MovieChat Forums > Black Panther (2018) Discussion > Is Black Panther Going to Pass Titanic?

Is Black Panther Going to Pass Titanic?

posted 6 years ago by FilmBuff (6855)
20 replies | jump to latest

It didn't seem possible, even recently, but looking at the numbers I have to wonder if it's even if at this point, and not when will Black Panther's domestic take surpass Titanic's.

Domestically, as of yesterday, Black Panther had earned $635,634,080.
Titanic earned $659,363,944, during 3 separate theatrical runs, I should add.

That leaves Black Panther only $23,729,864 shy of Titanic's total.

This past week, its fifth, Black Panther brought in $35,881,708. It doesn't seem impossible that it will bring in another $24 million before its done. Does it? I'm by no stretch an expert in these matters. Where's QueenFan when I need him? He knows these things.

[–] willjbeau (649) 6 years ago

You're comparing apples to oranges, 2018 dollars to 1997 dollars. If you adjust for ticket price inflation, BP would have to surpass $1.244 billion DOMESTICALLY to truly dethrone Titanic (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm). As you see on that list, there have been only 10 movies to crack the billion dollar domestic haul (again, adjusted for inflation) and none of them were made in the past 20 years. (Star Wars TFA came close.) If you take away Titanic and all the other ones that had theatrical re-releases, that leaves just four movies (Sound of Music, 10 Commandments, Jaws and Doctor Zhivago) in all of American cinema that have pulled off the feat of grossing the equivalent of a billion dollars domestically in one theatrical run.

As for bringing in $35 million in its fifth WEEK (not weekend, there's a difference), that was a 37% decline from the previous week, which itself was a 32% decline from the week before. Even if there's only a drop this week of, say, 33%, that would be a little less than $12 million, bringing the total domestic haul to about $647 million. At that point it will have surpassed the original Spider-Man but will still be far, far short of beating The Dark Knight or the first Avengers.

[–] FilmBuff (6855) 6 years ago

You're putting too much stock in the concept of 2018 to 1997 dollars. That comparison isn't based on movie ticket prices, but the overall value of a dollar at a given time. If there were a formula to adjust for inflation solely on the change in ticket prices then we'd have an accurate barometer. It wouldn't be more than double, as in the overall equation used to convert any good or service chosen at random. Where I live, a movie cost between $8 and $9 around 1997. Today it costs about $12.

Even that formula wouldn't tell the whole story. Streaming, more easily available pirated films, lower theater attendance, the closing of theaters all contribute. In the case of Titanic, it was a film best seen in 3-D, at a higher ticket price, which contributed greatly to its bottom line. In short, you're using faulty math if you say Black Panther has not already surpassed The Dark Knight or The Avengers, or that it "won't count" if it surpasses Titanic.

The real point is this: Titanic's $659 million box office has become the gold standard for outlandish success. With each passing year, it becomes more difficult in some ways to exceed that total, and easier in other ways, but it balances out. A film that surpasses Titanic has, in fact, surpassed Titanic, and that is a rare and noteworthy feat.

If it does happen, I don't anticipate it happening in the next week, but $23,729,864 does not seem an impossible amount for it to earn before its run ends. Also, I think you did the math wrong (or maybe I am) but a 33% decline from last week's $35.8 million would mean it earns $24 million in the next week, not $12 million.

[–] SnagsWolf (1172) 6 years ago

In the case of Titanic, it was a film best seen in 3-D, at a higher ticket price, which contributed greatly to its bottom line.

Titanic wasn't originally released in 3D. It wasn't until 2012 it was re-released in 3D.

[–] SnagsWolf (1172) 6 years ago

Where I live, a movie cost between $8 and $9 around 1997. Today it costs about $12.

That stat is anecdotal, and doesn't represent the actual rise in movie ticket prices in that timespan. According to the link below, the price of a movie ticket has gone from around $5.00 in 1997 to $8.65 in 2017, and it's probably higher now. That's an increase of 73% a year ago.

Also note in the article that it explains how in the last 30 years, ticket prices have outpaced inflation.

https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/02/16/over-100-years-of-average-movie-ticket-prices-in-1.aspx

[–] FilmBuff (6855) 6 years ago

What I take away from the article is that it depends on the years you compare. As one would expect, some times movie tickets outpace inflation, at other times they don't.

An integral bit of data that is missing from the article is how many tickets are being sold at that "average" price vs. higher or lower prices. My assumption is that more tickets are being sold in the more highly populated areas, at higher prices. So even if the average price is 8.65, the average price being paid is much higher.

Another important piece of data not found in the article is how ticket prices have changed in the higher populated/pricier areas. If 10 tickets are being sold for $12 each, and only 1 is sold at 8.65, and 1 at 4.00, the average ticket being sold costs 11.05.

A final, crucial, piece of data is to know how much the higher cost tickets have been over time. At the highest end of the price point, increases in price are less drastic percentage-wise. If tickets go up a dollar, from $4 to $5 is a 25% increase, but $10 to $11 is only a 10% increase.

Without those three pieces of information we have no way to compare ticket prices over time. The best we can do is make some intelligent assumptions, namely that more tickets are sold in areas with more people, tickets cost more in those areas, and ticket prices have not risen as drastically in those areas. Those tickets are always at the high end of average, where changes are less drastic. That leads us to assume that the difference between making $100 million today and making the same 20 years ago is much, much less than we would think if we simply go by the CPI inflation counter.

