Do you think 3D is Good

[sookymonster]

Originally Posted by AmrlKJaneway

1. Gone With The Wind
2. Star Wars
3. The Sound of Music
4. E.T. - The Extra-Terrestrial
5. Titanic

1 out of 5, and it was post-converted fifteen years later.

The other list;

1. Avatar
2. Titanic
3. The Avengers
4. The Dark Knight
5. Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace

Does not account for inflation, or the increased ticket price of 3D. Plus, two of these movies were post-converted over a decade later, after they'd made the bulk of their profit.

Love 3D as much as you want, I do too. But we can't deny its fading popularity. Auto-stereoscopic/holography will save it, but don't hold your breath for them.

You'll have to wait for the 3D revolution, ver 4.0!

Mate, your wrong, sorry, here it is from box office mojo-



WORLDWIDE GROSSES
#1-100 - #101-200 - #201-300 - #301-400 - #401-500 - #501-504

Pink highlight = official revisions of older movies
Gold highlight = now playing or recent movies



Rank

Title

Studio

Worldwide

Domestic / %

Overseas / %

Year^



1

Avatar

Fox

$2,782.3

$760.5

27.3%

$2,021.8

72.7%

2009^



2

Titanic

Par.

$2,185.4

$658.7

30.1%

$1,526.7

69.9%

1997^



3

Marvel's The Avengers

BV

$1,511.8

$623.4

41.2%

$888.4

58.8%

2012



4

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2

WB

$1,328.1

$381.0

28.7%

$947.1

71.3%

2011



5

Transformers: Dark of the Moon

P/DW

$1,123.7

$352.4

31.4%

$771.4

68.6%

2011

http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/

Actually I was wrong, its 5 from 5.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by AmrlKJaneway

1. Gone With The Wind
2. Star Wars
3. The Sound of Music
4. E.T. - The Extra-Terrestrial
5. Titanic

1 out of 5, and it was post-converted fifteen years later.

The other list;

1. Avatar
2. Titanic
3. The Avengers
4. The Dark Knight
5. Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace

Does not account for inflation, or the increased ticket price of 3D.

so? times change, the second one is based on ac tual numbers while the first one is based on made up useless numbers that come out of no where.

Does the first list take into consideration, for example, that when Gone With The Wind came out there was nothing else to do (no TV, no PCs) and so movies where one of the very few activities for people back then? That back then a ticket was a fraction of a low end hourly wage while now they can be several times one (i.e. I just watched skyfall in Imax and the ticket was 20$, that means someone making minimum wage here they would need to work more hours then the running length of the film). Does it take into consideration that today I can see a film in theatres or at home a few weeks later but there was a time when the only option was to see a film in the theatres and so many of those films were re-released in theatres over the years because they thought people would want to re-see them. Does the first list take into consideration that today there are very very few second run theatres, but that for some of the films there were many second and thrid run theatres where the prices were practicaly free so teenagers did not care what was playing since buying the ticket there was all about having a nice dark room to make out in.

For some films the ticket sales are known, for others they are not and so it comes down to making up a guess at how many ticket sold based on revenue and then multiplying it with a fake number to give a guess of how well it would do today.

And in this discussion it makes even less sense to look at the adjusted chart. Why? in 2010 when Avatar’s numbers shot them to #1, they had the adjusted for inflation as lower then what it actually did in revenue, why? because most films were in 2D 2009 and so the “adjusted” ticket price was a lot more heavily influenced by 2D ticket price, today because there are a lot of films in 3D the average ticket price is higher and even in many ways the prices of tickets have not really changed the “adjusted ticket price” has.

PS also the adjusted chart is only for the US and so completely meaningless.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by sookymonster

Mate, your wrong, sorry, here it is from box office mojo-

actually he used http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm
because studios don't make decisions on how much people spend in the world but only on some made up number that is only limited to the US

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

PS also the adjusted chart is only for the US and so completely meaningless.

Actually, the discussion is centered on box office receipts, and thus is completely meaningless.

The ridiculous game - which has devolved into some kind of "horse race" statistics - is that of counting box office receipts, over some defined amount of time. We get the wacky stuff:

• Opening Weekend Numbers
• Movie A vs Movie B on opening weekend
• How the movie did with some age group or the other
• Movie receipts by rating
• How much money did it make since "X" date (Christmas, your birthday, whatever)
• What season it was released in

These are games the studios play, of little or no interest to the consumer at all. Either you want to see the movie, or you don't. More importantly, do you want to got to the theater or not - this is increasingly a huge question.

