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

[Dexter Morgan]

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

[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.

[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

[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

[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...

[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.

[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?

[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.

[Elvis]

Whats more impressive than Avatar and its hiked up prices to help push it is a film like the Blind Side with a 29 Million Dollar price tag and is approaching 250 Million dollars(quietly) and it has not even been released overseas. Not bad for a film with no real drawing power other than the great story.

[Blu-Ron]

Originally Posted by 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.

This is more along the lines of how I was seeing this. I think a "head count" or "tickets sold" type of measure would be more accurate. To me anyways.

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by Blu-Ron

This is more along the lines of how I was seeing this. I think a "head count" or "tickets sold" type of measure would be more accurate. To me anyways.

Thats what I have been saying all along.
To me tickets sold is king of the hill.

[mikejet]

I still don't believe Gone With The Wind being number one as there are more people around now to watch movies than when that was released.

[scweb13]

What was the first year gross for Gone with the Wind? Adjust that for inflation and that is really the only way you can compare it to Avatar.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by mikejet

I still don't believe Gone With The Wind being number one as there are more people around now to watch movies than when that was released.

But there was a lot less choices as well back then, movies also remain longer, much longer in theaters. There was no TV, only radio and movies were a lot less expensive then regular theater plays. Even if you had seen Gone With The Wind the previous month, at .10$ a ticket you would go back and see it again and maybe bring a date

[Elandyll]

Like many things, it is a very flawed representation.

It accounts for inflation (the relative buying power of the $), but what of the other hundreds of variables?
Number of theatres released in, competition of other big movies, amount of other easy and cheap entertainment mediums available at the time, piracy, social practices of the time, number of re-releases, etc. etc.
It really is no surprise that in the top 5 the most recent movie is from 1982, and in the top 10 ... 1997 (Titanic), despite the population growing constantly.

It is no better or worse than comparing the un-adjusted values really, except when those who use it pretend it is a more accurate representation of a film's success. Which it is not.

[BJMRamage]

ticket sales would be good. but then it would also be nice to see repeat ticket sales. sometimes hype pushes people out to the theaters.

[scweb13]

from IMDB for Gone With The Wind

For the premiere in Atlanta in December 15, 1939, the governor declared a state holiday. Ticket prices for the premiere were 40 times the usual going rate.

Imagine if those Avatar 3D prices were 40x the going rate.