Simply using the CPI as your guide you are ignoring the existence of streaming, easily available pirated films, lower attendance, widespread closing of theaters, shorter theatrical runs, etc.

Bottom line? A film making $659 million domestically today is roughly equivalent to having done so in 1997, and maybe even slightly more impressive.

[–] SnagsWolf (1172) 6 years ago

I live near a large city, and the non-matinee price is $10. The matinee price is $7.50.

You can't just make up numbers (10 tickets are being sold for $12 each, and only 1 is sold at 8.65) and come to any kind of intelligent conclusion. What about people taking advantage of matinee pricing?

Also, your logic of urban prices driving up the cost of a ticket would apply to the 1997 tickets sold also.

And yes, other factors enter into it. Like how the U.S. population has increased by 50 million people (20%) since 1997.

Bottom line? A film making $659 million domestically today is roughly equivalent to having done so in 1997, and maybe even slightly more impressive.

A conclusion that's not based on any evidence other than opinion.

[–] FilmBuff (6855) 6 years ago

My conclusion is based on fact, not opinion. That you don't understand it, as evidenced by you making statements that are nonsensical in relation to what I wrote, doesn't somehow transform what I wrote into opinions.

Unless you have evidence to the contrary, why would people taking advantage of matinee prices be more common today than in 1997? If it isn't, it wouldn't affect anything.

The fact-based statement that tickets cost more in urban areas applies equally to Titanic and Black Panther. That's the entire point of the statement.

The made up numbers weren't being used as anything other than an example to demonstrate that the average price of a ticket is a meaningless figure in this discussion, to lead into a list of what data I believe to be useful when comparing films of two eras.

[–] SnagsWolf (1172) 6 years ago

You're confusing your opinions with facts. You've come to a conclusion, and have done your best to twist the data to fit that conclusion.

I'm the only one who's presented actual data to back up the claims I'm making. Then you try to use your opinions to refute that data.

Your opinion was that ticket prices haven't grown as much as inflation, and my data proved that opinion wrong. You based your opinions on anecdotal evidence, while I provided actual statistics. And you made up outlandish numbers in order to justify your claims.

The facts don't agree with you. The truth is, ticket prices have outpaced inflation in the time between Titanic and Black Panther. That alone makes the claim that Black Panther has made more money than Titanic logically suspect. Unless the adjustment for ticket prices is included in the comparison, it's not legitimate.

[–] FilmBuff (6855) 6 years ago

Looks to be a done deal at this point. 30% dip last week meant it brought in $25 million. It's certainly going to make another $7 million soon.

What a remarkable achievement.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

It's about to pass Shrek 2!

[–] FilmBuff (6855) 6 years ago

Rather a nonsensical response, no?

[–] NorrinRad (5128) 6 years ago

He's implying All-Time Domestic adjusted for inflation for Shrek 2 (35th on list) and BP (36th on list).

[–] FilmBuff (6855) 6 years ago

Oh, okay. Still nonsensical because the Box Office Mojo method of adjusting for inflation isn't based on movie ticket prices, which haven't come close to keeping pace with the CPI.

[–] ranmast (620) 6 years ago

Yes, this is the last resort the Butthurt DC fanboys have to downplay BP success, even if it will be No.3 domestic movie of ALL TIME... And Top 10 Worldwide...

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

Dang, you really know your box office statistics.

[–] ranmast (620) 6 years ago

Sure thing now...

[–] Kurt (189) 6 years ago

Obviously. It makes a good deal over 1 million every day, and it's at 655,623,379 right now. It's probably gonna pass Titanic domestic this weekend. However, that's about as far as I expect it to go. It's been a good run, though, with many surprises because it had such good holds. It has a good chance for 1.3 billion, I think it can do it. It may get pretty close to TLJ worldwide BO, but I don't think it will pass it. The overseas BO has diminished somewhat lately, even though it almost caught up with the domestic because of China, it ran a bit out of steam. It did quite a lot better overseas than I expected it would, though. It made over 1.1 billion worldwide even without China, Russia and Japan.

[–] FilmBuff (6855) 6 years ago

Astounding is the only word for it.

Black Panther has moved past Titanic on the all-time domestic box office chart.

Not only that-- it has done so so quickly and easily that it might actually pass The Last Jedi on the all-time international list, a feat that seemed UTTERLY UNTHINKABLE even as recently as 11 days ago when I started this thread. Yet... there it is, in striking range.

Avatar's domestic and Harry Potter part 8 (7.5?)'s international totals are unquestionably untouchable. Aren't they??

[–] Kurt (189) 6 years ago

It passes 1.3 today, if it hasn't already (The BO for the weekend is still estimates at BOM) which I didn't actually expect when I wrote that, I thought it would happen a couple of days later. Normally I would think that it would be able to pass TLJ eventually, but the problem is the release of Avengers: Infinity War so soon, at the end of this month. There's only two more weekends before it will be released! I don't know how that will influence BP, but BP is definitely gonna lose screens.

Edit: It has passed 1.3 already sunday, the actuals were higher than the estimated BO. I suspected it would, because why not?

[–] NotoriousRio (12927) 6 years ago

If he swims fast enough, he just might!