It's on AMC now. Just started. I love this film so much. I literally use to watch it back it back. Never gets old

Not too shocking. I was only 5 when it came out and even then I could feel the enormity of its success. Christ I was obsessed with that film lol. Awesome blockbuster with great casting.

@snoho said:

Not too shocking. I was only 5 when it came out and even then I could feel the enormity of its success. Christ I was obsessed with that film lol. Awesome blockbuster with great casting.

I was around 5 or 6 when it came out and it was a pop culture phenomenon. Nothing like it since. Leo and Kate were EVERYWHERE. I mean the popularity of that movie was like taking Britney and Gaga's peaks and mixing them with Bieber and 1D craze with Star Wars and Fifty Shades of Grey hype and adding the fame of the Backstreet Boys and Pokemon Go.

LOL, it was like the Michael Jackson of movies. Everyone knew it, everyone watched it. Did you know that it reportedly sold 128 million tickets in America? That's like... well... everybody

If you adjust for inflation so many movies before it wiped the floor with it. When Star Wars came out an adult ticket wasn't even 3 dollars. When Titanic came out a ticket was 7 dollars, more than double, meaning only half the amount of people had to see it to make the same bank.

A ludicrously overrated 1/2 star indie dreck.

It's hard to believe it's 20 years old. I remember when it came out. Its momentum kept pushing it. It did very well its first weekend but it is not like today where a movie blockbuster makes $70 million or $100+ million in its opening weekend. It just grew and grew. It was a phenomenon that I don't think I've seen since, even with the comic book films. Everybody went to see Titanic.

I think Avatar is a terrible movie. Just watching it again, I wonder why it was so popular. Yes, there are some strong visuals but the story is hokey and it is a chore to sit through on repeated viewings.

@Bunny Sprite said:

If you adjust for inflation so many movies before it wiped the floor with it. When Star Wars came out an adult ticket wasn't even 3 dollars. When Titanic came out a ticket was 7 dollars, more than double, meaning only half the amount of people had to see it to make the same bank.

A ludicrously overrated 1/2 star indie dreck.

In terms of ticket sales, TITANIC is the third-biggest movie ever.

Gone With The Wind: 200 million tickets sold

Star Wars: 142 million tickets sold

Titanic: 128 million tickets sold

Look, I know you always bash whatever's popular, but you can't argue Titanic is an All-Time great. Also, with Star Wars and GWTW there were no home video release and piracy was non-existent for obvious reasons. So if you wanted to watch it, you HAD TO go to the movies. With Titanic, it was different. You could get it on VHS like three months after it came out and you could also get a bootleg version of it. Obviously, if Titanic was released in the 70s or 40s it would have either matched, but most probably it would have BEAT those two.

It's called logic, sweety

Like I already said, a ticket to see Titanic was more than twice what it was to see Star Wars in 1977. Comparing non-inflation adjusted numbers makes it an utterly worthless "comparison". Less than half the tickets would need to be sold for Titanic to match what Star Wars pulled in.

This is also not even factoring there were much less people walking the planet, and much fewer screens to view a movie on.

Obviously, if Titanic was released in the 70s or 40s it would have either matched, but most probably it would have BEAT those two.

No it certainly would not have. Tween entertainment was nonexistent back then. 22 year old kids opening a movie didn't exist then, and there definitely would have been no market for it. Back then adults wanted to see adults in adult situations.

No one wanted to see young kids acting like young kids. A big part of Titanic's success is due to timing. Even if it came out 10 years earlier it wouldn't have done nearly as well.

I'm not denouncing the movie. It's just far from the greatest. It utterly pales in comparison to the truly great films like The Godfather, Jaws, The Exorcist, etc.

@Bunny Sprite said:

Like I already said, a ticket to see Titanic was more than twice what it was to see Star Wars in 1977. Comparing non-inflation adjusted numbers makes it an utterly worthless "comparison". Less than half the tickets would need to be sold for Titanic to match what Star Wars pulled in.

This is also not even factoring there were much less people walking the planet, and much fewer screens to view a movie on.

Obviously, if Titanic was released in the 70s or 40s it would have either matched, but most probably it would have BEAT those two.

No it certainly would not have. Tween entertainment was nonexistent back then. 22 year old kids opening a movie didn't exist then, and there definitely would have been no market for it. Back then adults wanted to see adults in adult situations.

No one wanted to see young kids acting like young kids. A big part of Titanic's success is due to timing. Even if it came out 10 years earlier it wouldn't have done nearly as well.

I'm not denouncing the movie. It's just far from the greatest. It utterly pales in comparison to the truly great films like The Godfather, Jaws, The Exorcist, etc.

In its fifth month, Star Wars had grossed $192 million, which translates into 86 million tickets sold. But the movie was still in theaters until the summer of 1978 - the following year of its release! Titanic, however, was screened until September 1998 and then it was gone for good. In its fifth month, 120 million people had already seen Titanic - 86 million vs. 120 million people. So by all means, Titanic was clearly the more successful movie and the only reason it did not match Star Wars was because it wasn't played for another year.

True that fewer people lived back then and there were fewer screens. However, you have to consider that a movie was in theaters for two years and then kept being re-released in the 40s-80s, because home video was nonexistent. Titanic had "only" seven months in theaters before it was gone.

So the 200 million that saw Gone with the Wind were likely repeated viewings, because it was in theaters for so long.

