Cool OT.
I didn't recognize two (both before I was born, so I give myself 1/4 credit).

Notice the family/children prescence on that list. I also found it amazing just how high some sequels place higher than the original especially given that sequels are typically less compelling and entertaining than the originals.

I have a large paperback that someone gave me years ago that not only has this list (inflation adjusted), but also the top five for each year, along with a one page story behind each film and why it was big at the box office.

As pmasters noted, the Disney and family films are definitely "over-represented" here, but for obvious reasons: Especially back in the old days, kids would go to see a movie for weeks on end, if it was good. Good movies would stay in a theater for a long time and be "held over." Something like Mary Poppins or The Sound of Music would often be playing for months.

I think the reason Disney films are well-represented there is Disney often re-released films in the theaters. I definitely remember seeing Disney films in the theater as a kid decades after they had come out. Every five or ten years you have a new crop of kids who have never seen you movie.

Says the inflation rate is adjusted to the 2005 average ticket price of $6.40. That seems a little low, even with matiness included. I paid $10 in Burbank to see "Good Night and Good Luck".

What are others paying around the country?

$5.50 for a matinee and $7.00 for evening tickets at the local theatre. We went to see "Curse of the Wererabbit" at a SONY silver screen theatre in the big city nearby and paid $9.50 for tickets. There's a place up the road a bit that charges a flat rate of $3.50. On the other hand, i know lots of folks who wait a couple of months and go to a "welfare theatre" and pay $1 or $2 to see movies. Some friends of mine go every week, spending $60 or so to see 52 movies. On the other hand, i may see only 7 or 8 movies throughout the year for the same $60.

Something like Mary Poppins or The Sound of Music would often be playing for months.

My wife and I were talking about this recently, too. It's not a stretch at all for me to remember ads that read, "Held over 8th big week!" and so on. This wasn't limited to children/family movies, though. Films like, Ben Hur, Doctor Zhivago, Lawrence of Arabia, The Sting, Love Story, <shudder> etc. I think the reason we don't see this today is because of the multi-plexes (which also brought about the demise of the "big screen," but that's another issue).

Perhaps the advent of renting/buying movies on DVD has replaced the need for movies being held over.

The cost increase in tickets is a big factor, too, as was pointed out. In 1950, for example, what cost $1.00 would cost $7.75. That's a substantial increase. Actually, what it is is a substantial devaluation of the dollar, but that, too, is another issue.

By-the-way, if you want to play with inflation figures between the years 1800 and 2005, visit this web site.

Perhaps the advent of renting/buying movies on DVD has replaced the need for movies being held over.
No, the reason movies aren't held over is that they play on so many screens that they play themselves out after only about 4 weeks or so (then if they're big enough they might go to the cut-price theaters).

A typical big movie today will open in over 3000 screens in the US (sometimes over 4000). That means everyone can see it all at once (hence the huge opening weekend numbers). Studios get the biggest cut of the box office in the first few weeks so it makes sense for them to blast us with advertising and open the movies on as many screens as possible, thereby guaranteeing that the vast majority of the money will come in during that time. It's bad for theater owners though, which is why they're constantly flirting with bankruptcy and mergers.

Smaller movies (Napolopn Dynamite is a good example) don't get that kind of distribution and still get their money by playing longer. However, it's getting tougher and tougher to do that these days because the big releases take up so many screens.

Fred

The advent of the wide release really took off with Jaws. Before that movies were rolled out much slower. In New York for example, a movie would only play in a few theaters for the first couple of weeks, then it would move to other neighborhoods and then on to other cities. Low budget indies movies still do this, "Opening Friday in NY and LA" or "opening in select cities." Before Jaws movies were not advertised on TV very much either. This is why tyranny of "opening weekend" box office became so important. If you open on 3,500 screens, that's several million dollars in prints, then you have to advertise it heavily everywhere. It used to be you used the box office reciepts to fund more prints and more ads. If the movie was strong you did more prints and more ads. Nowadays, it's all borrowed up front. So if your opening weekend isn't strong you are not even going to earn the interest on money you borrowed for prints and ads, let alone the production budget.
Jaws, The Monster that ate Hollywood
Before the summer of 1975, Hollywood studios traditionally did not advertise their movies on network television. It was simply too expensive to do so. Shortly before the release of "Jaws," Columbia Pictures (where Peter Guber was studio chief) bought 42 prime-time TV spots for another film, the Charles Bronson vehicle "Breakout." Despite the advertising expenditures, which reportedly cost $3.5 million, the box-office results for the film were disappointing. Then, for three nights preceding the release of "Jaws" on June 20, 1975, Universal saturated the networks during primetime with 30-second trailers for the movie. This time, for whatever reason (some combination of marketing savvy, timing, and national media exposure), it worked: The film easily surpassed the $100-million mark at the box office and broke the previous records set by "The Godfather" and "The Exorcist." Ultimately, the movie would gross $260 million in the U.S. alone.

Speaking of Jaws, I've been helping on a documentary (edited in Vegas 6) on the impact and legacy of Jaws. It's called "The Shark is Still Working" http://www.sharkisstillworking.com/

We've gotten interviews with Stephen Spielberg, John Williams, Richard Dreyfuss, and everyone else associated with the movie.

Sweet.

Any interviews with Michael Chapman? He's a pretty good subject.

When I was kid, I wasn't allowed to see Jaws in the theaters because the Tommy Murphy up the street saw it and now he wouldn't go into the bathtub.