Adjusting Domestic Grosses for Inflation

[Walt Disney]

I have been wondering this for awhile, so I think I should finally ask. I wasn't sure if this goes in the Domestic Forum or Speakeasy, so if it is in the wrong forum, then it is ok to move it.Box Office Mojo and BoxOffice.com have different numbers listed for their all-time Domestic gross list (adjusted). Why are their numbers different? Is there something BoxOffice.com is doing when they adjust that BOM is not doing?BOM states their methodology, so it is easy to figure out how they adjust. BoxOffice.com doesn't, so that makes it more difficult to compare whose method is better.

[lab276]

I don't think the numbers are different enough to worry about something like that, they could both be "accurate". That said, I wouldn't take either list as having much authority. They can give a general idea of rank, but neither truly takes into account rereleases, so for films older than 1980 it's essentially useless.

[A Marvel Fanboy]

I wont take any adjusted lists seriously.

[stuart360]

Its impossible to get correct numbers, especially the further back you go and combine that with the variables involved and adjusted numbers are pretty much worthless imo.

[Walt Disney]

I don't think the numbers are different enough to worry about something like that, they could both be "accurate". That said, I wouldn't take either list as having much authority. They can give a general idea of rank, but neither truly takes into account rereleases, so for films older than 1980 it's essentially useless.

I understand that the numbers can only give a general rank, which is actually fine with me as that is all I use the numbers for. What I am trying to figure out is why their adjusted numbers are different. For the most part, both sites have the same number for actual gross (or close enough that they are in the same balllpark). It's when they adjust the numbers that they come up with different results.

[Harpospoke]

If adjusted numbers are useless, then unadjusted numbers are more useless. When a movie can be released today, be a modest hit, and make more than the massive hits of the past...there is a problem with the ranking. Is it really accurate to say Superman Returns was a bigger hit than Gone with the Wind or that both Iron Man movies were bigger hits than Star Wars?

[Walt Disney]

If adjusted numbers are useless, then unadjusted numbers are more useless. When a movie can be released today, be a modest hit, and make more than the massive hits of the past...there is a problem with the ranking. Is it really accurate to say Superman Returns was a bigger hit than Gone with the Wind or that both Iron Man movies were bigger hits than Star Wars?

I agree. The only reason i follow the Box Office is to compare movies in different generations. Or else it is boring b/c inflation means that new movies will always gross more than older movies. I want to neutralize the dollars as much as I can so i can compare dollars to dollars.

[Mayhem2x3]

If adjusted numbers are useless, then unadjusted numbers are more useless. When a movie can be released today, be a modest hit, and make more than the massive hits of the past...there is a problem with the ranking. Is it really accurate to say Superman Returns was a bigger hit than Gone with the Wind or that both Iron Man movies were bigger hits than Star Wars?

What would be much better would be to find a good stat that would indicate a movie versus it's market around it. Not sure if that exists?

[Phil in the Blank]

Movies in the older days also had less competition for the entertainment dollar then they do today. These days we have dvd and streaming video, games, music on demand, the Internet etc etc etc. All these things that people may choose to do with there free-time rather than go to the cinema. Of course these days there are also more people around.Inflation is just one factor when judging the success of an older movie vs a newer movie. It's a lot more complicated then just that though.

[Harpospoke]

Agree adjusting for inflation isn't enough. It's better than not adjusting at all, but don't we kinda look at box office as a measure of popularity? So the fact that people can "wait for video" or stream it online today makes the box office numbers somewhat deceiving. Today's box office is more a measure of "OMG I can't wait to see this!" than overall "want to see it".

Gone with the Wind is an interesting case to me. That movie consumed the public. The book was a massive hit that everyone was reading. Every actress in Hollywood wanted to play Scarlet. They took polls to see who should play Scarlet and Rhett. They held a surprise screening to a test audience and this is how it was described:

When the film began, there was a buzz in the audience when Selznick's name appeared, for they had read about the making of the film for over two years. In an interview years later, Kern described the exact moment the audience realized what was happening:

"When Margaret Mitchell's name came on the screen, you never heard such a sound in your life. They just yelled, they stood up on the seats...I had the [manually operated sound] box. And I had that music wide open and you couldn't hear a thing. Mrs. Selznick was crying like a baby and so was David and so was I. Oh, what a thrill! And when Gone with the Wind came on the screen, it was thunderous!"

They were able to re-release it so many times because of the public demand. (I think it's in theaters as we speak) Its popularity spanned generations. 37 years after its release, it was shown on TV for the first time and set the all time ratings record. Ted Turner chose it as the first program shown on both TNT to great ratings and later on TCM. (Some may remember what a big deal it was that Turner had acquired the rights to GWTW at the time) They released yet another special edition on its 70th anniversary in 2009. Try to imagine Titanic getting the same treatment in 2067.

It was truly a monster that I believe only Star Wars has equaled as far as cultural popularity. Adjusting for inflation at least gives us some idea.

[lab276]

If adjusted numbers are useless, then unadjusted numbers are more useless. When a movie can be released today, be a modest hit, and make more than the massive hits of the past...there is a problem with the ranking. Is it really accurate to say Superman Returns was a bigger hit than Gone with the Wind or that both Iron Man movies were bigger hits than Star Wars?

I kind of agree, unadjusted lists lose their edge when the difference between years is more than five years or so. But if you can't account for each rerelease, then why bother adjusting at all?

[lab276]

They released yet another special edition on its 70th anniversary in 2009. Try to imagine Titanic getting the same treatment in 2067.

We'll have to wait and see. It's already more popular than it was in the mid-2000s, it's IMDb score was around 6.9 (possibly lower) and it has since climbed to 7.6.

[Harpospoke]

I kind of agree, unadjusted lists lose their edge when the difference between years is more than five years or so. But if you can't account for each rerelease, then why bother adjusting at all?

"Better than nothing" is my view.I never would have bothered to read about GWTW and impact it had if not for the adjusted list. It was just a an "old movie" far far down on the box office list. And who would know about the massive impact of Star Wars without that list? 42nd worldwide hardly comes close to being an accurate way to look at SW.

[Walt Disney]

"Better than nothing" is my view.I never would have bothered to read about GWTW and impact it had if not for the adjusted list. It was just a an "old movie" far far down on the box office list. And who would know about the massive impact of Star Wars without that list? 42nd worldwide hardly comes close to being an accurate way to look at SW.

I agree with you completely. That's how I look at it. The only reason I created this thread was b/c I was just curious about how BoxOffice.com adjusted their list. Mojo explains what method they use to adjust their list.I wasn't starting it to debate whether to adjust for inflation. I think trying to neutralize the dollars so they are worth the same value is important, that way you aren't comparing apples to oranges.An exact list would be nive, but I don't need it. I just need a list that gives a close estimation of what the older movies have done BO wise. Because the newer movies do have accurate numbers (certainly since 1980), so I want to see where they slot in compared to all the movies that have come before it.