Broshnat
-
Posts
39 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Annual Subscriptions
Media Demo
Posts posted by Broshnat
-
-
Right, I've tried to assemble all of the various data from different sources and produced this:
Rentals, Gross and estimated Admissions.
The items in yellow are figures that are confirmed in some of the posts already in this thread and elsewhere.
The years represent the re-release version rather than the year of gross which is important (and may be the source of a lot of the missing data). For example - the big release in 1967 was actually still showing through 68, 69, 70, 71 and the same would have been true of earlier releases.
A lot of data conflicts (which isn't surprising given lack of accurate tracking etc) so I have often interpolated or estimated where there are gaps etc and tried to fit all of the data together so it works. Ticket prices have been averaged from various sources - the ones in green are the roadshow-dominated runs in which average prices would have been much higher.
Let me know any thoughts - I get the total admissions to around 210m - which is in line with what has been used elsewhere and certainly more than the ~150m that some people try to estimate down to.
Some of the sources used for this information:
https://www.ultimatemovierankings.com/gone-with-the-wind-1939/
https://www.ultimatemovierankings.com/top-100-time-box-office-hits-1966/https://www.filmsranked.com/box-office-record-history-domestic/
1957:
Top movies by rentals as of Dec 1959.
As of Dec 1967
As of Dec 1969
As of Dec 1973
-
2
-
-
On 6/22/2020 at 4:41 PM, charlie Jatinder said:
As per Corpse, GWTW had 3.4mn admits. 190mn Yen would be $0.6mn Approx.
This is just the initial release though in 1952.
Gone with the Wind - 1952 - ¥190m - 3.46m
Gone with the Wind - 1961 - ¥276m - 3.25mn
Gone with the Wind - 1967 - ¥454m - 1.92mn
Gone with the Wind - 1972 - ¥285m - 0.69mn
So that is at least 9.3m admissions in Japan just in the four years that it was in the top 10 yearly chart.
-
2
-
-
23 minutes ago, A Panda of Ice and Fire said:
I’m done with this conversation because you don’t seem to have any grasp of what you’re talking about when it comes to supply and demand.
I understand supply and demand I just don't see how:
- It is relevant to a discussion about using admissions to compare box office performance as broadly the same supply and demand conditions apply now as they did 50 years ago.
- It is really that relevant at all in terms of how many people go to see a blockbuster movie.
I saw Titanic 5 times back in 1998 and the amount of seats available, ticket price or any other kind of "movie industry structure" had no relevance - only how much I wanted to see the movie. And I would say the same is true of Endgame.
Supply and demand curves in the traditional economic sense aren't really relevant to this argument as the price is basically fixed relative to income and the supply of available seats far outweighs the demand in all but the most extreme circumstances.
If there was only one showing of a movie per day and relative ticket price was $100+ in one decade compared to thousands of showings and tickets at $1 in another decade then of course a direct comparison of admissions wouldn't be valid as the conditions are so drastically different - but that isn't really the case here.
-
1
-
3 hours ago, A Panda of Ice and Fire said:
No lmao, that's not what I said or the article said at all.
That is what you are implying.
That the ticket price is affected by supply and demand curves - which really isn't the case.
People will go and watch Endgame tonight because they want to - whether the ticket price was $8 or $10 I really don't think it would affect the number of people attending.
Then, apart from the rare occasions when a screening is completely sold out, supply is effectively infinite. If you live anywhere in the world today and want to watch Endgame you can.
Therefore, the amount of people who go to see the film today is pretty much solely a function of the demand for that movie - the number of screenings, amount of seats per screen, ticket price etc are all, within reason, largely irrelevant and the same was true 20 years ago with Titanic and 40 years ago with Jaws.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, A Panda of Ice and Fire said:
Supply is not infinite in theatrical market, supply is fixed. There are a set amount of seats available in a single showing before that showing sells out, simply it'd be the goal of the theater to sell out these screens at the highest price they can get away with.
This is a nice, easy to read publication that gives a general rundown of theatrical markets.
They have a good description of what goes into the Demand aspect of a film on a given day
"When looking at the supply and demand market for motion pictures, one has to realize that it is unlike most markets. Price is fixed for each movie in a theater for those of the same age and for those wanting to see a movie during the same time of day. Changes in price do not have to be considered because there will simply not be any. Supply can be considered fixed as well. There are only so many movie theater seats in the United States and more will not be built with the excitement of a new movie coming out. Since price and supply are generally fixed, the only variation one can witness is in the location of the demand curve. A visual representation of this unique supply and demand model can be seen in Figure 1.
