Weekend Thread: Endgame 40.6M Friday, 61-62.5m Sat (per Asgard p.49)

[baumer]

1 minute ago, ACSlater said:

 

Jeez...Kate Winslet's boobs arent that good...

 

3x by myself

Once with mom and girlfriend

Once with mom and 80 year old Gramma

Twice with best friend who is male

Once with girlfriend

 

[baumer]

oh yeah and then I saw it twice when I got released in 3D. And it had nothing to do with it being in 3D I just wanted to see it at the movie theater again. Titanic is unlike pretty much any other film I have ever seen in the theater. It just elicits I'm very strong emotional reaction for me.

[cdsacken]

1 minute ago, baumer said:

oh yeah and then I saw it twice when I got released in 3D. And it had nothing to do with it being in 3D I just wanted to see it at the movie theater again. Titanic is unlike pretty much any other film I have ever seen in the theater. It just elicits I'm very strong emotional reaction for me.

Interesting. I felt absolutely nothing. Felt cheesy as hell to me like the notebook. Way overdone.

[Krissykins]

2 minutes ago, baumer said:

oh yeah and then I saw it twice when I got released in 3D. And it had nothing to do with it being in 3D I just wanted to see it at the movie theater again. Titanic is unlike pretty much any other film I have ever seen in the theater. It just elicits I'm very strong emotional reaction for me.

Yeh it’s one of my all time favourites too. 

 

I went 3 times with my parents when I was 9. 

[MrFanaticGuy34]

Hmm. I hope the MCU or Marvel in the cartoon does deliver us a new group of characters that we have never seen before in this day & age

in the future.

 

You guys know which ones i’m talking about?

[Sue Denim]

I never saw Titanic in a theater, but after watching it on HBO during a work trip, I wish I had.  I'll watch it any time/anywhere it shows up.

 

And for the record, Kate's boobs (and everything else) are spectacular!!

Edited May 6, 2019 by Sue Denim

[JimiQ]

Funny thing about titanic - never seen it in theater and have no desire to, but I've seen it twice in tv and never during those two times have I seen the final scene with them dancing in the afterlife. I saw it years later on youtube by chance

[Broshnat]

2 hours ago, A Panda of Ice and Fire said:

Saying something is in higher demand than something else because it sold a higher quantity is a fundamental misunderstanding of how demand works.

 

I'm merely stating which movie sold the most tickets and was therefore "more popular".

 

2 hours ago, A Panda of Ice and Fire said:

You aren’t going to arrive at a believable answer when trying to figure out if GOTW or Titanic or whatever was the more popular phenomenon.  The only thing for certain was that they were phenomena that dominates the BO at their respective times.

 

I'm not sure I really get your point.

 

• We are on a box office forum and people like to compare the box office figures of one film to another.
• The standard way to do this (in the USA primarily) is based on US$ gross - which is reasonable when comparing one film to another released within a couple of years but due to inflation falls down when comparing over longer periods.
• Most of Europe reports admissions and has all-time charts based on admissions, as does a number of other regions.

In your original reply, you stated that comparing the box office performance based on admissions is an "even poorer" way of doing it - I assume you mean even poorer than comparing the dollar gross and I really don't understand how anybody could come to that conclusion.

 

In 1975, Jaws sold 125m tickets in North America at ~$2 per ticket and grossed $260m.

In 2018, Deadpool 2 sold 35m tickets in NA at ~$9 per ticket to gross $320m.

 

Are you saying that comparing the popularity of the two movies based on their dollar gross makes more sense than admissions?

 

2 hours ago, A Panda of Ice and Fire said:

You also absolutely can make a comparison between two movies within the same general timeframe, as major factors such as inflation, exchange rates, theater cost structures, market expansions etc. are remaining relatively similar (although obviously constantly changing).  You could also make comparisons across decades such as with the original Batman movie to Endgame, Endgame has obviously made a bigger splash in the market than that one, just look at the margin at which Endgame broke the OW and the fact it’ll make a push for #1 all time while Batman didn’t.

 

And saying “most arguments cancel out because TLK/JP/Titanic go re-releases!” completely misses the point as why using admissions as a measure to compare movies from different decades is about as flawed as the whole “adjustment” comparisons.

 

The point about comparing movies released in the same timeframe is that any type of comparison will have its flaws!

 

There are even variables here that make a direct comparison difficult - time of year the movie was released (summer, Christmas etc), competition from other movies released at the same time, 3D / Imax / matinee showings affecting ticket prices, ER fluctuations (which can be huge even over a few months, especially in Latin American countries) and so on. Plus simply how much marketing the distributor has done and how effective it was. Especially in modern times, a movie will live or die on the opening weekend so it is all about marketing and promotion. In decades gone by, a movie could do well over many months or even years due to good word of mouth. The overall point here is that you could argue that comparing the US$ box office of two movies released 6 months apart isn't a completely apples to apples comparison in terms of absolute popularity either. Comparing over larger timeframes - I'm not saying that admissions is a perfectly representative comparison that has no issues but it is the best we will ever have and many times more informative  than just comparing the US$ gross.

