When comparing films' performances at the box-office, would you include re-releases of the film or only its original gross?
It's kind of weird to think about it but in a few years, half of the Disney films that were released in the 90s will already have multiple runs at the box-office.
So far:
The Little Mermaid - $84 mil, $111 mil after reissue.
Beauty and the Beast - $145 mil, $171 mil after reissue.
The Lion King - $312 mil, $328 after reissue
So, would you take its original gross or the overall one?
I think it depends on what you're trying to measure. If you're interested in box-office domination upon release, then naturally, only the initial theatrical run would matter (this could be anywhere up to 2 years, though...Lion King had sort of a re-release before it arrived on video). In terms of longevity of fanbase, then re-releases would play into it. All the Star Wars tallies seem to take into account the phenomenonly profitable early '97 re-releases. I can't believe Beauty and the Beast did $10 M more in IMAX than Lion King.
I heard the reason for Lion King's subdued IMAX gross in comparison to BATB was because of the loss of IMAX theaters. Supposedly, there weren't as many at the time of TLK as there were during BATB's run. Can't remember where I heard it though.
rodis wrote:Impossible. Lion King was played on 66 screens and BATB on 68.
That is the theater count - not the screen count. It could have been a loss of screens that I recall hearing about. I'll have to try and search the net for that article.