Total revenue is calculated by figuring the product of price and quantity of tickets sold, in this case Fixed Price and QS. This model suggests a shortage of movie tickets for a particular film at a particular show-time. At the ticket price, more tickets are demanded than seats are available at the theater, resulting in a shortage. While no movie theaters, or production companies for that matter, want to lose potential customers, it is a good sign when the demand for a particular show is so high.
Several variables can influence the location of the demand curve such as the price of complementary goods, the price of substitute goods, and popular attitudes or trends in society (Mankiw, 2009). Complementary goods to movies are popcorn, soda, and candy, but the relationship is not necessarily reciprocal. The prices of popcorn, soda, and candy will not have a major impact on the demand for movies, so complementary goods will not be included in this study. Substitute goods are other movies at the same theater, but their price will be the same as all of the other movies, so prices of substitute goods will also not be included in this study. Popular trends and attitudes determine whether a film will be successful or not. Famous actors/actresses, advertising, genre, rating, special effects quality, and professional reviews affect popular attitudes towards a particular movie and each can shift the demand curve either favorably or adversely. Seasonality of a film can also impact success at the box-office.
During the summer months and the weeks leading up to Christmas, children are home from school and typically go to the movies in order to pass the time. Also, movie theaters seem to be some of a handful of places open during national holidays and many families partake in a film on those days. How much of an effect each variable has on consumer demand remains to be seen."Some things to note in Topf's description is that it's looking at a given day inside the theater, so long term theatrical prices are obviously not fixed, and can be changed based on the overall market demand for movies (while this is looking at demand of a specific film in a specific theater). But the model helps you to see that if the price changes, you can reduce/increase the quantity demanded (admissions number for the film) without actually changing the demand (think popularity) of that given film.
The article is a rather simplistic take on it all, but I think it helps to demonstrate the point being made on why admissions quantity being higher wouldn't necessarily mean the actual demand (or popularity) of that film being higher.
So you are saying that a movie theatre will constantly change the admission price for each movie on an hourly basis based on the real time demand?
Maybe it is different where I am but the ticket price at my local theatre is the same for every movie at every showing any time this week.
-
28 minutes ago, A Panda of Ice and Fire said:
I’m just frustrated because the argument could be settled by opening a principles of Econ textbook and reading the chapters on supply and demand.
By saying quantity of admissions is the best measure to look at popularity you have the entire idea backwards
Maybe I'm missing something here.
Supply is essentially infinite - you can go into any movie theatre now and watch Endgame.
So, assuming a constant ticket price (which is a fair assumption), the amount of tickets sold is proportional to the demand.
As Barnack states above - ticket prices relative to income have been remarkably consistent over the years (even back to the 40s) and is also fairly consistent from country to country.
-
13 minutes ago, A Panda of Ice and Fire said:
1. Absolute gross does support Jaws if you look at what it made relative to everything else released around its time. And it’s a much better metric to use than looking at pure attendance. You can compare Deadpool to movies around its time and realize it clearly did not dominate in the same way.
2. Ummm no, you still do not show that you’re grasping any of the fundamentals of how price works
3. You’re ignoring everything I said before with that point but okay. And I was more referring to GOTW with that point but regardless, the film chosen doesn’t effect the overall point
4-6. The point is that market conditions for theater tickets are much different now than in the 70s, e.g. theater structures, length of time a film is in theaters, available substitutes for seeing a film in theaters, but yes be obtuse about it.
7. Gut feelings = out of my butt random guess
I think you are just splitting hairs now to be honest to be awkward!
Using admissions figures is basically "comparing to everything else released at the same time" but then also comparing that to what was released at other times using the most absolute measure that is available - that generally doesn't change much over time - ticket price.
You seem to be hung up on the idea that ticket price relative to inflation has massively increased over the years, making people less likely now to see a movie because it is relatively "more expensive" - which isn't the case. -
5 minutes ago, A Panda of Ice and Fire said:
1. The Deadpool vs Jaws comparison is dumb because Jaws was a phenomena during its time and Deadpool was simply a big hit. That’s obvious and you don’t need to look at admissions or adjusted figures to know Jaws was the bigger deal.
