All-Time Movie Grosses - Does Inflation Adjustment Matter?

[AT-AT Luvah]

Okay, so I've always thought the inflation adjustments they cite when discussing the top ten films of all time are interesting, but don't tell the whole story.

These adjustments are now cited in almost every single story about Avatar's theatrical run. The argument is that prices for tickets are higher now than they were even a year ago, and certainly much, much higher than during the original theatrical release of 'Gone With the Wind.'

Here's my issue with that: while ticket prices have gone up, so have average household incomes, so I think the better measure would be, how much has a ticket price gone up relative to household income.

Also, these adjustments tend to penalize modern films and stack the deck in favor of older films. However, those older films were also released at a time when there were much, much fewer film options for theatergoers. Also, people back then did not have home TVs, and during Star Wars' original run, there were not that many channels and home video games were in their infancy.

So I still think Avatar's run is impressive because it has been released at a time where people the world over have access to cable and satellite TV, DVRs, home media (DVDs and Blu-Ray), Netflix and other home rental services, a myriad of home video gaming otpions, and many other entertainment options. It also has been released at a time when people all over the country are still feeling the hurt of the recession and there are still 2 to 3 nationwide film releases per week.

Another thing I read stated that Avatar wouldn't have done as well had it been released during the summer because the competition is stronger at that time. Well duh. But how is that a point against the movie as opposed to a shrewd release decision on the part of the studio?

So I just wanted to put it out there that while inflation is one factor, it still does not diminish what Avatar is doing week in and week out.

Hector

ps - the one element that I think is a valid factor that skews the numbers for Avatar is the 3D price premium making up a large percentage of this movie's grosses.

 

[Westies14]

I don't know that household incomes are relevant at all, but I agree with the rest. GWTW was in theaters for years! Star Wars has had more releases than I can count.

No one should take away from what Avatar's doing right now. There's a reason why the mark has lasted for as long as it has, despite inflation. Certainly, the industry won't hold inflation against the film.

I think they should look at number of tickets sold in a film's initial theatrical run, when comparing box office - if they want to be fair. Socioeconomic conditions will be whatever they are when a film runs.

- D

 

[tgreco]

Here's my issue with that: while ticket prices have gone up, so have average household incomes, so I think the better measure would be, how much has a ticket price gone up relative to household income.

it's not about inflation or premiums or anything else
what they're really trying to figure is which movie has sold the most tickets

household income has nothing to do with it

but 500,000 tickets sold at $1= $500,000 gross

50,000 tickets sold at $10 = $500,000 gross

it does make a difference, especially when the next $$$$ script lands on a studio execs desk, and he has to decide if it's worth it to make

 

[AT-AT Luvah]

But I would argue that NO movie will ever pull in GWTW-sized numbers ever again given the fragmentation of media and entertainment options I cited above.

So given that, the number of tickets sold should also be a sliding scale.

Hector

 

[Eopie Herder]

It should be counted by Ticket sales, not by cost of said ticket. A butt in the seat 70 years ago is still a butt in the seat today.

 

[ONEYE]

I think a better ruler would be total ticket sales. Number of tickets sold vice amount of money made.

 

[Eopie Herder]

But I would argue that NO movie will ever pull in GWTW-sized numbers ever again given the fragmentation of media and entertainment options I cited above.

So given that, the number of tickets sold should also be a sliding scale.

Hector

I disagree with that, because of that there was still "entertainment" offered in that day. It may not have been what we are accustomed to by today's standards, but there was still a wide variety of things to do aside from going to see a movie. It was the draw of the film that put people in the seats, the same as today.

I just think that tickets sold is a more telling figure of how well a movie was received through time, rather than the dollar amount it earned. Now, the studios do want that info, as the cost of production has increased exponentially over the years, and they want to see the grosses. Understandable.

 

[cboath]

GWTW had a huge advantage as far as ticket sales go because it able to be re-release in theatres for what? 40+ years before there was any other way to watch it. Today, yeah, Avatar will sell boatloads of tickets - but if they rerelease it in 5 years to the big screen with no or just minimal changes - would it even cover the cost of the re-release? Who knows. It's rerelease would make a ton more if you were not able to see it since it's run in theaters ended. Today, though, you'll be able to get it digitally, on itunes, on DVD, or on BluRay and able to watch it 1,000 times before it hits the screen again 5 years later. You just can't quantify that type of advantage - and GWTW had it for decades.

