Rudolf Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinocchio Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 Why is this thread "pinned" by the way since it hardly delivers any traffic? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Marvel Fanboy Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 I have no idea how to figure out this ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudolf Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 (edited) 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$, the average and the factor 2011 2010 2009 av factorDOM 165.2 162.0 166.1 164.4 1.0AUS 17.2 15.8 14.0 15.7 10.5BRA 16.9 12.2 8.9 12.7 13.0Fra 24.8 27.2 21.7 24.6 6.7Ger 18.6 15.5 20.4 18.2 9.1Ita 14.4 15.4 14.7 14.8 11.1Jap 30.4 32.9 34.2 32.5 5.1Mex 13.0 13.9 8.8 11.9 13.8Rus 19.3 19.1 14.0 17.5 9.4SK 18.2 18.0 14.2 16.8 9.8Spa 13.3 12.5 14.2 13.3 12.3UK 28.9 23.2 31.1 27.7 5.9 In the last 3 years Brazil seems to have the strongest trend, followed by Mexico and Russia. I did not find data for China.</p> Edited April 10, 2012 by Rudolf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lab276 Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 Why is this thread "pinned" by the way since it hardly delivers any traffic?Pinned threads don't need traffic, this is just a useful thread designed to give meaning to international numbers for those who aren't in the know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudolf Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 My suggestion is again to compare what the 15th most successful movie in the year for each country seperately (need not be the same movie) has grossed. Take this gross as the blockbuster gross for that country. To smooth artefacts I take the average over of the years 2009-2011 for each country. The factor then is the quotient DOM/country The table shows the gross of 15th movie in mllion$, the average and the factor In the last 3 years Brazil seems to have the strongest trend, followed by Mexico and Russia. I did not find data for China. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluebomb Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 I can't see the image. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudolf Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 I can't see the image. http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/6640/factor.jpgCan you see it using the url? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluebomb Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 No, Imageshack won't let me see the image unless if I register an account. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinocchio Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 I can see the image, but just on a small scale. The way it was posted. Can't enlarge it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudolf Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinocchio Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 No, it's readable. It's just not very comfortable to read because it's just 253x208... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anaotchan Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baumer Posted May 2, 2012 Author Share Posted May 2, 2012 So,UK: 6Russia: 7.5Oz: 10NZ: 60China: 4.5Spain: 8Anyone else? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raniE Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 (edited) 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 June 18, 2012 by raniE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peludo Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 (edited) 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 June 18, 2012 by peludo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peludo Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 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) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raniE Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peludo Posted June 18, 2012 Share Posted June 18, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudolf Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...