The Dark Knight - [spoilers ahead, ye be warned] - Page 22

JWBear · 07-29-2008, 10:54 AM

GC started it!

Gemini Cricket · 07-31-2008, 02:34 PM

TDK is getting close to the Top 10 (Domestic).

I don't know why I get a kick out of watching how much movies make, but I do.

Alex · 07-31-2008, 02:42 PM

It's showing good mid-week legs. They week-to-week is closer to 50% than 60%.

I'm hearing that The Mummy is just absolutely godawful so that may not be much threat.

innerSpaceman · 07-31-2008, 02:48 PM

I care how well movies do, too. But box office not adjusted for inflation means nothing. Not even how much money a film made, since the money is the thing that's worth more or less depending on time ... and if there's one thing that exists solely for what it's worth, it's money.

So, GC ... is there a similar chart showing how much films made adjusted for inflation or, better yet, a comparison by how many tickets sold?

Crazybirdman · 07-31-2008, 02:52 PM

I just want something, anything to beat Titanic

innerSpaceman · 07-31-2008, 02:54 PM

And I just want something to show that Star Wars can't be beat ...ever.

unless, of course, i'm wrong. But i've a feeling that if it's coming in 2nd to a film released 2 decades later, it might really be on top ... where it belongs.

Alex · 07-31-2008, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

So, GC ... is there a similar chart showing how much films made adjusted for inflation or, better yet, a comparison by how many tickets sold?

Yes, I referenced it above. You can find a similar list here. It adjusts for ticket price inflation rather than dollar inflation. And by this count not only has Star Wars been beaten, it was never even ahead (that goes to Gone With the Wind).

innerSpaceman · 07-31-2008, 03:20 PM

Ok, I can accept that. I'm not a huge fan of Gone With the Wind, but I understand it's the most famous film of all time, just as I understand Citizen Kane is the most critically acclaimed film of all time (and I don't agree with that one either).

Pirate Bill · 07-31-2008, 04:06 PM

When these charts "adjust for inflation" do they go by # of tickets sold, standard inflation rates, or value of the dollar. I claim to know a little bit about economics, but not being actually trained in that area I lack the vocabulary necessary to explain what I'm about to write. So let's see if I can illustrate.

When Star Wars came out was the ticket price easier to afford or about the same as it is today? Or what about Gone With the Wind? I think affordability really factors into such comparisons. I know that's one major factor when I'm trying to decide if I want to see a movie in the theater or wait for it on DVD. I want to go see Hellboy 2, but since I just spent $20 to go see The Dark Knight, it's asking too much of my wallet to turn around and do it again immediately. Was that such a factor 30 years ago?

I know that when I was in college and had a $1 theater very close by, we'd see movies just about every weekend. Sometimes just to see a movie with no concern about whether it was a movie we really wanted to see. And even though our budget was tighter then than it is now, $2 to see any movie was more affordable.

That, plus with DVD and other video distribution there's much less of a chance for multiple theater viewings making it nearly impossible for modern movies to compete with the classics on number of tickets sold. Most people just wait for it to come out on DVD or cable to watch it a second time.

Alex · 07-31-2008, 04:46 PM

There are various methods used by various sites in trying to create an "adjusted for inflation" index on box office grosses and they all have their flaws.

For what you're describing you'd essentially want to create an index that combines ticket price inflation relative to raw dollar inflation (for example, if ticket prices doubles during a period of 20% dollar inflation then tickets have become more expensive relative to the dollar). And maybe taking into account the overall proportion of entertainment expenses in the average person's accounts.

But generally I'd say that attempting such precision generally isn't worth the amount of time ti would take to do because the of the uncertainties built into the variables. For movies much older than the 1980s we don't really have anything like detailed accounting of box office. Up until WWII movie pricing was much more variable so it is harder to estimate how many tickets a given gross (even if it is well established) would mean. Plus, prior to the wide adoption of VHS significant rereleases of movies were common (particularly by Disney) making these calculations necessary for subsections of the totals.

Which is probably one of the big reasons when people talk box office records they don't usually worry about it too much. Any number will have their flaws.

And yeah, the general decline in gross ticket sales is well established. But that makes a modern anomaly all the more interesting. Based on Box Office Mojos estimates of total ticket sales, only one movie from the last 25 years (1/4 of cinematic history) is in the top 18.

