ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
May 4 15 2:33 AM
Wich2 wrote:As far as Box Office champ, we'd have to total ALL receipts from ALL Bond and Tarzan films. And there have been more Tarzans - in fact, as cited above, even within their respective first 50 years. Would Bond's 25 beat Tarzan's 40, adjusted for inflation?-Craig
May 4 15 4:06 AM
While researching something else I ran across some box office numbers for other Tarzan movies in my records.
TARZAN’S GREATEST ADVENTURE (1959) Rentals $750k, probably $1.5m gross for $12m adjusted. Likely double that world wide for $24m.
TARZAN GOES TO INDIA (1962) Rentals $1.1m, probably $2.2m gross for $17m adjusted. $34m world wide.
TARZAN’S THREE CHALLENGES (1963) Rentals $1m, $2m gross for $15m adjusted. $30 millions world wide.
Not bad numbers at all for that time period.
May 4 15 10:51 AM
May 4 15 12:39 PM
ryanbrennan wrote:delgadosaur wrote:ryanbrennan wrote:delgadosaur wrote: Here's an all-time franchise boxoffice list, adjusted for modernity, which is what this debate is about:http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/?view=Franchise&sort=sumgross&order=DESCIt's interesting that if we went by the average per picture Bond would rank way down the list. This list puts paid to the idea that Bond is the most successful movie franchise in history. Agreed and accepted, since I posted the link, but where's Tarzan on the list?Again, not ripping Greystoke, a completely more known character overall, totally admit that, simply stating the Bond films were more sustained and moved more successfully into modernity.Not even a close contest between the characters in books and overall, the ape man wins hands down, simply comparing film careers. As for where's Tarzan on the list we now face the fact that lists of this sort are biased against tabulating the box office of movies in the 1930s and 1940s. The reason is simple because it takes a lot more work to come up the necessary numbers. You can find some of them on some lists, and I suspect you find these because somebody else did the work, but overall there isn't parity. Anyway, since I figure that the six Weismuller Tarzan films did nearly $600 million world wide then I'd put them down the list near THE MATRIX and ROCKY (a UA asset) films.
delgadosaur wrote:ryanbrennan wrote:delgadosaur wrote: Here's an all-time franchise boxoffice list, adjusted for modernity, which is what this debate is about:http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/?view=Franchise&sort=sumgross&order=DESCIt's interesting that if we went by the average per picture Bond would rank way down the list. This list puts paid to the idea that Bond is the most successful movie franchise in history. Agreed and accepted, since I posted the link, but where's Tarzan on the list?Again, not ripping Greystoke, a completely more known character overall, totally admit that, simply stating the Bond films were more sustained and moved more successfully into modernity.Not even a close contest between the characters in books and overall, the ape man wins hands down, simply comparing film careers.
ryanbrennan wrote:delgadosaur wrote: Here's an all-time franchise boxoffice list, adjusted for modernity, which is what this debate is about:http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/?view=Franchise&sort=sumgross&order=DESCIt's interesting that if we went by the average per picture Bond would rank way down the list. This list puts paid to the idea that Bond is the most successful movie franchise in history.
delgadosaur wrote: Here's an all-time franchise boxoffice list, adjusted for modernity, which is what this debate is about:http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/?view=Franchise&sort=sumgross&order=DESC
It's interesting that if we went by the average per picture Bond would rank way down the list. This list puts paid to the idea that Bond is the most successful movie franchise in history.
As for where's Tarzan on the list we now face the fact that lists of this sort are biased against tabulating the box office of movies in the 1930s and 1940s. The reason is simple because it takes a lot more work to come up the necessary numbers. You can find some of them on some lists, and I suspect you find these because somebody else did the work, but overall there isn't parity. Anyway, since I figure that the six Weismuller Tarzan films did nearly $600 million world wide then I'd put them down the list near THE MATRIX and ROCKY (a UA asset) films.
May 5 15 1:12 AM
delgadosaur wrote:delgadosaur wrote: This paragraph pretty much admits it is speculative.
delgadosaur wrote: This paragraph pretty much admits it is speculative.
This paragraph pretty much admits it is speculative.
Not speculative at all. To speculate is to make surmises without evidence. The word "figure" is used in the sense of employing the science of math. Once you have the numbers it's pretty easy to figure them up. But numbers are what Box Office Mojo and all the box office websites don't have on the majority of older movies. Do you see anything on that list that represents a release prior to 1960? As I said, if you'd care to re-read the post, those lists are biased against older films, especially the 1930s and 1940s.
Look at this Box Office Mojo list of All Time Box Office Domestic Grosses Adjusted for Ticket Price Inflation: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm
There are some older films on the list but where is THE BIG PARADE (1925 -- $343.4 million), BEN-HUR (1925 -- $305.2 million), THIS IS THE ARMY (1943 -- $407.7 million), FOR WHOM THE BELLS TOLL (1943 -- $333.9 million), QUO VADIS (1951 -- $312.4 million), FROM HERE TO ETERNITY (1953 -- 326.4 million), and GIANT (1956 -- $322.2 million), not to mention the myriad other films from the 1920s forward that brought in the equivalent of $150 - 200 million or more?
Since these lists are far from complete they are inadmissible as evidence of a negative. Put another way, exclusion from the list proves nothing.
May 5 15 11:40 AM
Share This