Star Wars only really had 14 million more viewers, but taking the fact that Titanic wasn't shown as long as Star Wars and the number of alternative ways you could watch the movie into consideration, it's basically making Titanic the more successful movie. You think Star Wars would've had 142 million viewers if it only played for seven months?

No one here is comparing it to The Godfather or Jaws... we're just appreciating a great blockbuster. Why is this always hard to understand?

Titanic had great visuals and a great cast. It's rightfully praised in my opinion.

@mrjacs said:

@Bunny Sprite said:

Like I already said, a ticket to see Titanic was more than twice what it was to see Star Wars in 1977. Comparing non-inflation adjusted numbers makes it an utterly worthless "comparison". Less than half the tickets would need to be sold for Titanic to match what Star Wars pulled in.

This is also not even factoring there were much less people walking the planet, and much fewer screens to view a movie on.

Obviously, if Titanic was released in the 70s or 40s it would have either matched, but most probably it would have BEAT those two.

No it certainly would not have. Tween entertainment was nonexistent back then. 22 year old kids opening a movie didn't exist then, and there definitely would have been no market for it. Back then adults wanted to see adults in adult situations.

No one wanted to see young kids acting like young kids. A big part of Titanic's success is due to timing. Even if it came out 10 years earlier it wouldn't have done nearly as well.

I'm not denouncing the movie. It's just far from the greatest. It utterly pales in comparison to the truly great films like The Godfather, Jaws, The Exorcist, etc.

In its fifth month, Star Wars had grossed $192 million, which translates into 86 million tickets sold. But the movie was still in theaters until the summer of 1978 - the following year of its release! Titanic, however, was screened until September 1998 and then it was gone for good. In its fifth month, 120 million people had already seen Titanic - 86 million vs. 120 million people. So by all means, Titanic was clearly the more successful movie and the only reason it did not match Star Wars was because it wasn't played for another year.

True that fewer people lived back then and there were fewer screens. However, you have to consider that a movie was in theaters for two years and then kept being re-released in the 40s-80s, because home video was nonexistent. Titanic had "only" seven months in theaters before it was gone.

So the 200 million that saw Gone with the Wind were likely repeated viewings, because it was in theaters for so long.

Star Wars only really had 14 million more viewers, but taking the fact that Titanic wasn't shown as long as Star Wars and the number of alternative ways you could watch the movie into consideration, it's basically making Titanic the more successful movie. You think Star Wars would've had 142 million viewers if it only played for seven months?

When Star Wars came out the multiplex didn't exist. It was all either one or two movie theaters. Titanic was being shown around the clock on 3-5 screens all the time. So, once again, there is no direct comparison.

Titanic also had a potential one and a half BILLION more customers.

1977 world population

1997 world population

So you're saying your burger shack potentially will see one and a half billion more customers than mine will, and you're bragging about a bigger profit. Of course that will be the case. But there is no direct comparison, so any attempts are futile and baseless.

@Bunny Sprite said:

@mrjacs said:

@Bunny Sprite said:

Like I already said, a ticket to see Titanic was more than twice what it was to see Star Wars in 1977. Comparing non-inflation adjusted numbers makes it an utterly worthless "comparison". Less than half the tickets would need to be sold for Titanic to match what Star Wars pulled in.

This is also not even factoring there were much less people walking the planet, and much fewer screens to view a movie on.

Obviously, if Titanic was released in the 70s or 40s it would have either matched, but most probably it would have BEAT those two.

No it certainly would not have. Tween entertainment was nonexistent back then. 22 year old kids opening a movie didn't exist then, and there definitely would have been no market for it. Back then adults wanted to see adults in adult situations.

No one wanted to see young kids acting like young kids. A big part of Titanic's success is due to timing. Even if it came out 10 years earlier it wouldn't have done nearly as well.

I'm not denouncing the movie. It's just far from the greatest. It utterly pales in comparison to the truly great films like The Godfather, Jaws, The Exorcist, etc.

In its fifth month, Star Wars had grossed $192 million, which translates into 86 million tickets sold. But the movie was still in theaters until the summer of 1978 - the following year of its release! Titanic, however, was screened until September 1998 and then it was gone for good. In its fifth month, 120 million people had already seen Titanic - 86 million vs. 120 million people. So by all means, Titanic was clearly the more successful movie and the only reason it did not match Star Wars was because it wasn't played for another year.

True that fewer people lived back then and there were fewer screens. However, you have to consider that a movie was in theaters for two years and then kept being re-released in the 40s-80s, because home video was nonexistent. Titanic had "only" seven months in theaters before it was gone.

So the 200 million that saw Gone with the Wind were likely repeated viewings, because it was in theaters for so long.

Star Wars only really had 14 million more viewers, but taking the fact that Titanic wasn't shown as long as Star Wars and the number of alternative ways you could watch the movie into consideration, it's basically making Titanic the more successful movie. You think Star Wars would've had 142 million viewers if it only played for seven months?

When Star Wars came out the multiplex didn't exist. It was all either one or two movie theaters. Titanic was being shown around the clock on 3-5 screens all the time. So, once again, there is no direct comparison.

Titanic also had a potential one and a half BILLION more customers.

1977 world population

1997 world population

So you're saying your burger shack potentially will see one and a half billion more customers than mine will, and you're bragging about a bigger profit. Of course that will be the case. But there is no direct comparison, so any attempts are futile and baseless.

I wasn't the one comparing it though - you started comparing it to Star Wars

Both movies are record-breaking iconic blockbusters, let's just keep it at that.