The point about cancelling out is that there are plenty of arguments for and against but I do feel that overall it seems to balance out quite well. Had Titanic been released in 1940 it probably wouldn't have sold as many tickets on the initial run (as the US population for example was 130m vs 273m in 1997) and it would have been over a couple of years rather than 6 months. The movie would likely have been re-released multiple times and built up a gross over a number of decades. I don't believe the total admissions would be much different to the 135m it is on now. Likewise if the movie had been released in 1970, 1980 or now - I think overall it would have ended up around the same place - just a different route to get there.

Edited May 6, 2019 by Broshnat

[KJsooner]

My preteen years. Ahh yes, only watched Titanic for the boobs painting seen. 

[JimiQ]

So are even getting actuals today or what? All this boob talk is making me hungry for some hard solid numbers, man

[The Panda]

6 minutes ago, Broshnat said:

 

I'm merely stating which movie sold the most tickets and was therefore "more popular".

 

 

I'm not sure I really get your point.

 

• We are on a box office forum and people like to compare the box office figures of one film to another.
• The standard way to do this (in the USA primarily) is based on US$ gross - which is reasonable when comparing one film to another released within a couple of years but due to inflation falls down when comparing over longer periods.
• Most of Europe reports admissions and has all-time charts based on admissions, as does a number of other regions.

In your original reply, you stated that comparing the box office performance based on admissions is an "even poorer" way of doing it - I assume you mean even poorer than comparing the dollar gross and I really don't understand how anybody could come to that conclusion.

 

In 1975, Jaws sold 125m tickets in North America at ~$2 per ticket and grossed $260m.

In 2018, Deadpool 2 sold 35m tickets in NA at ~$9 per ticket to gross $320m.

 

Are you saying that comparing the popularity of the two movies based on their dollar gross makes more sense than admissions?

 

 

The point about comparing movies released in the same timeframe is that any type of comparison will have its flaws!

 

There are even variables here that make a direct comparison difficult - time of year the movie was released (summer, Christmas etc), competition from other movies released at the same time, 3D / Imax / matinee showings affecting ticket prices, ER fluctuations (which can be huge even over a few months, especially in Latin American countries) and so on. Plus simply how much marketing the distributor has done and how effective it was. Especially in modern times, a movie will live or die on the opening weekend so it is all about marketing and promotion. In decades gone by, a movie could do well over many months or even years due to good word of mouth. The overall point here is that you could argue that comparing the US$ box office of two movies released 6 months apart isn't a completely apples to apples comparison in terms of absolute popularity either. Comparing over larger timeframes - I'm not saying that admissions is a perfectly representative comparison that has no issues but it is the best we will ever have.

The point about cancelling out is that there are plenty of arguments for and against but I do feel that overall it seems to balance out quite well. Had Titanic been released in 1940 it probably wouldn't have sold as many tickets on the initial run (as the US population for example was 130m vs 273m in 1997) and it would have been over a couple of years rather than 6 months. The movie would likely have been re-released multiple times and built up a gross over a number of decades. I don't believe the total admissions would be much different to the 135m it is on now. Likewise if the movie had been released in 1970, 1980 or now - I think overall it would have ended up around the same place - just a different route to get there.

1. The Deadpool vs Jaws comparison is dumb because Jaws was a phenomena during its time and Deadpool was simply a big hit.  That’s obvious and you don’t need to look at admissions or adjusted figures to know Jaws was the bigger deal.

 

2. Higher Quantity Sold =\= More Popular, already explained that

 

3. I already mentioned the flaws of comparing movies in different time go beyond inflation rates.  You can observe for yourself ticket prices do not necessarily follow the annual inflation rate, as inflation is not the only determinant of a good’s price

 

4. If you want to keep records of admissions that’s fine, I’m not arguing against that.  I’m saying it’s a poor method to compare to BO phenomena popularity from different time periods.

 

5. Admissions is a poorer metric of comparison than dollar gross.  Adjusting for just inflation (not ticket price inflation) movies are relatively more expensive, or they take more purchasing power than they did in the past, looking at admissions would assume an equivalent price (as well as equivalent substitutes, which are factors in price and quantity sold) between the two films which simply isn’t true.

 

6. I understand it’s very problematic to adjust WW numbers, that’s what I’ve been saying the entire weekend when people were talking about “adjusted WW numbers”.  My argument is that using “adjusted WW numbers” or admissions will not likely provide that accurate of a measure to compare two movie phenomena’s popularity in their time

 

7. You can think a film like Titanic would end up in the same place in 1940 all you want but there’s no way to prove that.  Titanic reflected a particular moment in culture and was made for the theatrical market in the 90s.  Saying that’d translate the same over to the 40s or over to Now is foolish and unprovable (the same could be said for any movie, I’m only using Titanic as an example because you brought it up).

