Domestic grosses adjusted for inflation

[Blu-Ron]

Oh look...AVATAR is in 26th place. Not bad.
But seriously...does anyone think this is a more realistic approach to see who is really king?

http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

[jadedeath]

Some folks probably do.

But it doesn't take into account several key factors for an accurate representation.

Most notably of which is piracy {IMO} since it's nearly impossible to figure out how much Hollywood loses on piracy it'll always make the 'adjusted for inflation' numbers wildly inaccurate and thus totally irrelevant.

Logan

[Blu-Ron]

Well let me ask you this...I guess I'm thinking the whole "adjusted" thing is more accurate in terms of how many people went through the turnstyles. That's how I see it..I may be wrong.

[jadedeath]

Originally Posted by Blu-Ron

Well let me ask you this...I guess I'm thinking the whole "adjusted" thing is more accurate in terms of how many people went through the turnstyles. That's how I see it..I may be wrong.

You could be right, but at the same time, how do you compare the population differences in the time periods?

Or the fact that most of the top producers have had multiple runs in theaters?

Logan

[Dexter Morgan]

So do we put an asterisk next to Avatar because of the state of the U.S. economy, during the time frame it was released?

There are just too many factors...

[Grand Bob]

"Adjusted for inflation" is probably a better measure, because it is an indicator of how many people actually went to see it. For example, "Gone With the Wind" is still #1 when adjusted for inflation, while it ranks #99 with no adjustment.

[repete66211]

Originally Posted by Blu-Ron

Well let me ask you this...I guess I'm thinking the whole "adjusted" thing is more accurate in terms of how many people went through the turnstyles.

I care less about how much a movie made than how many people saw it. Unfortunately that stat is impossible to determine for the older movies, but if each Avatar ticket generates 40+ times the revenue of a Gone with the Wind ticket this is a significant statistic, especially considering the US population today is about 250% that of 1939.

Other interesting statistics would be a comparison of the number of screens in the country, their hours of operation and the number of times a 238 minute movie can be shown vs. a 162 minute movie.

[P@t_Mtl]

It's a system that just can't please anyone. There is no way to judge movies on their box office in-take. Too much time in between them, public view of going to the theaters, television, choices....No matter what system you try to use in other to compare them it just never work and no system use would always make everyone happy as well.

In the end box office ranking should not have any effect on how you enjoy a movie being it's number 1 or number 100 IMO

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by jadedeath

Some folks probably do.

But it doesn't take into account several key factors for an accurate representation.

Most notably of which is piracy {IMO} since it's nearly impossible to figure out how much Hollywood loses on piracy it'll always make the 'adjusted for inflation' numbers wildly inaccurate and thus totally irrelevant.

Logan

Piracy has already been shot down. I told you it was rampant on tape as far back as the late 70's.

[jadedeath]

Originally Posted by Elvis

Piracy has already been shot down. I told you it was rampant on tape as far back as the late 70's.

Shot down by what...?

Any proof?

Hardly.

If there's something that you don't do, it's provide proof for your outlandish claims.

Was there the ability for the average person to hop on the internet {didn't exist in 1970} and download {or have access to} a movie BEFORE it went to theaters?

Yeah, I didn't think so either.

Logan

[Zvi]

Originally Posted by jadedeath

Any proof?
Hardly.

Exactly the same applies to your statements. And let's not forget several intentional leaks from different studios to fuel the interest.

Besides, in case of Avatar piracy argument is really ridiculous. We all know you feel very strongly about those damn pirates, but sometimes they're not really at fault

At least Fox is less concerned than you - Fox plays down piracy threat

[jadedeath]

Originally Posted by Zvi

Exactly the same applies to your statements. And let's not forget several intentional leaks from different studios to fuel the interest.

Are you trying to tell us that piracy was as rampant in the 1970's as it is today?

Because that would be a pretty asinine statement.

Besides, in case of Avatar piracy argument is really ridiculous. We all know you feel very strongly about those damn pirates, but sometimes they're not really at fault

Keep reading the rest of my posts, there's also the home video market to consider.

