E.t.

Et is one of the highest grossing movies of all time, what i was wonering was when it gets re-realese, will the money it makes add on to the old total?

__________________
"Who comes at 12:00 on a Sunday night to rent Butch Cassady and the Sundance Kid?"
-Hollywood Video rental guy to me

I think so. If I'm not mistaken, "Star Wars: A New Hope" tacked it's re-release dollars onto it's old cume. Seems kind of unfair, but I can't think of any other solution really; aside from an asterisk, perhaps. In case you're wondering, yes, the re-release may vault it into third-place on the all-time list. It stands in fourth now at $399 million now. Next up: "Star Wars: The Phantom Menace," with around $431 million.

whats the highest? titanic? Home alone? JP?

Titanic is #1 overall.

Yup, by far. $600 million in the U.S. and another $1.2 billion overseas. And that's just in theaters. #2 is "Star Wars: A New Hope," in the midd $400-million area ($440-something I think) . "Home Alone" is under $300 million domestically...out of the top ten, too, I think.

When the so-called "special editions" of the original Star Wars trilogy were released theatrically in 1997, the original movie made enough money to pass E.T. on the all-time boxoffice list. Spielberg took out a full-page add in the trades, playfully congratulating Lucas on the accomplishment.

In the days before home video, re-releases of a hit movie were extremely common. For example, Star Wars had theaterical runs in May of '77, July of '78, August of '79, and April of 1981 - I'm sure because I saw it multiple times with each release (about twenty-seven theatrical viewings total between '77 and '81). All of those reciepts go towards its total, of course. Why wouldn't they? Do you think Gone with the Wind's numbers only account for what it made during the calendar years of '39 and '40?

Obviously once home video became standard in the early '80s, re-releasing a film became an obsolete practice in general. Now about the only time a Studio will do so is around Oscar time to capitalize on the press or raise a film's profile if the movie is up for awards. Or after the success of BladeRunner in '91, every once in a while a newer cut or special anniversary. It all counts towards the film's total.

__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra

even apocalpse now redux? wow. The last one they re-realesed in threatres because of the oscar thing was american beauty i think. I think next year they should re-realese jurassic park for a tenth year anniversary!

Mecurdius, every year now films are re-released to get an Oscar push. Just last year, Wonder Boys had a major re-release in the Winter, after opening originally in the Spring...not that it helped much (unfortunately). Movies like Chocolat and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon expanded from smaller art-house runs to major distribution in cineplexes and malls after their nominations started piling up in January and February.

And yes, the Apocalypse Now Redux numbers will be folded into its boxoffice totals to date.

Doesn't that seem like cheating the totals a little? Most of the new totals will be people who have already seen the movie, ya know?

This isn't the Olympics, how can it be cheating? All it is measuring is how much total money a film has made. Why would subsequent releases be unfair? Should they be punished becauase they are popular? That's the whole point, isn't it?

The only thing that is unfair, or at least deceiving, is not adjusting for inflation. If you go by total ticket sales rather than a flat boxoffice total, I believe Gone with the Wind is still in the top two or three movies of all time. Considering movie tickets were literally pennies when it was originally released, that movie's boxoffice totals are astounding. Jumping forward generations, Jaws and Star Wars made the bulk of their totals when a ticket was only around $3 or $4 at an evening show. By the time you get to Titanic and The Phantom Menace, premium U.S. ticket sales are an average of between $7 and $8 each. The fact that Star Wars is still right up there with them anyway is rather impressive.

It's milking it. I hate when Disney re-releases movies like, 101 Dalmations, and sh*t like that...you see what I'm saying? Like when The Exorsist was re-released...the new additions were too few to get excited about; it just seemed a bit...I don't know...presumptious? To get people to spend money on it, again.

I don't consider it presumptuous at all. I'm thankful when it happens.

As a fan of movies, nothing beats seeing a great flick on the big screen. I go to revivals all the time. They don't get nationwide big releases with marketing and such, but if you live near a decent-sized city with 'art houses' or a good university, you should have the opportunity to see all-time greats projected onto big screens - the way they are meant to be seen.

Obviously the main motivation for a Studio to do a major re-release with advertising and new prints (new scenes or not) is going to be mainly financial. So what? If it's a movie you love, you get a rare opportunity to see it again (or for the first time, for you younger kids) as a theatrical experience. Even with LDs, DVDs, fancy television sets and sophisticated home theater equipment, for me nothing compares to seeing movies in the movie theater.

Just in the calendar year of 2001 I got to see all these "old" movies in the theater: Brazil, Unforgiven, The Wild Bunch, Raiders of the Lost Ark, 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Maltese Falcon, The Thin Man, Baxter, Cobb, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, and Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. Probably a couple others I'm forgetting just now. Oh, and then there was Apocalypse Now Redux too, if you want to count that. I see at least that many revivals each year, sometimes twice that many. I cherish each opportunity.

But maybe that's just me?


As for the regular Disney re-releases, you always hear parents complain that there's nothing worth taking small children to see these days. Disney addresses that by re-releasing their classic animated library, so that new generations can rediscover the magic over and over again, and new generations of parents can share that same experience they had with their own children. I think that's smart business, not crass. BTW, for anyone interested, Beauty & the Beast is currently making the rounds on Imax screens, remastered and with a brand new musical number.

Holden, do you know where to get information on when movies have been re-released?

Heh... I always got so excited as a little kid when the next Disney movie came out. It's just like any other product, if there are people willing to buy, go for it. No one's going to make business decisions based on what's fair for the top grossing movies list... which is bogus anyway because of inflation.

As for which movies are *really* the most popular, the fairest way I think would be to count the number of admissions in the movies' first run. Or maybe adjust the take by the CPI. That would be an interesting list, but we just don't have accurate data on older movies.

What really irritates me is Disney's sabotage of classics...

They're releasing Cinderella 2, where it shows you what happens when she comes back from her honeymoon but then cannot adapt to the rich life because it's just not her and so goes out to help one of her stepsisters, or along those lines of stupidity.

Or Peter Pan 2 where apparantly the backdrop iis the WW2 blitz.

What is all this sh|t about? I don't think it's write changing them just in the name of commercialism...

__________________
henry hill - Disclaimer: This disclaimer disclaims any claims that could be claimed from my post.

Yeah, I think I'm with Holden here: it's not unfair, because people don't really hand out awards for box office receipts. It's an informal competition really, which means there are no real rules. Yeah, it is milking it a little...but I wouldn't call it unfair. I do think it's amusing when a film like "Pearl Harbor" is re-release a tiny bit, or left in theaters, to try to crack $200 million, and fails.

That's hilarious!

The same thing happened with Hercules, IIRC. But I actually like Hercules, so it's not so funny.

I agree. Totally. Disney is the worst when it comes to selling out.

since alladin and the king of the theives all disney sequels have sucked, there straight to video for a reason. They always advertise as "the whole gang is back!" they ruin it the second or third time around, even mulan is getting a sequel

The only Disney film to ever have a good sequel is Toy Story (It was originally planned to be a straight-to-video release).

Most consider Toy Story 2 far superior to Toy Story 1...

Nevermind, that's Pixar.. disney has never released a good sequel (ie: not computer animated)