Sunshine, Light, and Joy

 

This is a post that I've been thinking about for awhile. Recently, I opened up the discussion to other members of the staff to get their feelings on the matter, and their opinions generally matched mine, which is this:

Within the last year or so, there's been a steady increase of negative posts in movie threads. We've always had some heated discussions for some movies, but recently things have not only gotten more histrionic in those threads (generally speaking, the CBM ones), but they've started to spread to other franchises and other movies as well. I'm not talking about out-and-out trolling, I'm talking about members feeling they have to consistently shit on a movie (or studio, or star) simply because they aren't interested in the current project or projects. With every piece of news about a movie, it's now a virtual guarantee that there's a flood of people rushing to say they think it sucks, they don't like the current trailer/tv spot/actor/actress/director/concept. And I get it -- we all have movies we don't like, movies which we think are bad ideas, industry people that just don't appeal to us. But there's a fine line between expressing your opinion about this and doing it so often, with such consistency, that the collective emphasis of all of it basically brings down the entire thread and thus the entire forum.

There's no easy answer to this. We don't want to crush freedom of expression here. But at the same time, the spirit of this forum is for people to have fun talking about the movies they love and the box-office runs they love.

To have fun.

And while it may be fun -- in a sense -- to personally vent about a movie, or to vent at people who dare to enjoy something you don't, it doesn't bring fun to our community. In fact, it generally drags down the overall fun for everyone else. We've had people repeatedly mention to us over the last several months or so that in some cases they don't even bother going into some threads -- even for movies they're curious about! -- because they just don't want to deal with the overall mess those threads contain. And frankly, that matches the personal opinion of most of the staff as well.

So this post is both a request and a warning. 

The request: Next time you feel like taking a dump on a movie (or a topic) for the dozenth time, take a moment to consider whether it's really worth it. People probably already have a good idea of what your attitude about the project is. Maybe just put your posting energy into a movie that you enjoy and love or are excited about.

The warning: The staff is going to be taking a closer look at some of these threads and we'll be more active with temp thread-bans if we think it'll help the overall vibe of the forum. I'd rather we don't have to, but it's not going to constrain any of you too much if you aren't allowed to post about a movie you supposedly don't care about anyway.

Remember the words of Bill and Ted: "Be Excellent to Each Other".

They're just movies, guys. It's about having fun.

Welcome to The Box Office Theory — Forums

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

baumer

Putting International BO Numbers in Perspective

115 posts in this topic

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea how to figure out this ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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

No, Imageshack won't let me see the image unless if I register an account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

No, it's readable. It's just not very comfortable to read because it's just 253x208...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

So,UK: 6Russia: 7.5Oz: 10NZ: 60China: 4.5Spain: 8Anyone else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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

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.