Jump to content

Beginning on August 1, 2017 all free accounts will have the same avatar size as all paid accounts. This means you will be able to upload larger avatars on that day if you have a free account and this will no longer be a paid perk.

Stutterng baumer Denbrough

Putting International BO Numbers in Perspective

Recommended Posts

Rudolf    709

In some cases throughout the year when Australia gets a release one week before the US we can get a pretty accurate picture of where a film will fall.Narnia and Thor were big ones.

Australia and US seem to have very simlar tastes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rudolf    709

My suggestion is again to compare what the 15th most successful movie in the year for each country seperately (need not be the same movie) has grossed. Take this gross as the blockbuster gross for that country. To smooth artefacts I take the average over of the years 2009-2011 for each country. The factor then is the quotient DOM/countryThe table shows the gross of 15th movie in m$, the average and the factor 2011 2010 2009 av factorDOM 165.2 162.0 166.1 164.4 1.0AUS 17.2 15.8 14.0 15.7 10.5BRA 16.9 12.2 8.9 12.7 13.0Fra 24.8 27.2 21.7 24.6 6.7Ger 18.6 15.5 20.4 18.2 9.1Ita 14.4 15.4 14.7 14.8 11.1Jap 30.4 32.9 34.2 32.5 5.1Mex 13.0 13.9 8.8 11.9 13.8Rus 19.3 19.1 14.0 17.5 9.4SK 18.2 18.0 14.2 16.8 9.8Spa 13.3 12.5 14.2 13.3 12.3UK 28.9 23.2 31.1 27.7 5.9 In the last 3 years Brazil seems to have the strongest trend, followed by Mexico and Russia. I did not find data for China.</p>

Edited by Rudolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lab276    4,205

Why is this thread "pinned" by the way since it hardly delivers any traffic?

Pinned threads don't need traffic, this is just a useful thread designed to give meaning to international numbers for those who aren't in the know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rudolf    709

My suggestion is again to compare what the 15th most successful movie in the year for each country seperately (need not be the same movie) has grossed. Take this gross as the blockbuster gross for that country. To smooth artefacts I take the average over of the years 2009-2011 for each country. The factor then is the quotient DOM/country

The table shows the gross of 15th movie in mllion$, the average and the factor

Posted Image

In the last 3 years Brazil seems to have the strongest trend, followed by Mexico and Russia. I did not find data for China.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rudolf    709

I can see the image, but just on a small scale. The way it was posted. Can't enlarge it.

the original mage is 253x208Is the text unreadable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anaotchan    1

My suggestion is again to compare what the 15th most successful movie in the year for each country seperately (need not be the same movie) has grossed. Take this gross as the blockbuster gross for that country. To smooth artefacts I take the average over of the years 2009-2011 for each country. The factor then is the quotient DOM/country

If you look at the UK, your table seems pretty accurate. Charles Gant's method amounts to a factor of about 6.2 (depending on the exchange rate), and your factor is 5.9. Close enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
raniE    109

Right, taking Rudolf's suggestion and doing the calculations for Sweden, this is what I get.

Sweden 2009: $3,683,425

Sweden 2010: $3,658,521

Sweden 2011: $4,915,924

Average: $4,085,957

USA 2009: $166,112,167

USA 2010: $162,001,186

USA 2011: $165,249,063

Average: $164,454,139

Factor: 40.2

Taking the number one films from 2009-2011 and comparing them instead of the number fifteens gives a factor of 28.7. Quite a difference. Still, it gives a ballpark number of somewhere between 30 and 40.

Edited by raniE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
peludo    3,917

Right, taking Rudolf's suggestion and doing the calculations for Sweden, this is what I get.

Sweden 2009: $3,683,425

Sweden 2010: $3,658,521

Sweden 2011: $4,915,924

Average: $4,085,957

USA 2009: $166,112,167

USA 2010: $162,001,186

USA 2011: $165,249,063

Average: $164,454,139

Factor: 40.2

Taking the number one films from 2009-2011 and comparing them instead of the number fifteens gives a factor of 28.7. Quite a difference. Still, it gives a ballpark number of somewhere between 30 and 40.