The reason the articles today bring up adjusting for inflation is less the inflation part but more the second part of the 'inflation' paragraph. That being, it was shot for 3D IMAX and as such it costs much more to see it in Imax than on a normal 2D screen, and if you see it in 3D but not IMAX, there's still a heft 'glasses' surcharge which gets counted in it's total. Every other flick in the top 5-10 list was 2D only, and only a couple had any countable add from being on an IMAX screen. I think that's the main reason you see that paragraphy in every story.

That's why i think total ticket sales should be the marker. You didn't do better if you sell a million fewer tickets.

The scary thing i heard was that the studio could make 900M+ in pure profit. Dang...

 

[tgreco]

But I would argue that NO movie will ever pull in GWTW-sized numbers ever again given the fragmentation of media and entertainment options I cited above.

So given that, the number of tickets sold should also be a sliding scale.

Hector

I disagree
there were fewer theaters back in 1939, and a smaller US population

so that would have to factor too

and back under the studio system, they just slammed movies out left and right...

 

[defstartrooper]

What does it matter how much money a movie makes or how many tickets it sells ? a profit margin doesn't make a movie great.

 

[dbuck]

I agree that total ticket sales should be the standard by which we judge, but having the need for a scorecard that is ruled by the studios obvious incentive to make movies, the dollar, that is the only one reported on.

 

[agent5]

Here's one I just saw yesterday.
http://www.hollywood.com/feature/The_Real_Top_60_Films_of_All_Time/6645549

 

[dualedge]

I don't give much credence to ticket sales or profit earned anymore. If you adjust for inflation then it's Gone with the Wind. If you adjust for sheer amount of money earned, then it's Avatar. If you adjust for something else, it's another movie.

It's all kind of dumb and irrelevant to me these days. It just reinforces my opinion that it's best to just focus on what you like instead of trying to worry about categorizing everything or calculating success numerically.

It's ridiculous but then, that's life...

 

[Too Much Garlic]

People back then didn't go to movies as much as we do now... so comparing them is pretty stupid.

 

[Funky]

All-time movie grosses? That dood's head exploding in Scanners was pretty bad...

 

[tgreco]

What does it matter how much money a movie makes or how many tickets it sells ? a profit margin doesn't make a movie great.

maybe not, but hollywood has a "send in the clones" mentality

so they tend to repeat what makes money...

if nothing else, you can guage what the next few years will bring based on what makes money...

 

[Carson Dyle]

The assumptions we make about old numbers can be very iffy. Box Office Mojo, in particular, is operating with a very narrow set of numbers from before its opening a few years ago, none of which it compiled on its own.

Some guy from Australia did some research - what a concept! - and found some issues with Mojo's much repeated Adjusted Gross chart. He used the NYTimes search and found news stories from each time Gone With the Wind was in release. Not surprisingly, he found BOM's estimates of ticket sales to be problematic.

If you really want to understand why adjusted gross games and ticket sales guessing is a fool's errand go here.

You might also want to read this Time Magazine piece from 1940. While Mojo is estimating tickets sold at 23¢, the matinee price for the "Avatar of 1939" was 75¢.

 

[CTF]

Does inflation adjustment matter?

Nope.

Cos really, who cares what is the top grossing film?

Most of 'em are ass.

 

[darthgordon]

Household incomes have gone up with inflation... as have ticket prices. The numbers have changed, but people aren't technically any richer or poorer than they were 70 years ago... although it was the tail end of The Depression... No... given today's economy I stick by my previous statement.

Is it an impressive haul? Well of course it is. So was Titanic's... and Titanic was a ho hum movie.

Either way, studios don't care about whether or not a movie is good. They just want to see how much money it can rake in.

Besides, this is the A.D.D. generation. Movies sit in the theater for about a month or two and it's time for the studio to find the next blockbuster.

 

[Carson Dyle]

studios don't care about whether or not a movie is good. They just want to see how much money it can rake in.

Sometimes, but not always.

No one in Hollywood (or anywhere else) thought movies like Up in the Air, An Education, or The Hurt Locker would rake in a lot of money. Those pictures got made because people believed in them, and some of those people work for the studios.

I realize this fact contradicts the blanket "Hollywood sucks" fanboy mentality, but, honestly, if no one in Hollywood cared about making good movies we wouldn't have had a year like 2009. Qualitatively speaking, it's a pretty impressive crop.