IMDB reveals the top 25 inflation-adjusted box-office winner

[silentfilm]

http://www.imdb.com/features/poweroffilm/

Box Office Power: All-Time Box Office Winners
Our last Power of Film featured the top 25 highest-grossing movies of 2008, and our latest feature takes a step back to look at the top 25 All-Time Box Office Winners -- but with a twist. Most all-time movie lists you'll see have the latest figures from the latest releases, but our list adjusts ticket prices for inflation, so you can get a true look at what the biggest movies of all-time really are. Putting the success of movies past into context for the modern era, you'll only find two releases from the past 15 years on this list -- the rest will make you remember and realize how big those hits of yesteryear really were. Below you'll find the top 25 films, the year they were made, a vintage poster, their adjusted box office gross, and a piece of trivia you may or may not have known.

25. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)
Adjusted Gross: $513 million

24. The Dark Knight (2008)
Adjusted Gross: $532 million

23. Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983)
Adjusted Gross: $539

22. The Ten Commandments (1956)
Adjusted Gross: $541 million

21. The Graduate (1967)
Adjusted Gross: $575 million

20. Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980)
Adjusted Gross: $583 million

19. Peter Pan (1953)
Adjusted Gross: $602 million

18. Mary Poppins (1964)
Adjusted Gross: $583 million

17. Lady and the Tramp (1955)
Adjusted Gross: $643 million

16. Doctor Zhivago (1965)
Adjusted Gross: $653 million

15. The Sting (1973)
Adjusted Gross: $661 million

14. Ghost Busters (1984)
Adjusted Gross: $670 million

13. Titanic (1997)
Adjusted Gross: $678 million

12. The Exorcist (1973)
Adjusted Gross: $726 million

11. The Jungle Book (1967)
Adjusted Gross: $781 million

10. E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial (1982)
Adjusted Gross: $865 million

9. Jaws (1975)
Adjusted Gross: $889 million

8. One Hundred and One Dalmatians (1961)
Adjusted Gross: $942 million

7. The Sound of Music (1965)
Adjusted Gross: $953 million

6. Fantasia (1940)
Adjusted Gross: $1.01 billion

5. Pinocchio (1940)
Adjusted Gross: $1.11 billion

4. Star Wars (1977)
Adjusted Gross: $1.13 billion

3. Bambi (1942)
Adjusted Gross: $1.16 billion

2. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937)
Adjusted Gross: $1.39 billion

1. Gone With the Wind (1939)
Adjusted Gross: $1.75 billion

I'm not sure if they considered Birth of a Nation or not. The Disney films and GWTW were certainly helped by re-issues.

[boblipton]

It's almost impossible to figure the gross from BOAN, given the states right nature of the original release and re-releases. Also, the inflation from 1914 through 1939 was practically nil.

Bob

[misspickford9]

It's almost impossible to figure the gross from BOAN, given the states right nature of the original release and re-releases. Also, the inflation from 1914 through 1939 was practically nil.

Bob

Ditto. Silent films are forever going to be lost in these lists because 1) the ticket prices were higher so possibly not reflective (if Birth's tickets were about $20-$40 adjusted for inflation thats WAY more than anything these days) 2) Distribution was magical and mysterious...books were not properly kept and one massive figure is near impossible to reach and 3) I think even some of the most basic grossing info is lost. I see random numbers for silents on IMBD all the time and I have NO CLUE where they glean them from.

Ex: Sadie Thompson and Pollyanna supposedly made a million. I used it as a source for wiki but it made me uncomfortable because in both respective bios (Swanson on Swanson and Pickford the Woman who made Hollywood) they dont really touch box office figures and I couldnt verify it. I hate to say it but that goes for most silents. So...these lists will forever be inaccurate unless a nifty time machiene is invented.

[Mike Gebert]

Although Snow White really was one of the biggest hits of the 1930s, none of the other Disney films did remotely that well (Fantasia lost money, Pinocchio and Bambi were roughly break-even, Dumbo cost the least and proved the most profitable) in original release, or really until there was a distinct children's audience in the 60s. If it were based on the movies that did the best in their own time periods, the 40s' contribution to the list would probably be The Best Years of Our Lives, The Jolson Story, and Quo Vadis.

[Harlett O'Dowd]

Although Snow White really was one of the biggest hits of the 1930s, none of the other Disney films did remotely that well (Fantasia lost money, Pinocchio and Bambi were roughly break-even, Dumbo cost the least and proved the most profitable) in original release, or really until there was a distinct children's audience in the 60s.

Well, the war ate into potential first run revenue for Fantasia, Pinnochio and Bambi (and Wizard of Oz,) so it's a little unfair to claim they were unsuccessful in their original release. Oz was MGM's highest grossing film of the 39-40 season (not counting GWTW which they distributed but did not make) but the film was so expensive the loss of the european market (on which its budget relied) doomed it to not recoup on its first time out.

