Star Wars: The Phantom Menace : LUSENET : TitanicShack : One Thread

I just saw the new Star Wars trailer online. It was pretty good. Do you think that the new movie will displace Titanic as the #1 movie of all-time? Please be objective.

-- Jim Islam (, November 22, 1998


No, I dont. The reason I have for it is simply, the largest group of people who are interested in Star Wars is older people. Personally, I have never seen Star Wars so I dont know the story. I know some but it does not interest me that much. Most people that go and see movies are younger people, not older. And I think stories like Titanic appeal more to us.

-- Laura (, November 22, 1998.

Woah, woah, woah!!! OLDER PEOPLE??? I am only 28 and I can't wait to see the new flick. Star Wars always has been and always will be for all ages!

Older people...sheesh...

-- Gilded Age Junkie (, November 22, 1998.

No question about it. The new "Star Wars" film will blow "Titanic" out of the water and may even threaten the long-standing box-office champ, "Gone With The Wind". Laura, the demographics for Star Wars are as broad as you can get. There will be better male/female balance to the audience. Broader age appeal. Even the 6yr olds who weren't at "Titanic" will be taken to "Phantom Menace". It's going to be a family film, a Star Wars cult film, the Big Event, a date film, eventually the cultural phenomenon that draws in every movie-goer at least once - just like "Titanic". Everything to all people! It will also get the repeat business, this time from teenage boys instead of girls. It's a can't-miss money machine. I know I'm going to see it - I've been waiting over a decade. Titanic will always be a great film, but "Phantom Menace" will take it to the breakers at the box-office!

That's provide, of course, that it isn't a piece of crap.

-- Star Wars junkie (, November 22, 1998.

No. Cant say I agree with you guys. Star Wars is not going to topple Titanic OR Gone With The Wind. I think Star Wars has had its 15 min. of fame. Yes, I know that it is a classic but its not an epic. Come on, 4 movies??? That is how long it takes to complete a story line? I think it is a waste of theatre space. But, mabye I say this just because I have not seen the movie. I will borrow it from a friend this week and check it out.

-- Laura (, November 22, 1998.

Four movies to complete a story line? No, nine actually, if all goes as planned by Lucas. The three existing films are the middle trilogy. There WILL be at least 3 new films starting with "Phantom Menace" next May. Fifteen minutes of fame? No, 21 years actually, and counting. Laura, you must be the only person in the universe who hasn't seen any of the Star Wars movies! Trust me, this is going to be gigantic - the largest, most lavishly appointed Sci-fi fantasy yet made by the hand of man. See the original trilogy to get up to speed or you'll be left on the dock when the big ship sails! It's the maiden voyage and this ship is unsinkable! (Hmmm. I'm not sure I like the omens in this analogy....)

-- Star Wars Junkie (, November 22, 1998.

Go Junkie go! :) don't get it, sweetie. The Star Wars trilogy is a national and world wide treasure. Go rent these movies and then state your opinion ok? Cuz right now it's not backed by anything.

I still love Titanic, by the way...just so no one gets all bent out of shape with me...hahaha!

-- Gilded Age Junkie (, November 23, 1998.

Well, I'm not sure Titanic will be topped. But then again it is Star wars that's going up against it. Star wars has lasted a looong time and even today when special effects are more elaborate than ever Star Wars still holds it's own. Nothing really looks fake in those movies. The only question is can the phenomone be repeated. The first films had unknown actors with great talent, a good storyline and a totally new aspect of space. This time around, the storyline is bound to be good since it was writen at the same time as the others, the new aspect of space and space travel are not so new and can Lucas get lucky again with unknown talent??? I'm just going to wait and see the movie before I make any decisions.

-- Miranda Swearingen (, November 23, 1998.

I know that I am in the minority....but I will not be seeing the next Star Wars movie. I saw the original Star Wars back in 1977 when I took my boyfriend (now husband) to see it on his birthday. It didn't interest me then and neither did the subsequent Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. So this one holds zero interest for me. Yet my family will still be represented as my husband and two sons will be sure to see the next Star Wars movie opening weekend.

As for demographics, I agree that men and women, boys and girls, of all ages like or love the Star Wars movies. From what I can see, that was true of Titanic as well. And the repeat business that Titanic got will sure to be repeated with the next Stars Wars movie too. It will be awfully interesting to see if the next Star Wars will hold up to 15 weeks at Number 1. I suppose it's possible, but I'm not sure that it's probable.

