Exactly. The business model has changed dramatically since the first movie came out so a simplistic comparison of "adjusted for inflation" numbers is not nearly as conclusive as it seems. At minimum, one needs to count DVD sales and rentals within the timeframe of the earlier films' theatrical stays (30 years ago, fewer movies per year were made and those that were tended to stay in the cinema houses a lot longer, on average, than today).Comparing to adjusted figures can be interesting, but you should also take into account that home video was in such infant stages in 1979. Nowadays, many people will think: 'I'll watch it when it comes out on DVD'.
Well if this one doesnt beat TMP adjusted then I am sure the next one will.
I wonder what it was like, before VHS was popular, and the only chance you had to see a film was in theaters. You could conceivably go years without seeing you favorite movie unless someone replayed it in theaters or it happened to be on early tv.
Box Office Guru puts the studio estimate at $29.4 million, with a total of $191 million.
I wonder what it was like, before VHS was popular, and the only chance you had to see a film was in theaters. You could conceivably go years without seeing you favorite movie unless someone replayed it in theaters or it happened to be on early tv.
For what it's worth, Night at the Museum 2 made $4.1 million from 160 IMAX screens, whereas Star Trek made $8.5 million on 138 IMAX screens
does it look worse in regular format if it's shot in IMAX?
I think I read in a JJ interview somewhere that he didn't like the IMAX format. and that Mindel and he decided for the DP at some point because of that reason. don't quote me though. I can't find that interview for the life of me. maybe somebody else here will.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.