Ten Notable Old School Movie Box Office OGs

[DallasEast]

For the record, I never insinuated that Clockwork Orange is one of the best of all-time

Got it.

 

[DallasEast]

Those are both International I think

I pulled this info from the-numbers.com:

Film	Worldwide Box Office	Rank	Domestic Box Office	Rank	International Box Office	Rank
True Grit (1969)	$37,659,900​	2,995​	$31,132,592​	3,939​	$6,527,308​	6,275​
True Grit (2010)	$252,276,928​	726​	$171,243,005​	353​	$81,033,923​	1,441​
The Sting (1973)	$159,617,671​	1,267​	$159,616,327​	402​	$1,344​	33,235​

https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/True-Grit-(1969)#tab=summary
https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/True-Grit-(2010)#tab=summary
https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Sting-The#tab=summary

 

[darthseinfeld]

For what it's worth, 1971's Clockwork Orange all-time domestic box office rank is 3,243 (list). That is not a reflection of its quality though. In fact, it is some of Stanley Kubrick's best work.

Probably #2 for me. Behind Barry Lyndon which IMO is his masterpiece

 

[pete026]

When inflation is taken into account, it appears that "Gone With the Wind" takes #1.
Wouldn't the pre -1990s cut line make the numerical order #s irrelevant? A lot of newer movies fill in vast portions of the rankings based primarily on inflation.
https://www.imdb.com/list/ls026442468/

 

[Khartun]

It is in my top five all-time horror movies.

It and The Thing are my two favorite movies.

 

[DallasEast]

When inflation is taken into account, it appears that "Gone With the Wind" takes #1.

I purposefully chose not including inflation adjusted numbers. The main example I have been using is The Exorcist. As your link points out, the film made $2.21 billion in box office adjusted for inflation.

Wouldn't the pre -1990s cut line make the numerical order #s irrelevant? A lot of newer movies fill in vast portions of the rankings based primarily on inflation.
https://www.imdb.com/list/ls026442468/

The cut line is completely arbitrary, as I indicated in the first paragraph of the OP. The IMDB list adjusts box office for inflation. The data I have been referencing from boxofficemojo.com and the-numbers.com does not.

What I was trying to do (and not well I guess) is show how much money audiences shelled out for Movie A in Year ____ compared to the ticket sales for Movie B in Year ____. Without question, inflation adjusted numbers more accurately reflects how much Movie A would earn if it pulled in the relatively same audience numbers right now.

That is why (I think) sites like mojo and numbers prefers static data reflecting box office relative to specific release years. Doing so can relay context for how popular any movie was within its own era or release year. It can better show how popular culture, at any point in time, may have influenced a movie's attractiveness with audiences at that particular time. Plus, I wanted to avoid unnecessary adjusted inflation comparisons like, "The Exorcist made over two billion. Avatar: Fire and Ash has made just under 1.5 billion. Suck it, James Cameron!"

In the end, it may simply be that I am a data purist at heart. Using box office numbers relative to their release years removes assumptions about inflationary adjustments. I have no problem with anyone disagreeing or even saying it does not make any sense, but that is not my approach to comparing movies' box offices.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

I am sure I will get killed for it....but I always felt like clockwork orange was overrated. I liked parts of it but over all felt it was overrated.

Now the following movie is overrated as a movie itself but it is one of those movies they would have re showings in theaters and the reasons they were fun was because of the crowd making it interactive by bringing various props and doing things at certain points of the movie.

The rocky horror picture show.

 

[pete026]

The cut line is completely arbitrary, as I indicated in the first paragraph of the OP. The IMDB list adjusts box office for inflation. The data I have been referencing from boxofficemojo.com and the-numbers.com does not.

What I was trying to do (and not well I guess) is show how much money audiences shelled out for Movie A in Year ____ compared to the ticket sales for Movie B in Year ____. Without question, inflation adjusted numbers more accurately reflects how much Movie A would earn if it pulled in the relatively same audience numbers right now.

In the end, it may simply be that I am a data purist at heart. Using box office numbers relative to their release years removes assumptions about inflationary adjustments. I have no problem with anyone disagreeing or even saying it does not make any sense, but that is not my approach to comparing movies' box offices.

I believe I understood your point mainly because you bolded "The Exorcist". What I believe the inflation-adjusted list does is more easily highlight more of those old films which were highly popular instead of having to look at the film release dates (hard to see on a cellphone).

And you are right as to the assumptions made in "adjusting for inflation". Who knows how they are accounting for it.

My other point about the numerical ranking was to other posts like "Clockwork Orange" as they might take offense or misunderstand a ranking of 3,243 vs.188 for The Exorcist. In reality to referencing only older films, the numerical ranking would be much closer.

 

[jsb357]

I pulled this info from the-numbers.com:

Film	Worldwide Box Office	Rank	Domestic Box Office	Rank	International Box Office	Rank
True Grit (1969)	$37,659,900​	2,995​	$31,132,592​	3,939​	$6,527,308​	6,275​
True Grit (2010)	$252,276,928​	726​	$171,243,005​	353​	$81,033,923​	1,441​
	​	​	​	​	​	​

37,659,000 in 2010 dollars = 223,753,975

 

[DallasEast]

37,659,000 in 2010 dollars = 223,753,975

Yep. Adjusted for inflation. Got it.