Weekend Estimates: Kong 61M, Logan 37.8M, Get Out 21M, Shack 10M, Lego Batman 7.8M

[grey ghost]

24 minutes ago, vc2002 said:

Seems like Logan's legs dont match its reception on the internet.

 

Neither did Civil War.

 

The last, true CBM crowd please was Deadpool.

[YM!]

5 minutes ago, grey ghost said:

 

Neither did Civil War.

 

The last, true CBM crowd please was Deadpool.

And to a lesser extent Doctor Strange.

[Eevin]

7 minutes ago, JonathanLB said:

 

That's your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it. I respect both opinions, but I'm on the other camp as well. Titanic doesn't adjust to "$1.2 billion" or whatever because today Titanic wouldn't make $1.2 billion, it would have made about what TFA made, which is why real dollar value inflation is a much better gauge than trying to say, "Well Titanic sold 120 million tickets so in today's day and age that would be 120 million x (current ticket price)."  No, it wouldn't be, because ticket price inflation has far outstripped regular dollar value inflation, so 120 million people simply wouldn't go see Titanic today. It wouldn't happen. And isn't that the whole idea behind "adjusting for inflation" anyway? Adjusting for the factors that are relevant to figure out how such and such movie would perform in today's marketplace. I don't buy the argument that "Titanic was more successful than TFA because it sold more raw tickets." Who cares? And ABC T-Shirts sold more shirts last year than Ferrari sold cars, but Ferrari made way more money because they sell a more expensive item. In a capitalist country, what matters is the value of the money generated, and TFA generated roughly the same value of dollars that Titanic did. The actual widgets sold doesn't make a shit of a difference. 

 

With more expensive ticket prices in theaters, you simply have more people waiting for home video and TV / cable releases, rather than buying tickets in theaters, even though you have roughly the same value of dollars being spent at theaters. The movie industry doesn't have a particular reason to care whether they sell 1.5 billion tickets and make $15 billion or whether they sell 15 billion tickets for cheaper and still make $15 billion. That's why I don't see why a box office follower can make a big fuss about a number that isn't even tracked -- ticket sales. The number doesn't exist. No U.S. movie has an actual ticket sales number attached to it, so it's pure speculation. If you're going to speculate, use the only speculation that is reasonable to use -- adjusting for actual general inflation. It's an easy calculator that's based on government numbers, so there's no disagreement about what to use, and there is raw data (the dollars each movie made by year) to plug in. Otherwise, you're pissing into the wind. 

And that's a valid point. But as I've said, I'm not talking about a movie's lump sum here. I'm talking about a movie's popularity. Because yes, Titanic would have made $908m if its $600m sum were made today. But in terms of actual popularity, TFA's 108m tickets doesn't compare to Titanic's 135m. It all depends on what you're measuring. Different strokes, different folks.

[BoxOfficeZ]

Get Out seems to be also doing well. 

[Barnack]

32 minutes ago, PPZVGOS said:

 

In order to "adjust" anything in relation to something else, you need equivalence. That equivalence is only provided by real monetary values, that's the only common denominator between movies through time (sort of) Admissions are not a common denominator here because they are subordinate to the real value (real cost incurred by the buyer-audience) of a cinema ticket. This is ABC economics, nothing more. 

 

If we would have admissions, they would not be a denominator (and like someone else mentioned make the adjusting for ticket inflation exercise even stranger, when we do not even start from ticket sales, but that is probably the best lumping tuesday rebate ticket, 1/2$ after the regular run theater ticket, etc... sales all together would maybe give worst result). But yeah the exercice to go back and fourth from box office to ticket and the other way around using a average ticket sales ratio and a bit stupid by itself, it add a useless step.

 

Market share is also something that can always be calculated over recent enough time (harder as you go back), so is market share among big movies, those 2 metric are probably the best one to use, it take into account of lot of difference (popularity to go to the theater, population size and so on).

 

12 minutes ago, JonathanLB said:

 

It's a PG rated family film, so the average ticket price would obviously be well below the average for the entire year. That's why you'll see people throw around things like 85 million tickets for TPM, when in fact the actual ticket sales total would be well above 90 million tickets sold. 