2. Higher Quantity Sold =\= More Popular, already explained that
3. I already mentioned the flaws of comparing movies in different time go beyond inflation rates. You can observe for yourself ticket prices do not necessarily follow the annual inflation rate, as inflation is not the only determinant of a good’s price
4. If you want to keep records of admissions that’s fine, I’m not arguing against that. I’m saying it’s a poor method to compare to BO phenomena popularity from different time periods.
5. Admissions is a poorer metric of comparison than dollar gross. Adjusting for just inflation (not ticket price inflation) movies are relatively more expensive, or they take more purchasing power than they did in the past, looking at admissions would assume an equivalent price (as well as equivalent substitutes, which are factors in price and quantity sold) between the two films which simply isn’t true.
6. I understand it’s very problematic to adjust WW numbers, that’s what I’ve been saying the entire weekend when people were talking about “adjusted WW numbers”. My argument is that using “adjusted WW numbers” or admissions will not likely provide that accurate of a measure to compare two movie phenomena’s popularity in their time
7. You can think a film like Titanic would end up in the same place in 1940 all you want but there’s no way to prove that. Titanic reflected a particular moment in culture and was made for the theatrical market in the 90s. Saying that’d translate the same over to the 40s or over to Now is foolish and unprovable (the same could be said for any movie, I’m only using Titanic as an example because you brought it up).
- It's dumb because it proves my point? Jaws was a phenomena as you say and the admissions figures support that while the absolute gross doesn't because ticket prices are now, on average, nearly 5 times more.
- Only if the price is wildly different, which it isn't in relative terms.
- Tickets prices vs inflation are not that far out. Average ticket price in 1975 was $2.05. Via inflation, that is equivalent to $9.57 in 2018. Average ticket price in 2018 was $9.11. I don't think I'd have been any more or less likely in 1975 to see a movie at an equivalent price of $9.57 than I would last year at $9.11 so I would certainly be happy with the assumption that more tickets sold = more popular.
- I don't agree as highlighted above.
- See point 3 - in fact tickets were relatively more expensive in 1975 than they are now.
- Admissions takes out the ER issues in adjusting worldwide numbers.
- I know there is no way to prove this last point, it is just a gut feeling based on many years of research and analysis.
-
1
-
2 hours ago, A Panda of Ice and Fire said:
Saying something is in higher demand than something else because it sold a higher quantity is a fundamental misunderstanding of how demand works.
I'm merely stating which movie sold the most tickets and was therefore "more popular".
2 hours ago, A Panda of Ice and Fire said:You aren’t going to arrive at a believable answer when trying to figure out if GOTW or Titanic or whatever was the more popular phenomenon. The only thing for certain was that they were phenomena that dominates the BO at their respective times.
I'm not sure I really get your point.
- We are on a box office forum and people like to compare the box office figures of one film to another.
- The standard way to do this (in the USA primarily) is based on US$ gross - which is reasonable when comparing one film to another released within a couple of years but due to inflation falls down when comparing over longer periods.
- Most of Europe reports admissions and has all-time charts based on admissions, as does a number of other regions.
In your original reply, you stated that comparing the box office performance based on admissions is an "even poorer" way of doing it - I assume you mean even poorer than comparing the dollar gross and I really don't understand how anybody could come to that conclusion.
In 1975, Jaws sold 125m tickets in North America at ~$2 per ticket and grossed $260m.
In 2018, Deadpool 2 sold 35m tickets in NA at ~$9 per ticket to gross $320m.
Are you saying that comparing the popularity of the two movies based on their dollar gross makes more sense than admissions?
2 hours ago, A Panda of Ice and Fire said:You also absolutely can make a comparison between two movies within the same general timeframe, as major factors such as inflation, exchange rates, theater cost structures, market expansions etc. are remaining relatively similar (although obviously constantly changing). You could also make comparisons across decades such as with the original Batman movie to Endgame, Endgame has obviously made a bigger splash in the market than that one, just look at the margin at which Endgame broke the OW and the fact it’ll make a push for #1 all time while Batman didn’t.
And saying “most arguments cancel out because TLK/JP/Titanic go re-releases!” completely misses the point as why using admissions as a measure to compare movies from different decades is about as flawed as the whole “adjustment” comparisons.
The point about comparing movies released in the same timeframe is that any type of comparison will have its flaws!