Fantasia even moreso due to the technical demands of the soundtrack which doomed it almost exclusively to roadshow engagements prior to the rise of the multiplexes 30-40 years later. But in its original release, Fantasia did gangbuster business wherever it played. It just didn't have the opportunity to play many places until after the war.[/i]

[Jack Theakston]

Of course, these are based on inflation of economy as a whole, and not the movie economy. If you were to count TICKET SALES, the list would be quite different. And are they counting total gross, including re-issues? Many cult films (such as ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW) lost money when they were initially released but made huge money in re-issues.

Also, you can't count the repeat customers some theaters had for multiple shows, back when a theater would run open end. You could buy a ticket and watch as many shows as you wanted. Now you have to pay for every show you see.

[FrankFay]

Although Snow White really was one of the biggest hits of the 1930s, none of the other Disney films did remotely that well (Fantasia lost money, Pinocchio and Bambi were roughly break-even, Dumbo cost the least and proved the most profitable) in original release, or really until there was a distinct children's audience in the 60s. If it were based on the movies that did the best in their own time periods, the 40s' contribution to the list would probably be The Best Years of Our Lives, The Jolson Story, and Quo Vadis.

Disney played it pretty smart- they didn't dump their old films onto TV or flood the market with videos. On the other hand there have been things like "Disney's The Gummi Bears" and the direct-to-video sequels to their films.

[misspickford9]

Although Snow White really was one of the biggest hits of the 1930s, none of the other Disney films did remotely that well (Fantasia lost money, Pinocchio and Bambi were roughly break-even, Dumbo cost the least and proved the most profitable) in original release, or really until there was a distinct children's audience in the 60s. If it were based on the movies that did the best in their own time periods, the 40s' contribution to the list would probably be The Best Years of Our Lives, The Jolson Story, and Quo Vadis.

Disney played it pretty smart- they didn't dump their old films onto TV or flood the market with videos. On the other hand there have been things like "Disney's The Gummi Bears" and the direct-to-video sequels to their films.

Cinderella 3! LOL me and my sister years ago had a joke that Peter Pan 5 would be around by the time we had kids...well she just had one last year and they made it up to 3...hmm we shoulda probably bet on Little Mermaid 5 woulda been closer to accurate.

[boblipton]

Actually, I just watched Cinderella 3, and it's pretty good.

I seem to recall that there were lacunae in terms of how much Keaton's movies actually made for Metro in his autobiography.

As for ticket sales, do we also factor in population to that number? With a US population more than twice as much as when GWTW was released, what impact does that have? And a world in which you can actually open a film in London and Berlin on the same day, if you wish....

of course, the distribution model for movies is much different today. Back then it was first run, then down the ladder to the nabes. Now it's open big, then make up your money on video releases and tv rights.

Last year's big release of THE DARK KNIGHT grossed just under a billion dollars, which is nothing to sneeze at, but that means that about 250 million people saw it. That's about 4% of the world population assuming a ticket price of $4-- and if you saw it at an IMAX theater in New York, you could pay $15. Now convert that back to 1939 and figure a cost per seat of, say, 50 cents?


Bob

[linquist]

