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

[Avatree]

surely by definition, if X sells more than Y, then X is more popular than Y.

Unless you're comparing two very similar grossing films I dont see how there is any confusion with the word "popular"?

[The Panda]

9 minutes ago, Broshnat said:

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.

1. Absolute gross does support Jaws if you look at what it made relative to everything else released around its time.  And it’s a much better metric to use than looking at pure attendance.  You can compare Deadpool to movies around its time and realize it clearly did not dominate in the same way.

 

2. Ummm no, you still do not show that you’re grasping any of the fundamentals of how price works

 

3. You’re ignoring everything I said before with that point but okay.  And I was more referring to GOTW with that point but regardless, the film chosen doesn’t effect the overall point

 

4-6. The point is that market conditions for theater tickets are much different now than in the 70s, e.g. theater structures, length of time a film is in theaters, available substitutes for seeing a film in theaters, but yes be obtuse about it.

 

7. Gut feelings = out of my butt random guess

Edited May 6, 2019 by A Panda of Ice and Fire

[Barnack]

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

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).

 

Exactly, that was quite confusing, yeah I agree that using Mojo method for a worldwide number seem quite an hard endeavor, but I never seen anyone doing that (using the Mojo adjusted and applying blindly to a global figure).

[baumer]

@JimiQ actuals on Monday don't really start coming out until around 3 p.m. eastern time at the very earliest. So about 2 hours from now 

[Broshnat]

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

1. Absolute gross does support Jaws if you look at what it made relative to everything else released around its time.  And it’s a much better metric to use than looking at pure attendance.  You can compare Deadpool to movies around its time and realize it clearly did not dominate in the same way.

 

2. Ummm no, you still do not show that you’re grasping any of the fundamentals of how price works

 

3. You’re ignoring everything I said before with that point but okay.  And I was more referring to GOTW with that point but regardless, the film chosen doesn’t effect the overall point

 

4-6. The point is that market conditions for theater tickets are much different now than in the 70s, e.g. theater structures, length of time a film is in theaters, available substitutes for seeing a film in theaters, but yes be obtuse about it.

 

7. Gut feelings = out of my butt random guess

I think you are just splitting hairs now to be honest to be awkward!

 

Using admissions figures is basically "comparing to everything else released at the same time" but then also comparing that to what was released at other times using the most absolute measure that is available - that generally doesn't change much over time - ticket price.

You seem to be hung up on the idea that ticket price relative to inflation has massively increased over the years, making people less likely now to see a movie because it is relatively "more expensive" - which isn't the case.

Edited May 6, 2019 by Broshnat

[The Panda]

Just now, Broshnat said:

I think you are just splitting hairs now to be honest to be awkward!

I’m just frustrated because the argument could be settled by opening a principles of Econ textbook and reading the chapters on supply and demand.

 

By saying quantity of admissions is the best measure to look at popularity you have the entire idea backwards

[Barnack]

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

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.

 

 

At least for movie ticket, does not move too much, is one think that didn't change much since 1965:

 

 

It was at is highest in the early 1970.

 

Average ticket price in 1970 was $1.55 according to mojo, the median household income in 1970 was of $9.870

 

The median household income last year was of $61.372 in the US, 6.218 time higher, according to mojo ticket were $9.11 in average, 5.877x higher, household income grew a little bit faster than movie ticket price since 1970.

 

In 1939 a ticket was around $.23 (much more for Road show type of big movies with live orchestra too, could go up to a $1, $2), median income for a man in 1940 was of $956, 52.5x lower than last year, that would be around a $12 ticket transposed today (if we look more in purchasing power term than just inflation), very similar, yes people were much poorer much the price adjusted to be almost has accessible has today if we do not take into account child count in a family.

 

Edited May 6, 2019 by Barnack

[Clouseau]

1 hour ago, JimiQ said:

In few years there will be always at least one mcu film playing in theaters

I do think the market could definitely support four MCU movies a year (Feb, May, Jul, Nov).

 

And just when the franchise is on fire like never before, Marvel have lost a movie thanks to the James Gunn silliness and they only have two releases for 2020! Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 3 would have been only a year away, and Endgame was clearly made with one eye (😉) on setting up that movie to follow soon after. Now it's probably two years away at least. 🤦‍♂️

 

Although Black Widow has apparently been moved up to the May slot, technically there's still a gap for a Marvel release next year so I wonder if an Avengers Endgame re-release next summer might be an option. Extended end battle scene (we know they shot it), maybe an intermission (to boost concession sales and get exhibitors onside), perhaps even some newly shot footage (to explain some of the time confusion!).

 

Not a huge wide release, just something to keep the franchise ticking over before The Eternals arrives late in the year, dressed up as a "gift to the fans" or something. It's good PR (and adds a few dollars to the total gross!).

[Barnack]

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

By saying quantity of admissions is the best measure to look at popularity you have the entire idea backwards

To give them an extreme example of what you mean, it is like when people translate a Netflix viewership into a box office estimate. Price is part of the equation, you need to be quite more popular to get half the viewership than something already paid or free on youtube get.

 

Cheaper movie ticket is a bit on that continuum, it probably affect event affair the least but even for those it can always affect rewatch numbers.

 

But if you make a graph median household income / average ticket price, I think we would get something looking quite the same in the last 90 year's.