There are even variables here that make a direct comparison difficult - time of year the movie was released (summer, Christmas etc), competition from other movies released at the same time, 3D / Imax / matinee showings affecting ticket prices, ER fluctuations (which can be huge even over a few months, especially in Latin American countries) and so on. Plus simply how much marketing the distributor has done and how effective it was. Especially in modern times, a movie will live or die on the opening weekend so it is all about marketing and promotion. In decades gone by, a movie could do well over many months or even years due to good word of mouth. The overall point here is that you could argue that comparing the US$ box office of two movies released 6 months apart isn't a completely apples to apples comparison in terms of absolute popularity either. Comparing over larger timeframes - I'm not saying that admissions is a perfectly representative comparison that has no issues but it is the best we will ever have and many times more informative than just comparing the US$ gross.
The point about cancelling out is that there are plenty of arguments for and against but I do feel that overall it seems to balance out quite well. Had Titanic been released in 1940 it probably wouldn't have sold as many tickets on the initial run (as the US population for example was 130m vs 273m in 1997) and it would have been over a couple of years rather than 6 months. The movie would likely have been re-released multiple times and built up a gross over a number of decades. I don't believe the total admissions would be much different to the 135m it is on now. Likewise if the movie had been released in 1970, 1980 or now - I think overall it would have ended up around the same place - just a different route to get there.-
1
-
19 minutes ago, A Panda of Ice and Fire said:
Admissions is still a poor comparison point, actually even more poor imo.
Quantity of tickets sold being higher doesn’t make a movie more popular or in higher demand. It completely ignores different market structures and factors that are at least somewhat factored into ticket price levels. For example, GOTW was released at a time with respectively cheaper tickets than today because today there’s more of a push to sell fewer, higher priced premium seats and films are in theaters for a far shorter amount of time.
Then, you still have to deal with the fact that depending on the time frame certain markets are going to be at completely different levels of development and size. You could say “GOTW was non-existent in the East”, but that blatantly ignores that many of the Eastern theater markets only recently started growing (example China, which really started taking off around 2011-2012, right when Avengers was released).
And I’d be curious to know how accurate admissions data even is.
The overall idea of trying to compare two phenomenas from entirely different time periods and state which one was bigger is flawed imo.
Even more poor than what?
If anybody would like to compare films from different time periods (and as you say there are flaws in doing so) - I don't see a better way than adding up how many people went to see that movie.
Most arguments tend to cancel out - people like to ignore GWTW as it was re-released over 50 years in the days before video and that seems somehow "unfair" but to counter that - the population in the USA in 1939 was less than half of what it is now and some of the re-releases (such as the big one in 1967) consisted of a major re-master of the film to 70mm. Recent movies such as Lion King, Titanic and Jurassic Park have had fairly successful re-releases due to 3D or anniversaries, despite the availability on DVD, BluRay, Netflix etc - in some ways I'd say that drawing people back into a cinema 20-30 years later to spend another $5-10 to watch an old film is a hell of an achievement.
As is clear in the table - modern films benefit enormously from admissions in Asia and Latin America compared to 20+ years ago but again there is no method to really account for this - if you take the gross or adjusted gross you have the same issue but also add into the mix exchange rate fluctuations and local inflation differences which add further complexity. Admissions, to some extent, normalises these things.
Any comparison will be flawed - even between two movies released this year as they appeal to different markets, different age groups, different ticket prices, release windows and so on! I guess we just have the make the best of what we have and try to make the fairest comparisons we can.Such is the nature of box office analysis.
-
4
-
1
-
-
23 minutes ago, Charlie Jatinder said:
Just if you like to add
India
Titanic 24mn
Endgame 20mn (full run 25mn)
IW 17mn
Avatar 10mn
China
Titanic: not sure about initial run but 3D would be around 20mn
Avatar: 30mn
IW: 60mn
Endgame: 78mn (full run 85mn)
TFA: ~20mn
Also NA Avatar is around 70mn.
I have China in there (CN about halfway across) but am in the process of adding India as it is the next largest market currently missing on there.
Clearly there are a lot of smaller markets missing which will help to round everything out if that information ever becomes available.
-
32 minutes ago, DeeCee said:
It’s hard enough adjusting the Domestic gross of films as old as GWTW let alone attempting worldwide.
Well I like to use admissions as the fairest method to compare movies across the last 100 years - no method is perfect but it takes care of things like exchange rates and ticket price inflation.