[druv10]

OS for EG  $1,572,463,110, up 3.5M

[cdsacken]

5 minutes ago, JimiQ said:

So are even getting actuals today or what? All this boob talk is making me hungry for some hard solid numbers, man

Under 149 no record. /Sad

 

Still good. Hoping we see under 50% drop next weekend.

Edited May 6, 2019 by cdsacken

[Sam]

3 minutes ago, druv10 said:

OS for EG  $1,572,463,110, up 3.5M

So with domestic actuals, WW total gonna be around 2.195B

 

Not too shabby. 

 

Looking forward to your next countdown post!

[Royce]

I was way too young to watch Titanic but one of my earliest childhood memories was that movie being everywhere and all the adults talking about it (I was like 3 at the time)

 

That was one of the first cultural events I ever witnessed and remember aside from the death of Princess Diana

[Avatree]

55 minutes ago, cdsacken said:

Interesting. I felt absolutely nothing. Felt cheesy as hell to me like the notebook. Way overdone.

 

Did you watch it in the cinema?

 

I've seen Titanic a few times and never liked it, too overdone like you said.  Really couldn't stand it.

Then I watched it in the cinema. It's like magic. One of my favourite films now.

[TalismanRing]

5 hours ago, Taruseth said:

That movie really seemed to have underperformed in Germany...

Same with the sound of music, though that is because "Die Trapp-Familie" was released three years prior and

sold ~27m adm overall.

Think about the years GWTW was released and then think about why it might have relatively unperformed in Germany.  The miracle is that it did the business it did in most of Europe. 

 

The most amazing admission numbers for GWTW are Australia.  More than  5 times the then population.  

 

Also, referring to other posts - the idea of comparing GWTW as a movie to SW - and whether one would enjoy it is mind boggling.  They have nothing in common.

 

[Barnack]

10 hours ago, A Panda of Ice and Fire said:

In brief, there’s a lot of compounding factors that aren’t reflected in the adjustments, such as exchange rates, overseas market expansions, population growth, changes in theatrical business and pricing models, data issues in certain countries, etc.  When looking at a single country, it can be a somewhat useful, yet flawed, measure to look at attendance.  

 

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.

Edited May 6, 2019 by Barnack

[The Panda]

1 minute ago, Barnack said:

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.

I was referring to BOM’s adjuster, it’s a neat tool to help you get a reference for how much that movie would have made if it sold the same amount of tickets under today’s average price.  But it’s use is kind of limited to that imo, especially the further back you go.

 

Actually adjusting for inflation would not be the same thing as adjusting for ticket price changes (what Mojo does).

[Broshnat]

5 minutes ago, A Panda of Ice and Fire said:

1. The Deadpool vs Jaws comparison is dumb because Jaws was a phenomena during its time and Deadpool was simply a big hit.  That’s obvious and you don’t need to look at admissions or adjusted figures to know Jaws was the bigger deal.

 

2. Higher Quantity Sold =\= More Popular, already explained that

 

3. I already mentioned the flaws of comparing movies in different time go beyond inflation rates.  You can observe for yourself ticket prices do not necessarily follow the annual inflation rate, as inflation is not the only determinant of a good’s price

 

4. If you want to keep records of admissions that’s fine, I’m not arguing against that.  I’m saying it’s a poor method to compare to BO phenomena popularity from different time periods.

 

5. Admissions is a poorer metric of comparison than dollar gross.  Adjusting for just inflation (not ticket price inflation) movies are relatively more expensive, or they take more purchasing power than they did in the past, looking at admissions would assume an equivalent price (as well as equivalent substitutes, which are factors in price and quantity sold) between the two films which simply isn’t true.

 

6. I understand it’s very problematic to adjust WW numbers, that’s what I’ve been saying the entire weekend when people were talking about “adjusted WW numbers”.  My argument is that using “adjusted WW numbers” or admissions will not likely provide that accurate of a measure to compare two movie phenomena’s popularity in their time

 

7. You can think a film like Titanic would end up in the same place in 1940 all you want but there’s no way to prove that.  Titanic reflected a particular moment in culture and was made for the theatrical market in the 90s.  Saying that’d translate the same over to the 40s or over to Now is foolish and unprovable (the same could be said for any movie, I’m only using Titanic as an example because you brought it up).

1. It's dumb because it proves my point? Jaws was a phenomena as you say and the admissions figures support that while the absolute gross doesn't because ticket prices are now, on average, nearly 5 times more.
2. Only if the price is wildly different, which it isn't in relative terms.
3. Tickets prices vs inflation are not that far out. Average ticket price in 1975 was $2.05. Via inflation, that is equivalent to $9.57 in 2018. Average ticket price in 2018 was $9.11. I don't think I'd have been any more or less likely in 1975 to see a movie at an equivalent price of $9.57 than I would last year at $9.11 so I would certainly be happy with the assumption that more tickets sold = more popular.
4. I don't agree as highlighted above.
5. See point 3 - in fact tickets were relatively more expensive in 1975 than they are now.
6. Admissions takes out the ER issues in adjusting worldwide numbers.
7. I know there is no way to prove this last point, it is just a gut feeling based on many years of research and analysis.