That isn’t necessarily true. In small towns with fewer theaters, there was a new movie *a day* or every other day — since studios produced and released so many movies in decades past.

In major cities they played for a long time in large part because movies didn’t open in 3,000 screens around the country. They were lucky if they opened in 30 — or even 13.

Often, big movies opened at one or two theaters. And played at those two for months at top prices.

>>>>>>>>If you’re just interested in how many people attend, that’s fine, but there are so many issues that skew things one way or the other…..re-release is another issue which is commonly brought into this argument.

I couldn’t agree with you more. All of that must be taken into consideration.

>>>>>>>>>When I look at the list of adjusted for inflation, it doesn’t make sense to me that virtually all of them are older pictures.

But since people used to go to the movies much more often, that should make sense, no? Many more tickets were sold.

Even so, at least partly because of population increases, there are lots and lots of movies made in the last 10 or 20 years that are among the top 100 movies on Box Office Mojo’s inflation-adjusted chart:

18 movies made after 2000; 16 between 1990 and 1999.

That’s 34 movies out of 100, or more than 1/3 in only two decades — when blockbusters have been around since at least “The Birth of a Nation” in the early 1910s.

The 1940s, Hollywood’s most successful decade at the box office — in terms of tickets sold — have only 7 movies on the chart, most of which are Disney features that had multiple rereleases.

The 1950s have 10 movies, including a couple of Disney cartoons with multiple rereleases. The 1930s have only 2, both — GWTW and “Snow White” — with multiple rereleases.

So, no, the inflation-adjusted box-office chart isn’t at all “skewed” toward older movies. Though movies that have had multiple rereleases are at an advantage.

(This whole thing is an interesting idea for a post!)

>>>>>>After all of this, they still look like apples and oranges to me.

I see what you mean, but I don’t quite agree. Could we be comparing apples and apples or oranges and oranges — but in different climates and terrains??

Thanks for taking the time to express your thoughts.

I’m guessing movies played a lot longer precisely because there weren’t as many options. According to my mother EVERYBODY went to the movies in her day because that was the thing to do. I still don’t think it’s that way so much anymore. In any case, inflation doesn’t really work. I wonder how percentage of disposable income has changed. The effect of access to credit cards, internet booking, etc. Some help put people in seats now and some don’t. If you’re just interested in how many people attend, that’s fine, but there are so many issues that skew things one way or the other…..re-release is another issue which is commonly brought into this argument.

When I look at the list of adjusted for inflation, it doesn’t make sense to me that virtually all of them are older pictures. It tells me something is amiss. I probably look at those numbers skeptically because of my background in statistical analysis (I used to teach it at the University of California) and the list looks skewed. If adjusted for inflation was a good indice, there would be more balance to it, but that’s coming at things from an entirely different perspective. After all of this, they still look like apples and oranges to me.

I see your point, and I’ve read this a # of times before. I’m not sure that is correct, though. The culture *has* changed, that’s a given. But people had a number of options in the past as well.

In fact, movies had LOTS of competition from one another. Hollywood studios released major productions much more often than they do now. Just about every week there were not one or two, but four or five or six A-grade movies coming out. Major stars often appeared in three, four, five movies per year.

So, even though there was no TV until the late 40s and no Internet or DVDs until the mid 90s, there was lots of competition *at the movies*.

It’s a harmless enough exercise you’re going through and it’s clear the PR is a bunch of $#!^, but # of people is no more interesting than total dollars. I think there are dozens of reasons people used to go to the movies more. It was pretty much the only pony in town compared to now. We have a home theater system with a 10 foot screen, surround sound, 1080p, etc. and can purchase just about anything we want. My son has an X Box, a big screen TV in his bedroom and well as a 23″ Mac. There’s more movies coming out on a weekly basis and so on. People may still go to the movies, but it ain’t the same. At least you realize the per person attendance for a movie like Avatar gets driven down by “premium” prices.

Not dumb at all. Actually, that would be very interesting. The problem is that that sort of data is mostly unavailable or very hard to find.

That’s what “inflation-adjusted” charts do. They show you figures adjusted for inflation so you can have a better idea of the actual ranking of a film in terms of tickets sold. Since we don’t have the actual numbers, the inflation-adjusted chart is the best way to put a film’s box-office success in that sort of perspective.

>>>>>>>>If you want to try and estmate # of peole who have seen a movie, that’s fine, but it’s a very, very limited perspective.

I disagree with you there. If that’s the case, then box-office charts shouldn’t exist, because *they* also present a very limited perspective.

>>>>>>The whole point is that EVERYTHING is so much different today than it was 10, 20. etc. years ago. This is why I don’t believe comparisons are valuable. The times they are a changin.

True, but some things remain the same. People still go to the movies.

All we’re doing is attempting to dig beneath the “all-time box-office champ” p.r. blitz by presenting a different — though certainly not the *only* — way of looking at a film’s box-office take.

In our view, “inflation-adjusted” box-office charts or charts that present the # of tickets a movie has sold are much more reliable than those that only present inflated box-office figures.

And remember: In “Avatar’s” case it’s not just the 3D effect. It’s also the fact that due to inflation *everything* (including movie tickets) costs (or seems to cost) more than before. (Just like people may think they’re making more money — though since their money has been devalued that may not necessarily be the case.)

Also, why aren’t we comparing “GWTW” and “Avatar” global revenues? Because it’s dumb…..too much change for any comparison to make sense.

> What we’ve tried to do here is estimate “Avatar’s” position on the all-time box-office ranking based on the # of tickets sold. That’s it.

It sure doesn’t look that way to me. I keep reading about “adjusted for inflation” this movie made more money that that one…etc.

If you want to try and estmate # of peole who have seen a movie, that’s fine, but it’s a very, very limited perspective. As I said, higher IMX/3D prices DISCOURAGES people from seeing Avatar (not that a lot haven’t seen it over and over) so it’s not really a fair comparison. The whole point is that EVERYTHING is so much different today than it was 10, 20. etc. years ago. This is why I don’t believe comparisons are valuable. The times they are a changin.

Yes, you can. In many countries they use # of tickets sold to calculate a movie’s popularity or success. In Hollywood, they use inflatable box-office figures. What we’ve tried to do here is estimate “Avatar’s” position on the all-time box-office ranking based on the # of tickets sold. That’s it.

>>>>>>>>For example, I could say that the additional surcharge for 3D has hurt Avatar’s box office both in terms of number of people (as it surely has) AND the overall revenue because IF YOU CHARGE LESS FOR A SEAT, MORE PEOPLE WILL ATTEND. Can anyone say for sure that the more expensive 3D/IMAX tickets maximizes the overall income?

Yes. That’s logic. If 100 people pay $10 to see a movie and 51 people pay $20 to see another, the one that costs $20 will show a higher income even though way fewer people saw it.

>>>>>>>>>People should stop these silly discussions. Movies are going to continue to be made in different economic/social/technical eras and you can’t bring them into line with each other. Why the obsession with #1?

I don’t think they’re silly. I think it’s good to attempt to put things in perspective. The obsession with #1 comes from the studios and the news sources that publish their tales without attempting to see them within context, whether historical or financial.

People should stop these silly discussions. Movies are going to continue to be made in different economic/social/technical eras and you can’t bring them into line with each other. Why the obsession with #1?