 

How much it is necessary to take that into account, if there is still a child rebate on the ticket today and we could assume that a PG TPM released today would to sell more to childs than the average movie ? It seem that it all balance itself automatically.

Edited March 11, 2017 by Barnack

[redfirebird2008]

3 minutes ago, Eevin said:

And that's a valid point. But as I've said, I'm not talking about a movie's lump sum here. I'm talking about a movie's popularity. Because yes, Titanic would have made $908m if its $600m sum were made today. But in terms of actual popularity, TFA's 108m tickets doesn't compare to Titanic's 135m. It all depends on what you're measuring. Different strokes, different folks.

 

TFA sold closer to 95 million tickets. BOM average price does not and cannot properly account for premium tickets (IMAX, PLF, 3D). The film made a shitload of money from those premium screens and played on those screens for a long time. 

[PPZVGOS]

20 minutes ago, Eevin said:

What we also know about 2000's X-Men is that it sold ~29.2m tickets, which if sold at 2017's ticket prices would net it around $252m. 

 

No, what we can say with certainty is that had the price in 2000 been significantly higher, X-Men would never sell anywhere near 29 million tickets. You are assuming that real price does not affect volume of sales in a market economy. That's the apex of absurdity. It's a bit like saying that Swatch and Tissot would sell just as many watches even if they sold at IWC or Rolex prices (I know, this is a rather extreme example, but the principle is the same) The number tickets sold by any movie ever, is directly related to the real price that consumers had to pay in order to buy said tickets. To borrow the TFA/Titanic comparison that @JonathanLB made, if Titanic's ticket were more expensive, fewer would be sold, and conversely, if TFA's tickets were cheaper, it would have sold more. Hence, the number of tickets sold is not a useful index here, but real dollar value is. 

[DAJK]

@Fifty Shades Rth @EmpireCity bless us

[YM!]

Just now, DAJK said:

@Fifty Shades Rth @EmpireCity bless us

We need sacrifices though.

[PPZVGOS]

7 minutes ago, Eevin said:

And that's a valid point. But as I've said, I'm not talking about a movie's lump sum here. I'm talking about a movie's popularity. Because yes, Titanic would have made $908m if its $600m sum were made today. But in terms of actual popularity, TFA's 108m tickets doesn't compare to Titanic's 135m. It all depends on what you're measuring. Different strokes, different folks.

 

What does "popularity" even mean in this context? The reason Titanic sold so many tickets had everything to do with the real-price that people had to pay for those tickets, had that price been higher, the tickets sold would be less. It's "popularity" in the sense that you describe it, is subordinate to price, is therefore not independent, hence there's no abstract measure of "popularity" divorced from monetary equivalency. That's why everything has a price in this world, so we can compare and make our decisions, as consumers, sellers, employers, employees, investors etc etc etc...Money is the dominant factor here, nothing else. 

[Eevin]

3 minutes ago, PPZVGOS said:

 

No, what we can say with certainty is that had the price in 2000 been significantly higher, X-Men would never sell anywhere near 29 million tickets. You are assuming that real price does not affect volume of sales in a market economy. That's the apex of absurdity. It's a bit like saying that Swatch and Tissot would sell just as many watches even if they sold at IWC or Rolex prices (I know, this is a rather extreme example, but the principle is the same) The number tickets sold by any movie ever, is directly related to the real price that consumers had to pay in order to buy said tickets. To borrow the TFA/Titanic comparison that @JonathanLB made, if Titanic's ticket were more expensive, fewer would be sold, and conversely, if TFA's tickets were cheaper, it would have sold more. Hence, the number of tickets sold is not a useful index here, but real dollar value is. 

As I have said, am saying, and will continue to say, that's not what I'm trying to compare here. You've made it clear you know what you're talking about, and I fully understand your point.

What I'm trying to say is that, by virtue of selling more tickets, Titanic was more popular in theaters in 1997 than TFA was in 2015. If they both came out today, perhaps not, but that's the truth.

[MyMovieCanBeatUpYourMovie]

33 minutes ago, GambitPool said:

This is just my anecdotal evidence, but I've seen Logan 3 times in theatres and the audiences weren't happy with how it ended.

