As another film bound to make hundreds of millions of dollars bounces into theatres (read: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince which I will be viewing later tonight at the darling drive-in), I've been prompted to renew my constant visits to Wikipedia to check out the top grossing films (both adjusted for inflation and not) and think to myself that Titanic has some major skills considering the names of movies on the list. Every movie, save Titanic, in the top ten is a sequel or based off of a wildly popular franchise (it warms my heart to see Twilight NOT on the lists). This is worldwide before inflation. High fives to Titanic for being so wildly popular without a whizzbang "HEY THIS IS THE SEQUEL/ADAPTATION OF THAT REALLY POPULAR MOVIE/BOOK!!!!" Granted, I love The Dark Knight and the Lord of the Rings movies and they are spectacular, but I'm not entirely sure they, like many other wildly successful films these days, would have been so financially successful without being based on a predecessor of some variety.
It's always nice to see a movie like The Hangover do so well based off of its merits (that doesn't mean it has to be spectacular; although I liked The Hangover plenty, I've liked many a film more, but there is clearly something in it that appeals to audiences, the circumstantial humour, the "holyshit" element, and etc.) rather than due to it being based off of some franchise (a la Transformers 2 or Ice Age 3). Granted, keeping that in mind, it's no surprise there's a sequel for The Hangover in the works. God forbid a sequel ever materializes from Titanic.
But I shouldn't complain too hard. If not for sequels, there would've have been any Dark Knight, Empire Strikes Back, Godfather Part II. But then we also wouldn't have any of those lametastic direct-to-dvd Disney sequels. Or High School Musical sequels. Also, I was totally rooting for The Dark Knight to do majorly amazing last year. >.>