Also, how is piracy against any movie ridiculous? Go ahead, I'll wait here.

Logan

[toef]

Originally Posted by Zvi

Besides, in case of Avatar piracy argument is really ridiculous. We all know you feel very strongly about those damn pirates, but sometimes they're not really at fault

At least Fox is less concerned than you - Fox plays down piracy threat

If you read through one of the Avatar threads (I don't know if it's the discussion or the box office one, since they both are basically the same thing) one of the Avatar-bashers in there indicated he watched it on his computer.

Piracy may not hurt Avatar as much as other movies, but to say it has no effect is pretty naive.

~~~~

Using the adjusted for inflation numbers is a bit misguided as well, because there's no telling how they adjusted the numbers.

In 1939, when Gone With the Wind was released, the median income was a little over $1,700 per year, or about 85 cents per hour (if you assume about 2000 hours of work per year).

In 2009, when Avatar was released, the median income was a little under $26,000 per year, or about $13 per hour (if you assume about 2000 hours of work per year).

Average ticket price (according to Box Office Mojo) in 1939 was 23 cents, or 27% of an average American's hourly wage.

Average ticket price (according to Box Office Mojo) in 2009 was $7.35, or 56% of an average American's hourly wage.

Realistically, the average Avatar ticket is/was probably closer to $13, or 100% of an average American's hourly wage.

It's not surprising that Gone With the Wind could run up such a huge gross, when movies were relatively more affordable.

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by jadedeath

Shot down by what...?

Any proof?

Hardly.

If there's something that you don't do, it's provide proof for your outlandish claims.

Was there the ability for the average person to hop on the internet {didn't exist in 1970} and download {or have access to} a movie BEFORE it went to theaters?

Yeah, I didn't think so either.

Logan

My outlandish claims? Hell I lived it man....I was there. Just about every comic store I walked into in LA had a copy of Empire Strikes Back and Star Wars running on a VCR in 79 and 80! But yes Piracy is more prevalant today but dont think that everyone knows how to get a movie off the net because most dont.

[Sussudio]

People on this thread seem to talk like they have some exact measurement tool of ticket prices......I don't think anyone on here knows what would really be a fair comparison against Avatar (or any two movies released several years/decades apart). There are several factors, and of course one of the main ones is inflation adjustment. But I really don't think there is a clear cut answer regarding which movies reigns supreme in attendance. That's just my opinion of course.

However, in terms of Hollywood, money is money and that is what matters. Regardless of what a movie made 70 years ago or 5 years ago or 10 years ago, what a movie makes today is what studios look at it. That's not to say comparisons aren't made, but they are not the primary tool in analyzing a movie's success. Franchises, sequel possibilities, etc rise and fall based on modern box office profits, not how they stack up against older movies whose profits have been adjusted....doesn't mean you have to go along with it or agree, but that is how it is

[doctorsteve]

Originally Posted by jadedeath

Some folks probably do.

But it doesn't take into account several key factors for an accurate representation.

Most notably of which is piracy {IMO} since it's nearly impossible to figure out how much Hollywood loses on piracy it'll always make the 'adjusted for inflation' numbers wildly inaccurate and thus totally irrelevant.

Logan

Which is why I vote to count tickets or downloads only (though admittedly, downloads would mask multiple viewers and viewings)

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by doctorsteve

Which is why I vote to count tickets or downloads only (though admittedly, downloads would mask multiple viewers and viewings)

Yeah there really is no definitive way to make these determinations. It raises interesting issues for conversation, but that's about it.

[Dexter Morgan]

If the only thing that matters is the income a movie generates in the US, then yes.

[jadedeath]

Originally Posted by Blu Atlas

If the only thing that matters is the income a movie generates in the US, then yes.

In Hollywood it does. Anyone who tells you different is, well, selling something.

Logan

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by jadedeath

In Hollywood it does. Anyone who tells you different is, well, selling something.

Logan

Just the money from the US? Is that because the money from overseas does not come fully to them and their bank account? Some of it is filtered back into the country where the money is made?