Titanic "only" grossed $28 million in its opening December 1997 weekend, but it consistently romped the box office charts, remaining at #1 even into April! Remarkably, Titanic continued to gross $20-30 million two months into its release - a testament to positive word of mouth. Undoubtedly, Titanic was kept afloat by legions of preteen and teenage girls going to see Leonardo Dicaprio for a fourth, fifth, sixth time. (I was schooling with some of them at the time.) As I recall, it was a cultural phenomenon.

It's hard to imagine whether any film will surpass Titanic's colossal $600 million box-office gross. It's been over 10 years, and no other film has come close. Titanic was released at a fortunate time, when the Internet was still very much in its infancy and DVD players had yet to come about. It's hard to imagine whether in today's fragmentented e-universe of Tivos and Torrents and rampant DVD piracy, a film will amass a box-office gross of such titanic proportions.

I didn't pay to see it because I didn't like DiCaprio at that time. It appears to not deserve it's status at the top. There have been far better and greater films. Those teens have a lot to answer for....as usual!  ;D

I always wondered... Why didn't they ever make Titanic II ? ???

The only was that was close was "The Passion of Christ"

Either see a huge ship go down or see the Son of God beaten in a bloody pulp.

I didn't pay to see it because I didn't like DiCaprio at that time. It appears to not deserve it's status at the top. There have been far better and greater films. Those teens have a lot to answer for....as usual!  ;D


I will agree with you Peter that there have been far greater films, but I have to disagree with you about the teens driving force behind the popularity.

I was 26 going on 27 when Titanic came out, and I have to say that most of the women in the theater were my age and older. Leo wasn't why I went and saw it in the theater so many times. The gut wrenching story line is what dragged me back time and time again.

And if it were the teens that gave it it's status... then why hasn't Twilight upstaged Titanic?

And you also have to remember that back in '97/'98 ticket prices were low compared to what they are today. So that measn that even more people went to see the movie over and over again. It is one of a very select few movies that have ever touched me 'personally' and made me feel something other than awe at the use of cgi and other crap.

;)

I always wondered... Why didn't they ever make Titanic II ? ???


Hmm...  Turns out they DID make "Titanic II".

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0472570/

8)

I will agree with you Peter that there have been far greater films, but I have to disagree with you about the teens driving force behind the popularity.

I was 26 going on 27 when Titanic came out, and I have to say that most of the women in the theater were my age and older. Leo wasn't why I went and saw it in the theater so many times. The gut wrenching story line is what dragged me back time and time again.

And if it were the teens that gave it it's status... then why hasn't Twilight upstaged Titanic?

And you also have to remember that back in '97/'98 ticket prices were low compared to what they are today. So that measn that even more people went to see the movie over and over again. It is one of a very select few movies that have ever touched me 'personally' and made me feel something other than awe at the use of cgi and other crap.

;)


My interest in the Titanic had nothing to do with a tragic love story. Accordingly, I prefer almost all the earlier versions of the story. The Clifton Webb movie is foremost in my memory....with the poor damned men singing Nearer My God To Thee as the ship was sinking. I did see the movie on DVD some years later and enjoyed it well enough. But I didn't enjoy the Leo and Kate story line as much.... 

Actually, they did it was the film, The Dark Knight.

^ yes.


I never saw Titanic because I thought it looked boring.  I still haven't seen it, well, atleast not all of it.

I don't care for the film overall, but I have to admit some scenes were actually emotional and entertaining.  :-X

I think there will be another film as big as Titanic, but not for decades!

Since Titanic got re-released for the 100th anniversary, and since the disaster is being tweeted in real time tonight, I'm going to point out it's still ahead of Avatar, albeit only by a nose.

http://i.imgur.com/GHhgk.jpg

That said, I'm just gonna leave this here.

Since Titanic got re-released for the 100th anniversary, and since the disaster is being tweeted in real time tonight, I'm going to point out it's still ahead of Avatar, albeit only by a nose.

http://i.imgur.com/GHhgk.jpg

That said, I'm just gonna leave this here.


If you take into inflation, Titanic is still bigger than Avatar. In 2012 Titanic would make over a billion in the US alone! Avatar in 2012 would make $761.5 million. I'm not smart, I just went to boxofficemojo.com and they have an 'adjusted for inflation' section.  ;D

Are ticket sales for the 3-D Re-release being counted towards it's original theatrical release?

Are ticket sales for the 3-D Re-release being counted towards it's original theatrical release?


I think so. They did it with Star Wars and Gone With The Wind.

Avatar is up there  8)

Unlike in Cameron's movie, the real titanic bucked at a gentle 11 degrees, not 45 degrees.  That's why there were 500 empty seat in the lifeboats.  Most passengers thought they'd get rescued before the Titanic foundered.  It turns out Titanic was a weak ship and actually broke up at 11 degrees on a calm sea and sank to the Davy Jones locker in five minutes.  That's why the kept listeniong to the band.  Who wants float in the subarctic Atlantic in a wooden rowboat when the ship will be afloat for 36 hours and we'll all get rescued by other ships!  So they stayed, and the Titanic at it's 11 degree angle groaned and signed and then suddenly broke up.  It didn't take 45 minutes with the bow shooting dramatically up at 90 degrees before rocking down to the bottom of the ocean.  It took five minutes to sink wihout much drama before hand.  One minute you were enjoying another bottle of fine French wine from the cellar.  The next moment...blub...blub...blub...
::)

Are ticket sales for the 3-D Re-release being counted towards it's original theatrical release?


3-D is so 2011.  Or did you mean the version with digitally-upgraded 3-D motion field technology, so you can feel the action?

dJxj1mou03M

- "Titanic Super-3D", produced in co-operation with George Lucas, J.J. Abrams, and Michael Bay.

3-D is so 2011.  Or did you mean the version with digitally-upgraded 3-D motion field technology, so you can feel the action?

dJxj1mou03M

- "Titanic Super-3D", produced in co-operation with George Lucas, J.J. Abrams, and Michael Bay.


almost too real.  ;D

yes... AVATAR surpass its gross amount for Titanic.... LOL this thread is outdated

Surely over the years, Gone with the Wind has collected more money in taking at the cinema?

Surely over the years, Gone with the Wind has collected more money in taking at the cinema?


Yes, provided you've adjusted for inflation (which is the right thing to do). 

Adjusted for inflation, Titanic is still almost a billion behind Gone with the Wind, but only $300M behind Star Wars and Avatar.  If we include the money brought in from the 3D re-releases with the originals, then the Star Wars 3D re-release will likely bump it ahead of Avatar for second place.