Only time will tell......which is what I've been saying about "Titanic" when the comparison to "Gone With The Wind" is raised. I'd like to see if "Titanic" (as much as I love it!!) has the staying power of "GWTW" 60 years after its release. Wish I could be around to find out!!!

-- Kathleen Marcaccio (, November 23, 1998.

All I have to say is that I think this new Star Wars movie is going to be HUGE! Think about it, people were buying tickets for mediocre movies just to see the preview, they didn't even stay around for the movie. I never heard about that happening with Titanic.

I'm not a big Star Wars fan myself, but I do love those little Ewoks :-)

-- Emma (, November 23, 1998.

I seem to remember an article discussing the "Titanic" phenomenon in a weekly news magazine a while back that put the audience at 60% female, and repeat viewers even higher, maybe 70% female. While this didn't exactly make it a "chick flick" it was a pretty heavy bias. I think "Phantom Menace" will have more equal gender appeal. I also suspect that, since this is the 90's, the new trilogy will be a bit more politically correct and have more appeal to the female audience; i.e. more strong female characters who are NOT wearing little bikinis and a leash. The absence of such may diminish the 14 yr-old boy audience contingent slightly. But to regain it, perhaps they'll add a nude drawing scene since this seems to be de rigueur in Hollywood films these days....

-- Star Wars Junkie (, November 23, 1998.


It is nearly impossible for any current film, be it "Titanic" or "Star Wars" to displace "Gone With The Wind" as the highest-grossing film of the past 100 years. If one translates 1938 dollars to 1998 dollars, one will find that "Gone WIth The Wind" grossed an estimated $2.5 billion during its initial release in 1938. With sales since 1938, it has most likely grossed $3.5 billion.

The "hype" present during the making and release of "Gone With The Wind" has not even been matched by "Titanic," "Star Wars," or the latest Stanley Kubrick film, "Eyes Wide Shut." In 1937, people waited in long lines to peer over the studio wall simply to see who had been chosen to play the various characters. Mrs. Margaret Mitchell's book, on which the film was based, was a social event for many Americans.

Today, with our various social mechanisms, no current film could ever approach "Gone With The Wind" in terms of box-office grossings.

A Contributor

-- Contributor (, November 28, 1998.

Please cite your source for those figures, "a contributor". According to Mr. Showbiz (ABC's entertainment site at, the inflation-adjusted domestic grosses read as follows:

1) Gone With The Wind ......... $885,204,819

2) Star Wars .................. $797,975,786

3) Sound Of Music ............. $638,020,884

4) Titanic .................... $600,743,400

These figures take into account re-releases. I don't dispute your figures, we just might be comparing apples and oranges here. Please tell us how you arrived at $3.5 billion - this seems a bit high. There is no doubt that breaking GWTW's record is going to be tough. But a number of relatively recent films, as you can see, have come close; some not nearly as good artistically. It will happen some day. Perhaps starting in May, 1999?

-- Star Wars Junkie (, November 28, 1998.

Oh, and for anyone who might be curious:

59) Poseidon Adventure........ $239,921,569.

-- Star Wars Junkie (, November 28, 1998.

I too would be interested in the source of those adjusted for inflation figures. As many of you know, I am first and foremost a "Gone With The Wind" fan, and then a "Titanic" fan. So I do watch those numbers, but haven't seen the ones quoted above.

Now, back to the Star Wars prequel issue at hand, in yesterday's USA TODAY, in response to their weekly question, one Star Wars fan predicted that the prequel will take in $100 Million during the first weekend alone!!!! Now that I find hard to believe....just as hard to imagine as this prequel lasting longer in the number one spot than "Titanic" did (15 weeks at Number One!!!).

Any thoughts on these comments??

-- Kathleen Marcaccio (, November 28, 1998.

I have a feeling that Star Wars will bring in quite a lot in it's first opening, but not get the greatest reviews. I'm hoping it's just the hype that will bring in the money, you know, with all the talk about it's long waited release. At least, that's what I'm HOPING. We never know, it could bomb. Not to demean any star wars fans, keep in mind that is just what I'm guessing. And even if it does exceed Titanic, so what? This is like comparing apples and oranges - Titanic could tie with GWTW as the greatest love story, and Star Wars is an action/adventure. Not anything close to Titanic - these are 2 different movies. I just hope that Titanic will still stay as the movie that remained longest in the box office. 15 weeks, right? And what are the chances of a Star Wars Shack? Unless, of course, there already is one that I don't know about. Oh well. :-)

-- Kelly (, November 28, 1998.

