Barnack

I think it is implicitly and read by everyone has the average cost by episode, that would not be misreporting to say that a say 100m budget season of 10 episode was 10m by episode. (Maybe I am misreading what you mean)

That what I understood, I wonder how true are those cost rumors and if they are how do they manage the rumored actor salary in there (maybe those take into account residual payment and are not their actual salary too) For example Big Bang theory despite being pretty much free to make and shoot cost raised to about 9-10M in episode because of salary going up over time. Here they have it at $15M: http://mentalfloss.com/article/559417/most-expensive-tv-shows-ever-made-game-of-thrones-the-crown and not lower than some Netflix show, that make more sense to me.

That make a season of GOT cheaper than a NCIS, Preacher season 3 was 7m by episode for an example of show with SFX. Either those budget rumor for GOT are not true, do not include seasons cost and just below the line for the episode, those actor salary rumors are quite false. With many actor supposedly making 500k by episode they appear in, keeping the budget at 10m the episode is quite something. In the first season at least the CGI are quite below what was done in movies and there is a lot of cheap people talking in the same room scene to cut cost, so maybe that how they save so much money.

Must be really wanting those mother day + Memorial weekends legs, nice windows for a nice total if your movie work during that time frame I imagine.

https://www.ispot.tv/ad/Is6N/long-shot-movie-trailer Feel like good metrics. never topped that list but was a constant number 2 leading up to release here: https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/missing-link-again-tops-studios-tv-ad-spending-1203191479/ https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/avengers-endgame-tops-studios-tv-ad-spending-1203195311/ https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/avengers-endgame-again-tops-studios-tv-ad-spending-1203201333/ Considering the reviews and buzz it got, Liongates probably added a bit more than first budgeted for it's release, the trailer is probably too bland for a much harder to sales high concept than say the extremely straight forward Tag/Game Night/Blockers

Or it will shift and audience distribution will have an hockey stick curve type of winners take all, with 1 or 2 Netflix/Youtube Tv Show having ridiculous rating.

The one in black panther was quite interesting no ? Maybe that the elevation by MBJ playing him. That quite the weird cognitive twisting/spinning.

I think the massive first week days hold that was I imagine now mostly overflow of the weekend than a real signal of great legs (multiplier wise) was quite misleading. Many more conservative view was starting with the answer, if this continue like this we are looking above 1.1b if not more dbo and that sound crazy and will not happen so this need to drop like a normal sequel soon type of "bad way" to predict but that worked here. How much demand it burned, with how much people that didn't go see Infinity War can really go see this + how big the previews were make in hindsight that under 150m "obvious", but after those OW numbers it was easy to believe no rule did apply anymore.

Yes, no TV or with TV post the 50s is definitely a clear cut in popularity of the theater (that an urban sprawling back in the days the percentage of people living at walking distance of a movie theater was huge versus today, living kids alone with the oldest one in charge did change also over the year's): Has we see above if the population was not 250% of what it was in 1939 + now having way less studio movie and digital release making it easy for the same movie to play everywhere and being the only one watched movies would not have much chance to compete today. Graphing ticket price and admission by capita, does not seem to be a factor, maybe it is versus stronger force, but could be that the market optimize itself quite well asking price wise. I think that pre-tv with your ticket at the time you had multiple movies for the small one, you had a news real, it is completely different pre and post TV, since television it almost didn't change too. That why, a good way to take a lot of the factor into account (market structure, inflation, ticket price vs people purchasing power, Domestic population, number of theater, etc...) is to simply compare vs the competition, in 2100 someone can rapidly see that Titanic pretty much doubled an super hyped, one if not the most anticipated movie ever Phantom Menace and that Harry Potter the book success of all book success didn't came that close either. Someone that studied historical run quite a bit on the imdb box office board did a metric back in the days, that was a form of % of ticket sold, weighted % of ticket sold versus the other biggest movie of is era (something like the top 5 the year before, it's year, the year after removing outlier of them). With that metric Gone With the Wind (just the initial first release), Sound of music, E.T. ,Star Wars, Titanic had almost the same score, has if there were some maximum movie could reach. That metric did seem to feature movies from all era quite well and let one from any era a shot to "win", making it the most interesting imo.

By removing Fox Marvel output and having part of Sony into it, it easily open the door for one more MCU a year I would imagine, maybe even 2 to reach 5 some year's.

To give them an extreme example of what you mean, it is like when people translate a Netflix viewership into a box office estimate. Price is part of the equation, you need to be quite more popular to get half the viewership than something already paid or free on youtube get. Cheaper movie ticket is a bit on that continuum, it probably affect event affair the least but even for those it can always affect rewatch numbers. But if you make a graph median household income / average ticket price, I think we would get something looking quite the same in the last 90 year's.