-
5
-
-
This is about as definitive a list as I can find anywhere:
YEAR
RELEASE
TICKETS
1939
First Run
1
11
61.521.739
1941
Re-Issue
1
5
23.000.000
1942
Re-Issue
4
5.629.630
1947
Re-Issue
5
20.080.000
1954
Re-Issue
2
23.426.667
1961
Re-Issue
1
2
19.420.290
1967
Re-Issue
1
10
48.701.667
1974
Re-Issue
3
7.785.027
1989
Re-Issue
605.369
1998
Re-Issue
1.439.256
Total:
211.609.645
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, Charlie Jatinder said:
Top Hollywood admits in China
1. Fate of the Furious: 71.9mn
2. Endgame: 61.1mn (till yesterday) + 3.5mn so far today
3. Furious 7: 62.3mn
Endgame shall hit 90mn.
Is the ticket price much higher for Endgame than the Furious movies then?
-
Hi everyone.
I'm trying to gather as much all-time admissions data as I can from the main regions around the world.
Argentina is one of those countries in which I have yet to be able to find a definitive list of the all-time top movies by admissions.
IMDB archives has data for some old movies but again there are blanks:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170307230543/http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059742/businesshttps://web.archive.org/web/20040623201939/http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068646/business
Data I have managed to assemble so far for Argentina for pre 1995 movies:
3.97m - Home Alone
3.72m - The Godfather
3.65m - The Sound of Music1.87m - Snow White
1.86m - The Lion King
1.79m - The Jungle Book
1.02m - The Exorcist
Does anybody have access to a comprehensive list that they could share? -
On 12/30/2018 at 4:49 PM, newbie BO buff said:
Do you have this list by admissions?
-
54 minutes ago, cdsacken said:
I don't understand the Infinity War love. I understand why they did it and I understand that people love nonstop action. But nearly the entire time I watched it always expecting something bad to happen which did. Did felt like deathly hallows part 1 to me. Depressing moody and incomplete.
I mean Jesus I was happier after the end of venom and he eats people.
Infinity war is all about Thanos - you follow most of the movie through his eyes and connect with him as a character.
That is why the movie is so different and groundbreaking. Even though you have invested so much time with all of the heroes, by the end of the film you almost want Thanos to win because he is such a compelling character who believes that what he is doing is for the greater good of the universe and even makes his own sacrifices to achieve his goal.
He is relentless and determined and by the end of the movie you are almost willing him on to collect the final couple of stones - which he does. If you watch the movie from his point of view then it is a proper ending and a satisfying (although hollow) one.
-
4
-
-
Do you have 101 - 200 or beyond?
-
16 minutes ago, FantasticBeasts said:
This should help
1) Titanic 111,420,225
2) Avatar 89,868,084
3) The Lord of The Rings The Fellowship of The Ring 61,260,314
4) Harry Potter The Sorcerers Stone 60,577,911
5) The Lord of The Rings The Return Of The King 55,704,577
6) The Lord of The Rings The Two Towers 55,605,106
7) Harry Potter The Chamber of Secrets 52,801,837
8) Minions 49,936,572
9) Skyfall 49,651,063
10) Star Wars The Phantom Menace 48,410,316
11) Finding Nemo 46,479,045
12) Star Wars The Force Awakens 46,041,650 *
13) The Pirates of The Carribean Dead Man's Chest 45,005,547
14) Shrek 2 44,617,053
15) Harry Potter The Deathly Hallows 2 44,483,733
16) Harry Potter The Goblet of Fire 44,402,966
17) Ice Age The Dawn of The Dinosaurs 3,748,747
18) Spectre 43,188,000
19) Ice Age Continental Drift 42,847,191
20) Independence Day 42,595,682Yes I have seen that list - shame there is nothing from pre 1996?
-
26 minutes ago, Noctis said:
Good luck, but your list isn't close to accurate. The fact that you're missing HP1 and HP2 is glaring. HP4 and HP8 also sold a shitload of admissions worldwide.
-
4
-
4
-
1
-
-
Hi everyone
This is a work-in-progress thread - I am attempting to collect a list of the top movies of all-time globally based on admissions but as you can imagine there are a lot of gaps!
I wanted to share my progress so far and ask for help in filling in some of the blanks. I have focused on the major regions to begin with and would like to start on others such as the rest of Europe, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Chile and so on.
-
11
-
1
-
-
37 minutes ago, Proxima Olive said:
Yeah, I have everything.
Can you PM me? I am trying to assemble a list of the top movies worldwide by admissions so the data would come in very useful..