Studios can pile up some cash pretty quickly, with a short chain from the theater to their bank accounts - fewer middlemen. Going the video route has more costs, and more fingers dipping into that stream of money - but the river can run for years if you have a hit, and ultimately return more cash, in many cases.

Since there are no same day theater and video releases, they can keep that quiet. Hold off on releasing the video, and the cash comes in faster. As far as revenue, and eyeballs on the film, video wins - some of the same theatergoers double dip, and I hate to shock people or commit heresy, but most people don't go to theaters. Many do, but most don't, or go very rarely. Virtually all buy videos.

If any statistic does not include total box office plus total video sales, since the time of initial release - it's immaterial. You will have a tough time getting these numbers, because it is not in the producer's interests to make the public privy to that information.

As long as the nightly newscaster can breathlessly give this week's box office number and give the absolutely moronic "who won this weekend" numbers, the public will be fooled.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

Actually, the discussion is centered on box office receipts, and thus is completely meaningless.

The ridiculous game - which has devolved into some kind of "horse race" statistics - is that of counting box office receipts, over some defined amount of time. We get the wacky stuff://

I hate to shock people or commit heresy, but most people don't go to theaters. Many do, but most don't, or go very rarely. Virtually all buy videos.

As long as the nightly newscaster can breathlessly give this week's box office number and give the absolutely moronic "who won this weekend" numbers, the public will be fooled.

Interesting info, thanks.
New movie theaters have gone up in my area in the past 4 years, and they're doing well enough to stay in business past the first year (still open). So even though a lot of people I ask "Do you go to the movie theater to see a movie, or just rent/buy it?", end up saying, "I buy/rent it", myself and a good number of others are keeping the theaters alive and well thankfully, for the foreseeable future.

I love the movie theater. It's like entering another world. Cinemark does a great job with the theater experience, seating, movie times, selection, 3D, etc.

As far as 3D movies, I'd say 2013's line up of 3D movies is a good example, along with the huge movie Hobbit 3D, that 3D is not dying, but remaining strong, thanks to stronger 3D efforts by studios like Dreamworks, etc.

Many senior citizens could care less about 3D (not all), but I agree that 3D will go mainstream when we can buy a glasses-free 3DTV for the same price as a 2DTV. I'd say within the next 8 years hopefully.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

Interesting info, thanks.
New movie theaters have gone up in my area in the past 4 years, and they're doing well enough to stay in business past the first year (still open). So even though a lot of people I ask "Do you go to the movie theater to see a movie, or just rent/buy it?", end up saying, "I buy/rent it", myself and a good number of others are keeping the theaters alive and well thankfully, for the foreseeable future.

They're not going anywhere, but they're a niche. The whole "experience" thing is enchanting for folks who can't afford that kind of faux opulence and presentation at home, but more folks are getting around to it. Once, there were only sqare television screens, and little built-in speakers - that's changing.

But as long as people are compressed into shared living spaces, such as apartments and condominiums, or folks they live with or near can't handle the noise - they'll feel the need to get the heck out of there and go to a movie - and theaters will be there. It's a lot cheaper to go to the show than it is to build up a big home theater.

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

I love the movie theater. It's like entering another world. Cinemark does a great job with the theater experience, seating, movie times, selection, 3D, etc.

As far as 3D movies, I'd say 2013's line up of 3D movies is a good example, along with the huge movie Hobbit 3D, that 3D is not dying, but remaining strong, thanks to stronger 3D efforts by studios like Dreamworks, etc.

I always look over my shoulder when adjectives like "huge" and "blockbuster" get use, because what's huge at the local high school isn't huge at the old folk's home, and vice versa. With ticket prices what they are, I like to do the long division to see how many actual people, not dollar bills, flow into the theater. It's a whole new way of looking at things.

3D isn't going to "die", but it will change. It has to, so all markets - theaters, video, and broadcast - can actually be utilized by folks without destroying their budgets.

Originally Posted by Zivouhr

Many senior citizens could care less about 3D (not all), but I agree that 3D will go mainstream when we can buy a glasses-free 3DTV for the same price as a 2DTV. I'd say within the next 8 years hopefully.

It's mostly the under-25 market that's enamored of it - over that age, and they don't give a hoot about Harry Potter, Hobbits, or any of it. If that market is supplied with a product they can afford, they'll buy it. It will all work out.