Edited May 6, 2019 by Barnack

[Barnack]

3 minutes ago, Clouseau said:

I do think the market could definitely support four MCU movies a year (Feb, May, Jul, Nov).

By removing Fox Marvel output and having part of Sony into it, it easily open the door for one more MCU a year I would imagine, maybe even 2 to reach 5 some year's.

[Avatree]

7 minutes ago, Clouseau said:

I do think the market could definitely support four MCU movies a year (Feb, May, Jul, Nov).

 

And just when the franchise is on fire like never before, Marvel have lost a movie thanks to the James Gunn silliness and they only have two releases for 2020! Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 3 would have been only a year away, and Endgame was clearly made with one eye (😉) on setting up that movie to follow soon after. Now it's probably two years away at least. 🤦‍♂️

 

Although Black Widow has apparently been moved up to the May slot, technically there's still a gap for a Marvel release next year so I wonder if an Avengers Endgame re-release next summer might be an option. Extended end battle scene (we know they shot it), maybe an intermission (to boost concession sales and get exhibitors onside), perhaps even some newly shot footage (to explain some of the time confusion!).

 

Not a huge wide release, just something to keep the franchise ticking over before The Eternals arrives late in the year, dressed up as a "gift to the fans" or something. It's good PR (and adds a few dollars to the total gross!).

 

Marvel releasing different cuts of a film into cinemas seems quite unlike them.

I also dont think they need to "keep the franchise ticking over", i mean it's what 6 months. There was 8 months before Captain Marvel since the last MCU. I think people can cope....

 

But yes definitely we'll soon be getting 4 per year, especially now that X-Men is being rebooted.

 

Edited May 6, 2019 by Avatree

[Broshnat]

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

I’m just frustrated because the argument could be settled by opening a principles of Econ textbook and reading the chapters on supply and demand.

 

By saying quantity of admissions is the best measure to look at popularity you have the entire idea backwards

Maybe I'm missing something here.

 

Supply is essentially infinite - you can go into any movie theatre now and watch Endgame.

 

So, assuming a constant ticket price (which is a fair assumption), the amount of tickets sold is proportional to the demand.

 

As Barnack states above - ticket prices relative to income have been remarkably consistent over the years (even back to the 40s) and is also fairly consistent from country to country.

Edited May 6, 2019 by Broshnat

[Clouseau]

20 minutes ago, Avatree said:

 

Marvel releasing different cuts of a film into cinemas seems quite unlike them.

I also dont think they need to "keep the franchise ticking over", i mean it's what 6 months. There was 8 months before Captain Marvel since the last MCU. I think people can cope....

Yeah it's definitely an atypical scenario, but then Endgame is pretty atypical compared to most other MCU movies. Plus losing GOTG3 leaves an income gap that can never be recouped (since when GOTG3 does eventually arrive, it will be in a slot originally allocated to another MCU movie).

 

Re-releasing a film that's already more than paid for itself would bring in some of that lost income, plus it would keep the release schedule more or less consistent. A long gap over winter is one thing, but over the summer, well it just seems like a big missed opportunity!

 

 

EDIT: Just remembered, the tag scene of The Avengers was actually shot after the movie had already premiered, so there is a precedent! Imagine it; Endgame Special Edition, where Happy Hogan buys cheeseburgers!

 

And Box Office Mojo's release schedule still has a slot listed for a Fox/Marvel movie on June 26, and obviously that's not happening anymore, so.... 🤔 😁

Edited May 6, 2019 by Clouseau

[JohnnyGossamer]

What's this rerelease talk? Marvel Studios is rereleasing what? 

[sfran43]

 

[Clouseau]

5 minutes ago, JohnnyGossamer said:

What's this rerelease talk? Marvel Studios is rereleasing what? 

No, no, nothing to see! Yet. 😉

[JimiQ]

7 minutes ago, JohnnyGossamer said:

What's this rerelease talk? Marvel Studios is rereleasing what? 

Feige and Jim will be re releasing Endgame and Avatar until every person on Earth had seen each movie twice

[JohnnyGossamer]

2 minutes ago, Clouseau said:

No, no, nothing to see! Yet. 😉

Okay. Yeah. They're not going rerelease anything. Don't see it happening.

[sfran43]

 

[The Panda]

1 hour ago, Barnack said:

 

At least for movie ticket, does not move too much, is one think that didn't change much since 1965:

 

 

It was at is highest in the early 1970.

 

Average ticket price in 1970 was $1.55 according to mojo, the median household income in 1970 was of $9.870

 

The median household income last year was of $61.372 in the US, 6.218 time higher, according to mojo ticket were $9.11 in average, 5.877x higher, household income grew a little bit faster than movie ticket price since 1970.

 

In 1939 a ticket was around $.23 (much more for Road show type of big movies with live orchestra too, could go up to a $1, $2), median income for a man in 1940 was of $956, 52.5x lower than last year, that would be around a $12 ticket transposed today (if we look more in purchasing power term than just inflation), very similar, yes people were much poorer much the price adjusted to be almost has accessible has today if we do not take into account child count in a family.

 

Interesting, it makes sense overall market demand for theatrical films would be higher in the era without easy home video substitutes.  

 

That still goes along with the point that you can’t use admissions as a measure of popularity between two different time periods because market structures were simply different