I'm always HOPING that every movie I see is going to be the greatest achievement in the history of cinema, regardless of box-office success. But if I like a movie, I'd like others to experience it too - so I want it to be a success at the box office. As much as I like "Titanic", I can't wait to see something better, something more successful! Nothing I've paid to see since has measured up. Does the new Star Wars movie have a chance at greatness? I don't know, but I HOPE so!

-- Star Wars Junkie (, November 29, 1998.

"Star Wars Junkie,"

I apologise for not having cited my sources. However, I would not trust a network telelvision company. My major source is the December 1997 issue of "Les Cahiers du Cinema," (Francois Truffaut's magazine). "Les Cahiers du Cinema" is the finest entertainment revue in the world, being the mechanism behind the French "new wave" (first and foremost Truffaut, himself).

However, one must recall that my $3.5 billion figure was "over all" - including ticket and home video sales since the initial 1938 opening. I do hope you will understand. Also, as you stated that "some did not come as close artistically," (pertaining to the recent films), I must agree. I, though, hold that none did - neither your beloved "Star Wars" nor "Titanic," beloved by various denizens of this message board.


Considering that both "Star Wars" and "Titanic" are positively awful films, I do not see that it really matters. However, that is as may be.

A Contributor

-- A Contributor (, December 01, 1998.

George, I mean "A contributor", and everyone else who is debating the monetary issue of Star Wars vs. Titanic vs. Gone With the Wind, I believe it is impossible to compare the movies and how much they have taken in, particularly if you are including home video sales. Gone With The Wind has been on home video far longer than Titanic, obviously. Titanic retails for about $20, but when I bought my copy of Gone With the Wind about 5 years ago, it was about $70 because you could only find it as a special edition release. There are so many factors that have to be taken into account when you make comparisons like this, that the information usually given and the "facts" that people arrive at are grossly mistated. Therefore, I wouldn't base any opinion on the "Facts" given by "A contributer". They may be correct, but are not comparable to Titanic or it's earnings until 60 years from now!

As far as Star Wars and Titanic being awful movies, I refuse to argue opinions.

-- Misty (, December 02, 1998.

Good point, Misty. Hi, George, I see you're back and haven't changed. OF COURSE we have all heard of your beloved French magazine... NOT!!! George, we know it's you whenever there are many words capitlized, italicized, underlined, and you begin your greeting on a line of its own. Did you see the story in The Denver Post on you? I took the liberty of forwarding them the weblink to our earlier discussions, and they printed a series on you. It was done a couple months ago. I'm sure you'll find their editorializing quite proper! ;)

-- BobG (, December 02, 1998.

Although I fear it improper to do so, I must dispute "A Contributors" facts. S/he states that the 1938 film, "Gone With The Wind" grossed $2.5 billion during it's initial release. Humbug! Balderdash! Poppycock! Although "network television companies" do often find it necessary, from time to time, to fraudulently or inaccurately report gross receipts from Hollywood cinema companies (for obvious reasons?), I believe that The American Broadcast Company has it correct, despite their scandalously liberal and anti-aristocratic democratic bias. (They stubbornly persist in the believe that women should retain the right to vote.) Perhaps "A Contributor" erroneously translated from French to proper Standard English (Quelle faux pas!). Could GWTW have grossed 3.5 billion francs?

-- Contribute This. (, December 03, 1998.

It is my sad duty to announce that "Contribute This" will no longer be able to continue correspondence at this website. He is blowing out the candles and turning out the lights, to speak metaphorically. I am unsure of why he has decided to deprive us of his fine intellect. However, I do suspect that one person, being a rapt student of Contribute This' milieu, will soon appear to explain his departure in more detail and give us deeper insight into his complex world view.

-- Contribute This' Valet (, December 03, 1998.

To All:

Under the advisement of many more important people than yourselves, my son, Contribute This, will no longer be sharing his vast intellect with you proletereans. You obviously do not appreciate his great wit, understanding of everything that could possibly be brought up for conversation, or his wonderful sense of style. (He is a great dresser, which you should have been able to tell from his mannerisms in speech.) The impropriety and vulgarity expressed on this board is not suited for those on the upper crust of society, namely us. Therefore, do not expect any further rsponses.