07-29-2008, 10:54 AM	#211
JWBear Worn Romantic Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Long Beach California Posts: 8,435	GC started it! __________________ Unrestrained frivolity will lead to the downfall of modern society.
	Submit to Quotes

07-31-2008, 02:34 PM	#212
Gemini Cricket ... Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,244	TDK is getting close to the Top 10 (Domestic). I don't know why I get a kick out of watching how much movies make, but I do.
	Submit to Quotes

07-31-2008, 02:42 PM	#213
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	It's showing good mid-week legs. They week-to-week is closer to 50% than 60%. I'm hearing that The Mummy is just absolutely godawful so that may not be much threat.
	Submit to Quotes

07-31-2008, 02:48 PM	#214
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	I care how well movies do, too. But box office not adjusted for inflation means nothing. Not even how much money a film made, since the money is the thing that's worth more or less depending on time ... and if there's one thing that exists solely for what it's worth, it's money. So, GC ... is there a similar chart showing how much films made adjusted for inflation or, better yet, a comparison by how many tickets sold?
	Submit to Quotes

07-31-2008, 02:52 PM	#215
Crazybirdman Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: So Cal Posts: 46	I just want something, anything to beat Titanic __________________ www.backnextweek.com book travel, look at pictures
	Submit to Quotes

07-31-2008, 02:54 PM	#216
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	And I just want something to show that Star Wars can't be beat ...ever. unless, of course, i'm wrong. But i've a feeling that if it's coming in 2nd to a film released 2 decades later, it might really be on top ... where it belongs.
	Submit to Quotes

07-31-2008, 03:20 PM	#218
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Ok, I can accept that. I'm not a huge fan of Gone With the Wind, but I understand it's the most famous film of all time, just as I understand Citizen Kane is the most critically acclaimed film of all time (and I don't agree with that one either).
	Submit to Quotes

07-31-2008, 04:06 PM	#219
Pirate Bill Quality since 1973 Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Right here Posts: 473	When these charts "adjust for inflation" do they go by # of tickets sold, standard inflation rates, or value of the dollar. I claim to know a little bit about economics, but not being actually trained in that area I lack the vocabulary necessary to explain what I'm about to write. So let's see if I can illustrate. When Star Wars came out was the ticket price easier to afford or about the same as it is today? Or what about Gone With the Wind? I think affordability really factors into such comparisons. I know that's one major factor when I'm trying to decide if I want to see a movie in the theater or wait for it on DVD. I want to go see Hellboy 2, but since I just spent $20 to go see The Dark Knight, it's asking too much of my wallet to turn around and do it again immediately. Was that such a factor 30 years ago? I know that when I was in college and had a $1 theater very close by, we'd see movies just about every weekend. Sometimes just to see a movie with no concern about whether it was a movie we really wanted to see. And even though our budget was tighter then than it is now, $2 to see any movie was more affordable. That, plus with DVD and other video distribution there's much less of a chance for multiple theater viewings making it nearly impossible for modern movies to compete with the classics on number of tickets sold. Most people just wait for it to come out on DVD or cable to watch it a second time.
	Submit to Quotes

07-31-2008, 04:46 PM	#220
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	There are various methods used by various sites in trying to create an "adjusted for inflation" index on box office grosses and they all have their flaws. For what you're describing you'd essentially want to create an index that combines ticket price inflation relative to raw dollar inflation (for example, if ticket prices doubles during a period of 20% dollar inflation then tickets have become more expensive relative to the dollar). And maybe taking into account the overall proportion of entertainment expenses in the average person's accounts. But generally I'd say that attempting such precision generally isn't worth the amount of time ti would take to do because the of the uncertainties built into the variables. For movies much older than the 1980s we don't really have anything like detailed accounting of box office. Up until WWII movie pricing was much more variable so it is harder to estimate how many tickets a given gross (even if it is well established) would mean. Plus, prior to the wide adoption of VHS significant rereleases of movies were common (particularly by Disney) making these calculations necessary for subsections of the totals. Which is probably one of the big reasons when people talk box office records they don't usually worry about it too much. Any number will have their flaws. And yeah, the general decline in gross ticket sales is well established. But that makes a modern anomaly all the more interesting. Based on Box Office Mojos estimates of total ticket sales, only *one* movie from the last 25 years (1/4 of cinematic history) is in the top 18.
	Submit to Quotes