 

There were mumblings of it being too depressing. Others said it was boring. Some people said the ending was bullshit. I overheard these two older guys saying the movie wasn't theater worthy. 

 

It's a fantastic character study that deconstructs the superhero genre, but it's not a crowd pleaser. It might be hurting it's legs. 

 

Again it's anecdotal.

 

I had a gentleman (OK, kind of an asshole) to the right of me in the theater who decided it was his duty to loudly and incessantly proclaim for all to hear his discontent with how it ended/was ending all throughout the final 5 minutes of the film.  

[Barnack]

17 minutes ago, PPZVGOS said:

 

No, what we can say with certainty is that had the price in 2000 been significantly higher, X-Men would never sell anywhere near 29 million tickets. You are assuming that real price does not affect volume of sales in a market economy. That's the apex of absurdity. It's a bit like saying that Swatch and Tissot would sell just as many watches even if they sold at IWC or Rolex prices (I know, this is a rather extreme example, but the principle is the same) The number tickets sold by any movie ever, is directly related to the real price that consumers had to pay in order to buy said tickets. To borrow the TFA/Titanic comparison that @JonathanLB made, if Titanic's ticket were more expensive, fewer would be sold, and conversely, if TFA's tickets were cheaper, it would have sold more. Hence, the number of tickets sold is not a useful index here, but real dollar value is. 

 

But real dollar value is extremely limited too and ticket sales by people and ticket price adjusted for inflation do not follow each other that well (correlation seem very slim):

 

 

The popularity of going to the movies changed so much (for factor that are not related to price like suburban sprawl and television) that you cannot evaluated success relative to era simply by using real value, more work can go into this for a better job. I would personally use all value that exist (sadly for most market we do not have ticket sales, so that one is a bit of mute points anyway) the total population changed a lot also.

 

Why not use some market share metric instead ?

 

Edited March 11, 2017 by Barnack

[DAJK]

10 minutes ago, YourMother said:

We need sacrifices though.

I'm willing, just give me the numbers first. 

[the128boy]

Just waiting for those Collide wk 3 numbers.

[Eevin]

5 minutes ago, PPZVGOS said:

 

What does "popularity" even mean in this context? The reason Titanic sold so many tickets had everything to do with the real-price that people had to pay for those tickets, had that price been higher, the tickets sold would be less. It's "popularity" in the sense that you describe it, is subordinate to price, is therefore not independent, hence there's no abstract measure of "popularity" divorced from monetary equivalency. That's why everything has a price in this world, so we can compare and make our decisions, as consumers, sellers, employers, employees, investors etc etc etc...Money is the dominant factor here, nothing else. 

My version of popularity is that more people saw Titanic in theaters than did TFA. Maybe that's subordinate to ticket prices at the time, but that doesn't change that fact.

There's no such thing as a "perfect" adjuster. For example, @redfirebird2008 mentioned, there's nothing about IMAX / PLF tickets in the Box Office Mojo adjuster. It's a measurement of one thing, at one time, versus another thing today. You can say Titanic wouldn't have sold as many tickets today, and you might very well be right, but there's no way to mathematically prove that. There are too many factors. Both currency inflation and ticket price inflation are useful for different things, but neither of them are ever going to be totally accurate. It's a generalized example of what could have happened.

[ACSlater]

32 minutes ago, grey ghost said:

 

Neither did Civil War.

 

The last, true CBM crowd please was Deadpool.

 

Deadwood was just funky enough to give the originality factor. I am curious to aee the sequel will have legs like the original.

 

And CW > DP. 

[Avatree]

Damn, 20M is a really decent start for Kong. Should be good for 50M+

[Dementeleus]

4 minutes ago, ACSlater said:

 

Deadwood was just funky enough to give the originality factor. I am curious to aee the sequel will have legs like the original.

 

And CW > DP. 

 

I hope you're a visitor from the future -- since DEADWOOD not only gets a movie, but does well enough to warrant a sequel. 

[ACSlater]

2 minutes ago, Telemachos said:

 

I hope you're a visitor from the future -- since DEADWOOD not only gets a movie, but does well enough to warrant a sequel.