Ms. Contribute This

-- Mrs. Contribute This (Not Ms., mind you) (, December 03, 1998.

Misty, you have me peeing in my pants, and I work for the little creep and his family!! Go, girl!!

-- His Maid (, December 03, 1998.

A change in opinion:

I think it's always great to expreince new films. I'm changing my opinion of "I hope Titanic will stay the #1 movie of all time..." If we all went through life holding on to the things we want to stay the same, we wouln't get anywhere. Besides, it's not like we're going to forget about Titanic. For God sakes people, this board has been going on since what, last January? Anyway, I don't think it really matters. And I don't see why anyone has to get upset about anything anyone writes, especailly in this thread. I'm sure we all have a difference in opinion, but it's no need to get upset over. Can't we all just get along? :-)

-- Kelly (, December 03, 1998.

Kelly, you're apparently not appreciating the humor here. Have a look under the links on Relatives of Titanic Victims (or something similar). You'll better understand "George" and the other comments! Lemme know if you can't find it!

-- BobG (, December 03, 1998.

I am sorry if this has caused a little confusion, Kelly. We are not trying to seem closed minded, but are trying to create a humorous environment imitating someone who is. I certainly hope Titanic is not going to remain the record holder forever, because as great as it is, with the achievements in technology and other related fields that have and are bound to be made, that would be a real let down. In my opinion, I don't think Star Wars is going to displace Titanic. I think Titanic may have made 15 weeks at number 1 look too easy. As far as it being a great movie, well it will always have a special place in my heart simply because it symbolizes a special place in my life. That is not to say another movie won't come along and also be a favorite.

Now, if you want to understand the "inside" joke that was going on, read the thread that Bob suggested, and you will understand better what it was we were teasing.

-- Misty (, December 04, 1998.

Okay, I feel stupid. I read the thread. I should have known. I think I'll just go crawl in a hole, never to be seen again... Now let's forget this ever happened.... :-)

-- Kelly (, December 04, 1998.

Don't feel stupid Kelly! I'm just sad you missed the fun at that time! :)

-- Gilded Age Junkie (, December 05, 1998.

Don't worry Kelly, I am sure a lot of people go confused by it!

-- Misty (, December 05, 1998.


Some of you have been quite astute, although I am not Mr. George Haverstrom - I am simply an acquaintance of his, although I do not wish to give my name (I believe I was mentioned somewhere in his postings here). Was there truly an editorial about my friend in the Denver Post? If so, I would quite enjoy reading it; under which thread might I find it?

Your imitations were quite enjoyable, to say the least. I am sure that Mr. Haverstrom, too, would enjoy them, and I shall tell him that all of you remember him amusingly. I apologise for not being able to write very often, but I do not have very much time to use the internet (it is such an amazing tool). Also, my parents do not wish me using it very often either.

A Contributor

-- A Contributor (, December 07, 1998.

Gilded Age Junkie,

I quite agree with your earlier statement in which you stated that Star Wars is not just for "older people." My entire family has long enjoyed the Star Wars trilogy. Recently, the movies were re-released in the theater and my young cousin accompanied me to see them for the first time on the "big screen." She instantly fell in love with all three and is anxiously awaiting the latest film (and she's only nine! =))

To all:

Your intended humour in imitating our fine member of the Aristocracy, George (*giggle*) was quite lost on me. Tell me, prithee, why is is so amusing (*hahahaha--gasp--hahahaha*) that George attempted to follow propriety in all of his endeavors on this forum? Whilst I was reading this question and its many responses, I was shocked at the great amount of impropriety on this page (*wink**smile*). It was quite improper for Mr. Haversham and his family and staff to come to this page after society deemed it a tremendous scandal. My faith in George has been broken--he can no longer be an example of propriety if he has continued to contribute here against the restrictive, confining rules of his own society. How dare any of us attempt to go against the rules laid out for us by those better than we (*chuckle*)! Prithee.......hahahahahahahahaha--gasp-hahahahahahaha

I can't write like that anymore!! I'm laughing too hard to continue (how shocking--it's quite improper, I assure you). You guys are great--Misty, BobG, contributor, and everyone else--you had me in stitches reading your George impersonations/commentaries.

-- Nonnie (, April 26, 1999.

Funny thread.

-- Jiffy Pop (, May 01, 2004.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