The Sun-Herald

�The Biggest Stars of all time would be Daniel Radcliffe (five Harry Potter flicks), Hugo Weaving (three Lord of the Rings and three Matrices), Mike Myers (three Shreks), and Johnny Depp (three Pirates of the Caribbean)�
Surely Orlando Bloom rates a mention as he was in three Lord of the Rings and three Pirates of the Caribbean?
Ah so much for research. :)

Tribal Mind replies: I contemplated including Orlando Bloom, but in the Pirates movies, he was almost not there - a character who could have been played by a hundred other young actors, totally overshadowed by Johnny Depp.

• by Mark Gibson on July 14, 2008 at 05:52 AM

I guess we'll find out what sort of a year it's been for kiddy flicks when the DVD of Wall-E goes up against Sex and the City.
My money's on Wall-E as it seem obvious from the all time best seller list that the major use of DVDs in Australia is to keep the rug rats entertained while mum and dad try to catch up on some sleep (or possibly some other activity...) I wish I could recall that line from the Simpsons about being raised by television, it applies here in spades!

• by David S. on July 14, 2008 at 07:20 AM

Of course the kids ones are massively overrepresented - kids will watch, and watch, and rewatch DVDs in a way that their parents will not. There is far more value for money (in price-per-viewing) in buying a kids' DVD!
Why lower this year - I don't think there's been any real standout DVD releases for kids this year, has there?
It would be interesting to see the change in actual NUMBERS of DVDs bought, kids vs adults.

• by Sarah on July 14, 2008 at 08:15 AM

Most likely due to kids downloading free movies from the Internet, which incidently is growing at a rapid pace. How does DVD compete with the free economy (legit or otherwise)? The studios have been asking this question for years. It's obvious that the consumer is king, so its time to give them what they want, in the way they want it, and collect the real data on their consumption.

• by Richard on July 14, 2008 at 09:32 AM

I think part of it is staying power. Cartoons (fantasy like LoTR) have more staying power. Films like 27 Dresses might be big sellers in the first year but would rapidly slip down the sales ratings and hence not show up on longer term trends (similar to TV shows I'd imagine).

OTOH Shrek and Toy Story etc would sell with parents for a number of years and make the all time lists given more years to do so.

• by James Tong on July 14, 2008 at 10:14 AM

Of course the top 50 of all time is full of kids titles: these are the ones that people keep buying. They might buy a big blockbuster like Die Hard 4.0 or the Bourne movies in the year or two after they first come out, but after that people forget about them and aren't interested in buying them. However, with kids movies people will keep buying them for presents or entertainment for kids (or themselves - they are also popular with quite a few adults) year after year if they don't have them yet. And as people have more kids, they can keep buying the same movies as they get old enough to watch tv - everyone wants to buy a kid a present all the time, and what better present than a movie you remember enjoying, and it costs less than $20. However, in five years time, no-one will be buying the Bourne movies.

• by Jeff on July 14, 2008 at 10:32 AM

While of course viewing habits do change over time, the main reason for this discrepancy is that you are comparing movies in 2 classes which operate differently in a few different ways! Best selling movies of all time will tend to over represent kids movies as they have the time and inclination to watch them multiple times and therefor parents get more value from purchasing them for their kids. There is also a slightly higher 'timelessness factor' with kids movies too, eg you can predict Potter will be popular for many years because it has been enshrined in the same culture mythology space that for example, LoTR has. I've rewatched LoTR many more times than Bourne movies and I really like both, but I did not buy any Bourne movies. Sales are additive / cumulative over the years too. Only a few ummm 'non-kids' movies fall into this class, your epic LoTR faves and others. If you analyzed each individual year for the past 10 years I bet you would see that kids movies may pop up in the top 50 of a particular year, but are much more strongly represented in the top 50 of all time.

Also kids can physically handle popping a dvd into a machine and pressing play. But adults also have a higher tendency nowadays to get movies from ummm 'other' more complicated digital sources...

• by Kim Brebach on July 14, 2008 at 11:54 AM

"Tribal Mind wonders: Sure they weren't laser discs? If they were DVDs, what did people play them on?"
Definitely not laser discs. "Films" like "Batman Forever" were released in Australia in 1997, though probably most consumer take-up was PC users who had a DVD drive. Still, HMV had a single rack of DVDs in the VHS department.

• by Andy on July 14, 2008 at 12:36 PM

Kids movies sell well in more than just the year they were released. When you have kids, it doesn't matter that Toy Story is a decade old - it's still must have viewing for the littlies.
The entire Pixar and Dreamworks catalogues will still be selling for the next decade, too.
But will we still care about the Sopranos?

• by Father Mick on July 14, 2008 at 02:31 PM