Top-Grossing directors all contemporary?

A news article says Christopher Nolan has become one of the top 10 highest-grossing movie directors of all time... and I found it strange to see that not only the top 10, but atleast top 30 are directors of the modern era- Steven Spielberg, Peter Jackson, Robert Zemeckis, James Cameron, to name a few. Coincidence? How did all of these living filmmakers achieve this and none from the golden age such as Alfred Hitchcock, Charlie Chaplin? Maybe the box office results are not adjusted for inflation. Maybe this era is the rise of the auteur- Directors may be more powerful than the studio system they work for. Maybe the movie business has become more lucrative since the '70s. What do you think?
 
Highest grossing comes with inflation. Unfortunately it's not like music where it's # of album sales.

Example: In 1960 a movie ticket was 70 cents. It's a flawed system but they don't seem to mind it since the highest grossing is always contemporary: Marketing!
 
So you're saying that Alfred Hitchcock and Charlie Chaplin are better than Steven Spielberg, Peter Jackson, and Christopher Nolan? Ignoring the fact that the art of filmmaking and technology were WAY different back then compared to now?
 
Nolan's no surprise, he's got a good track record so he's able to keep making big movies that bring in big money.
Like indietalk said, it's more hype to get you to watch.
Studios don't gain much money hyping their older movies.
Some industrious soul may figure out the top grossing directors adjusted for inflation by looking at this:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm
 
Unfortunately it's not like music where it's # of album sales.

Yup. It should be something like number of tickets sold followed by number of DVDs/Bluerays/Downloads etc.


So you're saying that Alfred Hitchcock and Charlie Chaplin are better than Steven Spielberg, Peter Jackson, and Christopher Nolan? Ignoring the fact that the art of filmmaking and technology were WAY different back then compared to now?

Indie said no such thing. He pointed out that the system of rating a movies popularity (i.e. opening weekend) is flawed. And he never even hinted at one director being better than another.

Real artists honor and revere those who came before them, learn all they can from them, and then add a new layer to the legacy.
 
But... Downloads are illegal.

I think it's already about sales, the box office and opening weekend. All those top directors have made huge hits that gross a lot.
 
But... Downloads are illegal.

FACEPALM.jpg


We aren't talking about piracy sites here. iTunes, Amazon Prime, Netflix... these are services that offer digital download, whether it's an outright purchase or it's a rental. Perfectly legal. Perfectly legit.
 
It is apparent that the studios don't like to show off the classics because they fear the public finds the old movies boring and want to see the current world in movies.
 
Maybe studios think that since a certain number of people have already seen an old movie, they have a better chance of making a lot more money with something new because the potential audience is much bigger. The big studios now seem more interested in the biggest payoff possible, because they need a lot of money to stay in business.

I watch more older movies than new ones because most of the time I'm let down by the hype & marketing of today's stuff. Sure there are still new movies that I like, but I have a better track record of finding something more meaningful in old movies. There's so much to choose from & it's less expensive, free if it's at the library. The Criterion Collection has some great stuff.
I guess it's also because I've seen a lot more movies than younger people & so it takes a lot more to satisfy me.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top