-
On 08/12/2017 at 12:41 AM, Proxima Olive said:
Rank Movie Ttitle Gross(￥) Gross($) Admissions Country Year #1 Wolf Worrior 2 ￥5,682.4 $844.3 159.41 CHN/HK 2017 #2 The Mermaid ￥3,392.1 $518.7 92.43 CHN/HK 2016 #3 Fate of the Furious ￥2,670.9 $388.2 72.88 USA 2017 #4 Monster Hunt ￥2,439.5 $392.8 65.63 CHN 2015 #5 Furious 7 ￥2,426.6 $391.4 62.44 USA 2015 #6 Never Say Die ￥2,206.3 $331.8 65.84 CHN 2017 #7 Transformers IV ￥1,977.6 $315.9 47.41 USA 2014 #8 Kung Fu Yoga ￥1,752.6 $254.7 45.91 CHN 2017 #9 Mojin:The Lost Legend ￥1,682.1 $259.6 46.48 CHN 2015 10 JTTW: The Demons Strike Back ￥1,655.9 $240.7 42.29 CHN 2017 11 Lost in HK ￥1,613.4 $252.9 49.12 CHN 2015 12 Transformers: The Last Knight ￥1,551.2 $227.1 42.00 USA 2017 13 Zootopia ￥1,530.3 $236.5 45.48 USA 2016 14 Warcraft ￥1,466.9 $224.0 39.71 USA 2016 15 Avengers:Ageof Ultron ￥1,464.4 $235.8 36.60 USA 2015 16 Goodbye Mr. Loser ￥1,441.5 $226.6 44.77 CHN 2015 17 Jurrasic World ￥1,420.7 $229.1 37.10 USA 2015 18 Avatar ￥1,382.0 $202.6 26.92 USA 2010 19 Dangal ￥1,299.1 $188.3 43.20 IND 2017 20 Lost in Thailand ￥1,268.1 $204.2 39.27 CHN 2012 21 Journey to the West ￥1,247.0 $199.8 31.05 CHN/HK 2013 22 Captain America: Civil War ￥1,245.6 $191.6 35.62 USA 2016 23 The Monkey King 2 ￥1,200.8 $183.6 32.75 CHN 2016 24 Operation Meikong ￥1,182.9 $177.3 38.94 CHN 2017 25 POTC5: Dead Men Tell No Tales ￥1,179.9 $172.2 32.95 USA 2017 26 The Great Wall ￥1,173.0 $168.8 33.41 USA 2016 27 Breakup Buddies ￥1,170.0 $190.2 33.98 CHN 2014 28 Jian Bing Man ￥1,160.2 $186.8 35.58 CHN 2015 29 Kong: Skull Island ￥1,160.5 $168.7 33.01 USA 2017 30 xXx: Return of Cage ￥1,127.5 $163.9 31.13 USA 2017 31 The Man From Macau 3 ￥1,117.8 $170.9 31.37 CHN 2016 32 Resident Evil: The Final Chapter ￥1,111.9 $168.7 32.05 USA 2017 33 Transformers III ￥1,071.6 $166.1 25.64 USA 2011 34 The Monkey King ￥1,045.6 $171.4 28.87 CHN/HK 2014 35 Duckweed ￥1,048.5 $152.4 24.94 CHN 2017 36 Despicable Me 3 ￥1,037.8 $168.7 30.47 USA 2017 37 The Time Raiders ￥1,004.1 $151.0 28.52 CHN 2016 38 Kung Fu Panda 3 ￥1,001.8 $154.4 28.14 CHN/US 2016 39 The Jungle Book ￥978.9 $150.6 29.21 USA 2016 40 The Man From Macau Ⅱ ￥974.7 $155.7 24.85 CHN/HK 2015 Do you have anything beyond a top 40?
-
19 minutes ago, Purple Minion said:
The "nuevo peso" (with the last 3 zeros removed) was introduced in 1993 with an ER of about 3, so a high US gross that year didn't necessarily reflect a high LC gross. Due to that, I still think admissions are a better barometer of a film's popularity overseas.
By the way, with that ER, Coco would have earned over $300M!!!!
Yes when comparing movies, I always prefer to look at admissions as I think it is a fairest comparison as you take out the influence of exchange rates and inflation.
I have never seen any older admissions data for Mexico. I know that Jaws, for example, is listed as having 13m admissions in Brazil and Titanic 17.7m and assumed that the figures in Mexico would have been similar.
Gone With the Wind (1939) Box Office:20 million Tickets Sold in the First Year.
in Classic Box Office Runs
Posted
The initial release and 1967 release were major "roadshow" releases in which the ticket prices were generally much higher than normal.
I don't think there is any particular evidence that the ticket price was any higher than average during the other runs?