Jump to content

Pouchy

New Member
  • Content count

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

7 Likes

About Pouchy

  • Rank
    Rumored Project

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Nah, that'll be the next one to be AWIT'd.
  2. There are so many reasons why a movie grossing 2 billion in 1998/9 (or close to it) vs. 2018 is LESS impressive. While both achieved remarkable feats - one had the advantages the other can only dream of. First of all, let us start with the domestic box office. The revenue generated in 1999 was 7.4 billion (adjusted for inflation that's 11.3 billion in 2018 roughly). The peak of revenue was 11.3 billion in 2016 as far as domestic box office gross goes. What does this tell us? That the box office revenue remained flat? Not quite in terms of distribution per movie. Further, we have two factors to take into consideration - average ticket price AND admissions. While the revenue remained stable (adjusted for inflation) there's a reason for this. The amount of movies included in the 1999 gross (released in the cinemas)? 461? Sounds like a lot doesn't it? Meanwhile, the amount of movies released in 2018 TO DATE is already at 311. The average movie gross per movie (adjusted) domestically in 2016 (the ''peak'' of domestic box office revenue-wise) was 15.4 million per movie meanwhile in 1999 (unadjusted for inflation) the number was 16.1 million (ALREADY higher). Adjusted for inflation the average movie in 1999 grossed 24 million. That's over 10 million higher per every movie released in 1999 due to the fact you had twice less releases to choose from. It gets even worse when we take into consideration that blockbusters weren't even a thing in the '90s and the increase in the volume of releases not only grew for indie movies but big budget draws exponentially. How many movies that cost over 100 million to make in 1999? With big marketing campaigns? If I'm not mistaken there's only TWO (adjusted for inflation too). How many movies that cost over 100 million to make in 2018? Should I even bother trying to count? The number of movies movie-goers and general audiences would even find interesting to go to the cinema and to watch was scarce meanwhile today the studios have to go above and beyond to even get the audiences to go and even then they still have 3x the choices. The movie-going experience has also changed since the 90s very much too. Why would anyone even bother going to the cinema in 2018 in rural areas when they can just sit at home and watch it in high definition on their TV on Netflix? You couldn't get a cinematic experience at home in the '90s. Going to the cinema used to be a weekly thing for many movie-goers and now they'd just rather stay at home with Netflix and not only save money but spare themselves the endless wait lines and expensive tickets for an experience that may not even be worth it. The number of cinemas domestically increased to twice the number since Titanic was released and the ticket price almost doubled too (not adjusted for inflation) yet the market flatlined? More movies? More expensive tickets? Similar admissions? THE SAME REVENUE? Why? Because people simply DO NOT want to go to the movies as much anymore. That's just one portion of this argument too. Furthermore, piracy, online streaming service, the amount of time the movie is played at the cinema and OTHER entertainment opportunities not previously available play a huge part too. Getting the audiences in those seats have NEVER been harder. Now we go into the overseas market that is maintaining the fall right? The average ticket price in countries like India averages between 1 dollar to 3.95 for most expensive showings. This is well below the average ticket price in the US the year Titanic was released and the numbers get much worse if we account for discounts, matinees, and such. While it may inflate the admissions globally to not seem as bad of a drop because of ''growing markets'' the actual revenue isn't really increasing on average now, is it? It's falling as far as Hollywood studios go and falling hard. The technology for making movies also got cheaper too so people in these markets no longer have to watch Hollywood blockbusters if they want a blockbuster to begin with. Are you forgetting the language barrier? The domestic market never had this issue meanwhile even the admissions and the revenue overseas are facing it because not only do the growing markets have the opportunities to see these movies now but they also have more CHOICES than you had domestically/internationally in the '90s too. Did Titanic face the issue of the rednecks from Texas NOT wanting to see the movie in the '90s because it wasn't in English? Did it face this issue? Do you think rural China will ever accept these movies and make the effort to go and see them? The tickets are cheaper too so not only do we have a big issue with prices but also the fact more people won't be seeing them because they are seeing THEIR OWN movies. Do you think the admissions you see for India or China that help the make the box office seem stronger HELP the Hollywood movies? Movies like Infinity War? They really won't as much as you think compared to the decline domestically. The argument you have about the growth isn't even applicable since the domestic market didn't have an issue with Titanic nor did the majority of the markets overseas that saw Titanic. Meanwhile markets that matter now like India, China, etc. (admissions and revenue-wise) PROVIDE this difficulty. Not only is it harder to sell this movie domestically but also overseas. There are so many factors in favor of current movies and so few in favor of older movies. Just because movie studios work much harder to make these movies happen and achieve what they did doesn't make them LESS valuable cause you have a nostalgia bias. Simply put the admissions were in an advantage of Titanic because they didn't need to be inflated by markets and people who will flat out reject the movie cause of its country of origin. These markets didn't even matter at the time very much. The money made domestically was much easier to attain as the tickets were cheaper on average domestically and internationally too because you really don't want me to make a price comparison in countries like Sweden, Denmark, etc. and even Germany and France in the 90s compared to now. A cup of coffee cost as much as a movie ticket in many of them and they had no issues spending them on English-speaking movies like rural China or India do either meanwhile today I can buy myself an H&M shirt or go see a movie. While the shirt is on the cheap end too it STILL puts things into perspective. And lastly, piracy, movie-going habits, amount of time these movies spent in the cinema, amount of movies released and amount of VOD and streaming services available in the '90s (almost NONE) compared to NOW. The argument is easy to make and while impressive Titanic's trajectory is nowhere near as impressive as the OTHER 3 movies that crossed the 2 billion threshold.
  3. I'm honestly a bit underwhelmed. The entire vibe seems like a more high budget TV show than a live-action blockbuster. But it's only the first teaser so guess we will see how it pans out.
  4. There are so many social factors people will ignore to make their nostalgia-driven arguments seem more impressive. People don't seem to acknowledge the average attention span has more than dwindled since the release of GWTW and Titanic too. The way people consume media and entertainment has changed immensely since the 30s and the 90s even. Getting someone to see a movie and dedicate themselves to it is much harder than it was during those times. Look at the media shift alone - people don't even have the time to read the newspaper let alone dedicate hours of their ''precious'' time to a movie/event they may or may not even particularly be interested to see like they used to. 140/240 character headlines have almost entirely replaced news and people's attention span is brought to a bare minimum but you think it's easy to bring audiences in those seats in 2018? And it's only getting harder. Netflix, Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Reddit, Instagram, etc. and tons of other short-attention and quick gratification type of media are practically our EXISTENCE at this point. Never has it been easier to BE ENTERTAINED and do virtually nothing for it. Instant gratification. You really need to put many more factors in perspective than just the dwindling way of video formats shifting and piracy growing cause if you look back and ask yourselves what you did in the 90s with your day you'll find the difference in the amount of entertainment and quick gratification available to you was much lower than it is now. The fact people choose the movies they choose to dedicate their time to in a cyber era where the format has not quite adapted yet speaks volumes of its mass appeal.
×

Important Information

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