Just came across this old post and wanted to reply to some of the info.
As for SADIE THOMPSON and POLLYANNA, I was down at the UA archives in Madison and copied the box office totals from the UA spread sheets which are on microfilm. There is one section that has pages upon pages of rental info from the 24 rental offices that UA had and this information keeps piling up over a course of years. They also had a "final" series of pages that totaled all this info up. I started in the early 1920s and found that I had to keep scratching out numbers as new ones were added. For example, Griffith's AMERICA is in front of me. Its first number was $173,239. It must have just been released when that year was totaled. The next year lists it at $970,686 and the following year at $1,085,010 which is pretty nice. There were more numbers but I figured that it came in a little over a million. tThat's good enough for me except that I have a note next to it saying that it cost nearly a million to make.
All of these films, and there are 133 of them, see their numbers rise a little bit at a time, with additional releases. So those numbers keep changing.
I have only one scratch off for SADIE THOMPSON and the second number is $874,445. There was probably one or two more releases and it probably broke $900,000. Its at the end of the 1920s and I was running out of steam by then. POLLYANNA hit $950,612 by its fourth or fifth year. These are UA's numbers so I think their as reliable as they can be.
A lot of the books are lost but there is still a fair amount of information if it can be found. I came a cross a remarkable article in a 1921 edition of Variety magazine. At the time, director George Loane Tucker was dying and his staff put together a list of the best selling movies of the 1910s. My guess is that they were doing this in order for everyone to know that Tucker's THE MIRACLE MAN was the best selling films of the 1910s. Paramount had been saying that it was a $2,000,000 film and Tucker's staff was out to prove it. After it was published, Harry Raver called into question the numbers for CABIRIA and published his own totals, which, I believe was around $631,000 for a 1914 movie.
Here is the list:
THE MIRACLE MAN $2,475,000
THE BIRTH OF A NATION $2,125,000 (There was still many years of rental life on this film.)
TRAFFIC IN SOULS $1,260,000 (I don't believe this one at all.)
A DOG'S LIFE $1,100,000
WHERE ARE MY CHILDREN $990,000 (Lois Weber made the list.)
TARZAN OF THE APES $902,700
SHOULDER ARMS $880,000
MY FOUR YEARS IN GERMANY $833,300
THE KAISER - BEAST OF BERLIN $810,000
BROKEN BLOSSOMS $800,000 (I'm guessing that this was an estimate as the film was only a few months old at the time. It had not yet tanked in the smaller towns. My UA figures give it $626,266 after four years and that number post dates this article by a few years.)
HEART OF HUMANITY $779,000
CIVILIZATION $768,000
DAUGHTER OF THE GODS $750,000
WHEN THE CLOUDS ROLL BY $700,000 (UA figure: $606,602)
DADDY LONG LEGS $542,000 (First National film. Not UA.)
NEPTUNE'S DAUGHTER $480,000
MICKEY $468,000
EYES OF YOUTH $426,000 (This one surprised me.)
THE RIGHT TO HAPPINESS $407,000
ROMANCE OF TARZAN $405,000
BLIND HUSBANDS $341,000
ENLIGHTEN THY DAUGHTER $321,000
TURN OF THE ROAD $306,000
CABIRIA $280,000 (Raver said this was a typo on their part. It should have been $631,000)
QUO VADIS $210,000

From the Raver response to this article, I get the feeling that Tucker's staff sent inquiries to the various studios and asked for figures. I also think that this is just straight box office without expenses deducted. William Fox said at the time that DAUGHTER OF THE GODS had a way to go before it made a half million in profit. Also, I seriously doubt the figure on TRAFFIC IN SOULS. Articles at the time suggested that it took a nose dive in sales due to the sleazier knock offs appearing on the market.
I also do not think this is a complete list. There must have been several Pickford and Fairbanks films with higher box office numbers than TURN OF THE ROAD.
By the way, while digging out this info, I discovered that Tucker was a Christian Scientist and that he made THE MIRACLE MAN with the support of the Christian Science Church in Boston. I wonder if they have a copy of the film....

[BarneyS]

Denmark produces a yearly book of statistics and one of those statistics is The Most Popular Films Shown in Cinemas but instead if doing it by how much money a film took in they do it by total number of paid admissions, which is a much better indicator.

[linquist]

BarneyS - I agree. While most films were going for tickets of 25 cents to 65 cents, most of these films were promoting themselves with high ticket prices of around $2.00. When the economy went south after WWI, the studios started cranking out "all-star blockbusters" (without stars) and using those $2.00 tickets to keep their studios afloat. I get the feeling that if you counted heads instead of dollars, you might see a few programmers on this list.

[Lamar]

Box Office Mojo has a list of the top 300 adjusted for inflation-
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

[Richard P. May]

The heading on this post says "boxoffice winners". Is it referring to estimated ticket sales, or film rentals? For a long time, rentals were posted. Trying to obtain boxoffice figures was especially difficult in the days where a very large number of theaters paid a flat fee for their rentals. Only on the major features were percentage rentals obtained, and consequently theaters had to report ticket sales to the distributor.
I always find these charts interesting, but their accuracy has to be questionable.

[mwalls]

I find it interesting that, when adjusted for inflation, so many recent movies make the list. There is so much talk about how attendance at movies is down and there are so many more competing forms of entertainment these days. Given that, I would have expected attendance at movies in the 1930's to 1950's to have been much higher before television really came in.

Matthew

[Mike Gebert]

I think it's first that they have a much bigger pool to play in. US population is 3 or 4 times what it was in the 30s or 40s, and a modern film plays from here to Timbuktu. It's literally the difference between a film whose potential audience was maybe 200 million (US and all of Europe) versus one where it's a couple of billion (all the middle class around the world). Weekly US attendance started falling in the 1960s, but global weekly attendance has grown and grown.

But it's also that the audience is spread over fewer films. Films would play for a week and be gone in the 30s, so even the big hits-- except for Gone With the Wind, released in a different way-- tended to not do THAT much business. Now attendance is very much concentrated among half a dozen big hits all year. Yet even they do it all in a time frame of only, say, four to six weeks—the oldest movie still playing first run in Chicago right now is Crazy Rich Asians, which opened in August. Where Star Wars stayed in theaters so long it managed to be #1 on 1977's box office list, and still in the top ten on 1978's.