If we multiply by 30 Swedish grosses (BOM numbers) of billion worldwide movies we have next:

Avatar - 665.61 million $

Titanic - 662.64

Avengers - 202.32

HP8 - 476.97

TF3 - 161.55

ROTK - 723.69

Pirates 2 - 426.84

Toy Story 3 - 173.07

Pirates 4 - 396.39

Phantom Menace - 222.42

Alice in Wonderland - 194.49

The Dark Knight - 219.96

But the biggest I have found is:

Mamma mia! - 751,77!!! (Of course, ABBA is a Swedish group but it's still amazing)

Edited by peludo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
peludo    3,917

So,

UK: 6

Russia: 7.5

Oz: 10

NZ: 60

China: 4.5

Spain: 8

Anyone else?

Spain 12.5 (100/8) I said 8 million is, more or less, like 100 in US, so factor is 12.5 (Rudolf says 12.3, so that it would be in that range)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
raniE    109

If we multiply by 30 Swedish grosses (BOM numbers) of billion worldwide movies we have next:Avatar - 665.61 million $Titanic - 662.64Avengers - 202.32HP8 - 476.97TF3 - 161.55ROTK - 723,69Pirates 2 - 426.84Toy Story 3 - 173.07Pirates 4 - 396.39Phantom Menace - 222.42Alice in Wonderland - 194.49The Dark Knight - 219.96But the biggest I have found is:Mamma mia! - 751,77!!! (Of course, ABBA is a Swedish group but it's still amazing)

Mamma Mia destroyed the Swedish Box office in 2008. It made almost three times as much money as the second highest grossing film that year (Quantum of Solace), and made more than three times as much money as the third highest grosser (Dark Knight). Of course, Mamma Mia was huge elsewehere as well. It made a bit over 132 million dollars in the UK. Taking Rudolf's suggested conversion factor of 5,9, that would be the equivalent of over 780 million dollars in the US.Of course, if you take the 40.2 conversion factor for the Swedish numbers derived using the same method that got the UK numbers, Mamma Mia's success in Sweden is the equivalent of 1.007 billion dollars.Mamma Mia, here I go again, my my, how can I resist you. Mamma Mia, does it show again, just how much I missed you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
peludo    3,917

Mamma Mia destroyed the Swedish Box office in 2008. It made almost three times as much money as the second highest grossing film that year (Quantum of Solace), and made more than three times as much money as the third highest grosser (Dark Knight). Of course, Mamma Mia was huge elsewehere as well. It made a bit over 132 million dollars in the UK. Taking Rudolf's suggested conversion factor of 5,9, that would be the equivalent of over 780 million dollars in the US.Of course, if you take the 40.2 conversion factor for the Swedish numbers derived using the same method that got the UK numbers, Mamma Mia's success in Sweden is the equivalent of 1.007 billion dollars.Mamma Mia, here I go again, my my, how can I resist you. Mamma Mia, does it show again, just how much I missed you?

Yes, but I see ROTK did nearly the same amount in dollars in 2003 (5 years earlier than Mamma mia!):ROTK - 24.1 millionMamma mia! - 25.059 millionI suspect ROTK had more admissions than Mamma mia!. Exchange rate was higher in 2008 than 2003 (0.15 vs 0.13, 15%), and I suppose prices would be higher too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rudolf    709

Right, taking Rudolf's suggestion and doing the calculations for Sweden, this is what I get.

Sweden 2009: $3,683,425

Sweden 2010: $3,658,521

Sweden 2011: $4,915,924

Average: $4,085,957

USA 2009: $166,112,167

USA 2010: $162,001,186

USA 2011: $165,249,063

Average: $164,454,139

Factor: 40.2

Taking the number one films from 2009-2011 and comparing them instead of the number fifteens gives a factor of 28.7. Quite a difference. Still, it gives a ballpark number of somewhere between 30 and 40.

The reason I sugest taking the number 15th movie and not the the first is to make it less susceptible to statistical outliers. For instance in 2009 AVATAR was a total outlier, meaning in it underperformed DOM, so you get smaller factors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.