up! So the 2-year run is still very impressive, even if the dollars have to be adjusted to compare to a blockbuster of today that does all its business in a month. (best12bars knows all this, of course. I'm not explaining for his benefit.)

(Side note: one of my first jobs was as an usher in a movie theater. I literally saw BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID over one hundred times because it played in my theater for more than half a year.)

I apologize if this was explained above. I admit I haven't read the entire thread.



Updated On: 2/5/13 at 07:30 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 2/5/13 at 7:35pm

That's always smart.

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 2/5/13 at 7:41pm

I read somewhere Les Mis is being released on DVD and Blu-ray Disc in March

[DAME]

Posted: 2/5/13 at 8:27pm

But already available on digital.

[Greekmusicalfan]

Posted: 2/6/13 at 7:20pm

The rumored release date that i've read is March 19. I believe they are waiting to announce it right after the Oscars, so they can add the "Winner of ... Academy Awards" tag to the marketing campaign !

On a side note, the Hobbit is already officially announced to also come out on DVD and Blu-ray the same day. It's really amazing, how much the window from theatrical release to home video has shortened !




Updated On: 2/6/13 at 07:20 PM