At least for movie ticket, does not move too much, is one think that didn't change much since 1965: It was at is highest in the early 1970. Average ticket price in 1970 was $1.55 according to mojo, the median household income in 1970 was of $9.870 The median household income last year was of $61.372 in the US, 6.218 time higher, according to mojo ticket were $9.11 in average, 5.877x higher, household income grew a little bit faster than movie ticket price since 1970. In 1939 a ticket was around $.23 (much more for Road show type of big movies with live orchestra too, could go up to a $1, $2), median income for a man in 1940 was of $956, 52.5x lower than last year, that would be around a $12 ticket transposed today (if we look more in purchasing power term than just inflation), very similar, yes people were much poorer much the price adjusted to be almost has accessible has today if we do not take into account child count in a family.

Exactly, that was quite confusing, yeah I agree that using Mojo method for a worldwide number seem quite an hard endeavor, but I never seen anyone doing that (using the Mojo adjusted and applying blindly to a global figure).

One of, maybe my best movie watching experience ever, saw it for the first time about 2 year's ago. It aged surprisingly well, it is more radical about is feminist stance than modern movie tend to be too and the characters are way more flawed.

You said adjusting for inflation and now attendance, those 2 are 2 different thing, many market do count box office in admission and not money anyway.

Why ? Sure, but what would be a non futile box office task or message on a box office message board ? This is all masturbatory math pure loosing our time, everything ever said/made here was futile. So sure, yes, but in the context that everything in this thread is pure futility....

If you are talking best / more impressive run it is a bit more complex than that imo, higher price could logically drive admission down (there something impressive into the ability to sell very high price tickets also), population/urban sprawling/existence of Television& othercompetition can also play a role. A bit like when you compare athlete of different era, how well it did versus their peers is the first I would look at to judge performance from different era, say how it did relative to the top 10 the year before, it's year and the next year to remove noise from other all time great competition. Nothing ever got close to Titanic that era either even an extremely hyped first Star Wars since the OT, no one thought it was possible, Avatar wasn't that long ago it didn't do Titanic type of phenomenon but was not that far off. All debate here are completely pointless but that one because of the removed is a bit less pointless, many other debate you can just look up at box office mojo without having anything to debate (it is pointless to debate over fact, just need to look them up). I am a bit curious about your international GWTW that you did dig to say that ? I would imagined that back in the days tracking of intl markets was not usual. In the Uk it would still be number one of all time according to the BFI (wiht a ridiculous 35m tickets sold over the year): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films_in_the_United_Kingdom According to wiki the top 10 looked like that in 2017 according to guiness world records (would need Infinity War/End games to be added): Highest-grossing films as of 2017 adjusted for inflation[32][Inf][AE] Rank Title Worldwide gross (2017 $) Year 1 Gone with the Wind $3,703,000,000 1939 2 Avatar $3,251,000,000 2009 3 Titanic T$3,078,000,000 1997 4 Star Wars $3,041,000,000 1977 5 The Sound of Music $2,547,000,000 1965 6 E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial $2,487,000,000 1982 7 The Ten Commandments $2,354,000,000 1956 8 Doctor Zhivago $2,232,000,000 1965 9 Jaws $2,182,000,000 1975 10 Star Wars: The Force Awakens TFA$2,144,000,000 2015

May as well close this message board....... that pretty much only what ever go on when random people talk box office.

That speculation could be true and maybe End Game would have made less if it released in 2045, is that have any relevance too ? That said lot of people said that Titanic would have not taken off in 1997, if a romantic movie like Beauty and the Beast can be bigger in 2017 than 1992, who knows for Titanic. Has for competition, Titanic released the same weekend than a James Bond movie followed by an rom-com targeting the same audience that made 150m the weekend after, what was End Game competition ? Everyone stayed away.

When May was announced the whey Gray talked about it, was already sounding like it was likely he would not pull it off: https://www.indiewire.com/2018/12/brad-pitt-ad-astra-release-2019-far-from-finished-1202026702/

Earlier in the year would be better for the holiday season sales than having the movie craze during the holiday ?

Well the other scenario is having never any discussions, what else can be talked about ?

I think we should really not, stopping to adjust is stopping just any possible talk about anything ever.

The exercice is purely what could it look like with a different but fully possible exchange rate scenario and not trying to compare if it is bigger than what Avatar did, i Imagine. Because yes it would make no sense to compare an over 41-42B global BO market to a 30B one directly like that.

Maybe, but still would have been a different road I would imagine.