We need a new way to measure Box Office success

[Riff Magnum]

Seeing that the Batman movie is about to break Star Wars box office gross, i thought i'd see if anyone else thinks it's a little weird how Hollywood measures the success of their movies. If you figure inflation into the mix, Batman would really need to gross over 1 billion dollars to match the phenomenon that was star wars in the late 70's.
Why can't Hollywood just measure units like the music industry does?
One unit = one ticket sold.
What say you?

[SS316SRV]

How dare anybody say that any movie was more successful than Star Wars.

You would also have to take into account that there was no home video at that time so people saw the movie in theaters more, because they were unable to enjoy it in their home.

If you also calculate in the crap that Lucas has made since Howard the Duck, that would also change the situation.

[Riff Magnum]

see, that's the problem.
Let's not take anything into account except how many asses were in the seats.
There's also more people in our country today than 30 years ago, so maybe that might offset some of the people nowadays that simply wait for DVD. I mean bluray

[ngkf7]

Sorry Riff, I think we both started writing similar threads at the same time.

People need to hear about money, that's what's interesting. Because then they can talk about how much it offsets the millions it takes to film and produce a movie. However, when talking about the money, people need to factor in things like inflation and skyrocketing ticket costs.

Let's assume the average ticket price in the US was $0.75 in 1960. with inflation, that puts the average ticket price at the end of 2007 at around 5.28, $1.60 less than NATOs average for 2007. (http://www.natoonline.org/statisticstickets.htm - not the treaty organization)


Factor in ticket price changes and it would be a whole new ballgame.

[SS316SRV]

The only measure of success is $$$. Plain and simple. Did the movie gross enough money to cover the expense of making it.

[roachxp]

They do they said the most succefully film all time was Gone With the Wind and that was using inflation count of today. Dark Knight fell on the average. I saw the article link on Digg but can't find it right now.

[BirdManJr]

Originally Posted by Riff Magnum

see, that's the problem.
Let's not take anything into account except how many asses were in the seats.
There's also more people in our country today than 30 years ago, so maybe that might offset some of the people nowadays that simply wait for DVD. I mean bluray

I didnt see any of these in the theatre i went to

[ngkf7]

Originally Posted by roachxp

They do they said the most succefully film all time was Gone With the Wind and that was using inflation count of today. Dark Knight fell on the average. I saw the article link on Digg but can't find it right now.

I'm sure there's an article or two out there. But check the mainstream papers and news outlets, most of them fail to even touch the subject.

[dadkins]

Using money as a gauge for anything in these times is slightly skewed!

Gas is ___ Gas was ___
Blu-rays are ___ DVDs were ___
Movie today grossed ____ Movie yester-year grossed ____

Factor in inflation and todays prices actually worth... less.

[SS316SRV]

Why is everybody trying to use inflation as a measuring stick. Success is relative. Does a movie gross enough to cover the costs of making it? That is the definition of financial success in the movie business.

[kpkelley]

Originally Posted by BirdManJr

Didn't he star in this movie?

Au Hasard Balthazar

[Riff Magnum]

Originally Posted by BirdManJr

I didnt see any of these in the theatre i went to

You must've got there late when the light were already down. The asses are there.

[Ferris]

Tickets sold.... plain and simple.....

[Riff Magnum]

Originally Posted by SS316SRV

Why is everybody trying to use inflation as a measuring stick. Success is relative. Does a movie gross enough to cover the costs of making it? That is the definition of financial success in the movie business.

Yes, we understand that and i think both Dark Knight and Gone with the Wind have covered their expenses just fine. People don't say that Nirvana's "Nevermind" grossed 150 million. They say it sold 10 million copies. How hard is that? By knowing that Batman and Gone With the Wind both sold 100 million tickets, us folks living in the now can really get a better idea of how gonzo ape sh*t everyone went for that movie back in the day. You could always go one step further and divide the number of tickets sold by the total population at the time of the movies release to give you a nice little percentage. We American's love Percentages and pie graphs.

[mustang-gt-2002]

Originally Posted by FriedEggs

Tickets sold.... plain and simple.....

"YES" 110% plain and simple

[dadkins]

Originally Posted by SS316SRV

Why is everybody trying to use inflation as a measuring stick. Success is relative. Does a movie gross enough to cover the costs of making it? That is the definition of financial success in the movie business.

Let's use ticket sales, not money grossed.
Money today - takes more to do the same task.
Saying that a movie today grossed the highest ever is irrelevent.
How much more money was spent per ticket as opposed to say - Star Wars?

How many tickest were sold - skip money taken in.
Maybe profit margin would be a better scale - x amount of profit vs x amount spent on production. Percentage.

[stockstar1138]

Originally Posted by FriedEggs

Tickets sold.... plain and simple.....

but its not, because the avg. ticket price today is higher than the avg. ticket price 40 years ago even after you adjust for inflation.

if tickets were cheaper i might have seen TDK 5x instead of 3x.

i agree tickets sold is the best way to measure bo success, but its not plain and simple.

[ngkf7]

Rising ticket costs could probably be offset by the fact that the population has more than double since 1950.

I'd like to see how much a movie made %age wise over the cost it took to produce, that at least would be comparable in dollar value of the time

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by stockstar1138

but its not, because the avg. ticket price today is higher than the avg. ticket price 40 years ago even after you adjust for inflation.

if tickets were cheaper i might have seen TDK 5x instead of 3x.

i agree tickets sold is the best way to measure bo success, but its not plain and simple.

So, if you would pay $4 Five Times, to see TDK, rather than the $7 you spent three times..... what's really the difference? (don't say $1 )

You can't compare them on any singular level, because ticket prices take into account the preceived demand etc... and also the belief that the majority of movie-goers see a movie in a theater ONCE.... Either way, ticket prices are set to try to maximize profits..... (Pricing is my field, I'll try not to get too in-depth with this industry, as I'm not involved in it) but either way, there are matinee prices, etc... so the "BEST" way to calculate success, is Revenue adjusted for inflation.....

just the way it is.... although obviously there are more alternatives to going to the theater now (my father used to go as a little kid in the 40's all the time, and it was a very popular thing to do....they weren't "Block-buster" hits either! )

People at one time were likely to go to the theater, yet they may not have even OWNED a t.v. in their home There are too many factors that come into play to make a comparison that would be universally agreed upon

[fighthefutureofhd]

oh stop it with your logic and all!