Jump to content

Dementeleus

Nov 22-24 #s CF: $158,074,286 actual | Dark Knight triumphant after all

By Dementeleus, in Numbers and Data

Recommended Posts









CloneWars Blockbuster

CloneWars

Posted
Posted

I think we know why there is an attempt to separate "3D" and "2d only"....because of the higher ticket price for 3D.   So movies which made money from IMAX are not "2D only" in the spirit of that.

 

The whole thing is silly of course, but if you are going to play the "that's not fair!" card, it applies to movies which benefited from higher ticket prices in IMAX too.   Then we can go on ignoring the fact that they all benefit from inflation to gross more than movies in the past and that no one has a choice to pay past prices on that one.   We can also ignore higher screen counts today's movies get, higher population, and the more varied options for advertising while we are at it.   ;)

So none of them are "2D only".   :D

IMAX does add to the total, but nowhere near the amount of 3D. I think TDKR had 350 screens. About $20M of its OW was from IMAX. And, those ticket prices tend to be about 1.5X the normal ticket price at my theater. So, TDKR would have opened to $155M without IMAX. So, still impressive nonetheless. Now, when we get to something like IM3, take away 3D and we are looking at an OW total close to CF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
grim22 Global Phenomenon

grim22

Posted
Posted

I think we know why there is an attempt to separate "3D" and "2d only"....because of the higher ticket price for 3D.   So movies which made money from IMAX are not "2D only" in the spirit of that.

 

The whole thing is silly of course, but if you are going to play the "that's not fair!" card, it applies to movies which benefited from higher ticket prices in IMAX too.   Then we can go on ignoring the fact that they all benefit from inflation to gross more than movies in the past and that no one has a choice to pay past prices on that one.   We can also ignore higher screen counts today's movies get, higher population, and the more varied options for advertising while we are at it.   ;)

So none of them are "2D only".   :D

 

In which case, no record should ever be recognized because of inflation and increasing ticket prices and wide releases now should it?

 

The reason there are records is because they are easy to compare - for example, Avengers had 3D and IMAX 3D as well which added to it's opening weekend gross, now should we remove the 3D bump and the IMAX 3D bump there? Of course not, it earned what it earned, whether the higher ticket prices, 3D and IMAX contibuted or not is out of the question.

 

Would you call a movie being released in 3D and IMAX 3D as a non-3D movie the same way you say that IMAX should be considered non-2D?

 

IMAX prices are still cheaper than 3D prices in the LA area at least. IMAX cost 14$ a ticket where as 3D sometimes starts at 15$. Would that be considered now?

 

When we start getting into all of that, the charts need to completely redesigned. The best comparison we have is actual grosses, grosses for 3D movies and grosses for 2D movies which is what everyone has been comparing now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites




















Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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

  I accept