Mariyam Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 Adjusting for inflation is not spot on but gives you a general idea of how a film would do if it were released in a different year/time. For old films, sometimes data like number of tickets sold is also not available but then you take the gross and divide it by the avg ticket price of that time to estimate the number of tickets sold. And you are right when you say that even a relatively bad movie today could gross more than some of the classics, which is why many go by 'the adjusted for inflation list' :winky: I get you. What I'm trying to say is that other factors have also changed between 1939 and 2009. For eg: If there were 20 crore people in the US in 1939, and there are 30 crores now, then obviously you are going to get more footfalls today. So even if I adjust for inflation for a 1939 movie, how can I take into account the 10 crores who weren't there to watch the movie in 1939 but are there now? And today's numbers also include overseas markets like China/India etc , something that wasn't there in 1939. Am I even making any sense?
yoda Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 I get you. What I'm trying to say is that other factors have also changed between 1939 and 2009. For eg: If there were 20 crore people in the US in 1939, and there are 30 crores now, then obviously you are going to get more footfalls today. So even if I adjust for inflation for a 1939 movie, how can I take into account the 10 crores who weren't there to watch the movie in 1939 but are there now? And today's numbers also include overseas markets like China/India etc , something that wasn't there in 1939. Am I even making any sense? Why does it need to take that into account when just listing box office proceeds? They are not trying to come up with a list of "best" movies, it is just a list of top grossing movies of all time.
Mariyam Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 Why does it need to take that into account when just listing box office proceeds? They are not trying to come up with a list of "best" movies' date=' it is just a list of top grossing movies of all time.[/quote'] Because how much a movie grosses = price of ticket x no. of tickets sold. And no. of tickets sold will be more if there are more people. Hypothetical example: if the best film that could possibly ever be made was in Hungarian which only Hungarian people can see and understand. If each Hungarian saw the film 10 times in the hall, in its year of release - 1950, it would still not have enough footfalls to match a crap Bollywood movie like "Yamla Pagla Deewana" . So no matter what your adjustment wrt ticket prices is, the population will stay unadjusted. Thats not level playing field.
zen Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 I get you. What I'm trying to say is that other factors have also changed between 1939 and 2009. For eg: If there were 20 crore people in the US in 1939, and there are 30 crores now, then obviously you are going to get more footfalls today. So even if I adjust for inflation for a 1939 movie, how can I take into account the 10 crores who weren't there to watch the movie in 1939 but are there now? And today's numbers also include overseas markets like China/India etc , something that wasn't there in 1939. Am I even making any sense? If in 1939, the population was less compared to say 2009 but then in 1939 films didn't compete with other forms of entertainment like television as much as it does now. Today, you get to see too many pre-views to decide whether you want to see a film or not too .... There would be many pros and cons, tangibles and intagibles, but to keep things simple and give a general idea, 'the number of tickets sold' is primiarily used to adjust for inflation May be the reasoning for that could be that 'the number of tickets sold' in some way accounts for many of those unknowns. You may ask how? Allow me to explain by drawing a parallel with the following example. Of cousre the example that I give may not draw the exact parallels but could be used to get the crux of my point: Avg life expectancy in Afganistan: say 40 years Avg life expectancy in say country Z: say 80 years Now whatever happens in Afganistan and country Z is in a way reflected in that avg life number (number of tickets sold). Now if a new born baby in Afganistan were to be raised in country Z, you would expect that baby to live for more than 40 years (theoretically). Now the truth is that anything could happen. The baby could grow up to become a fast driver and may be get killed in a car crash at the age of 39. That's a possibility but looking at those avg life expectancy numbers, you could get a general idea of for how many years a person could possible live for in contry Z vs in Afganistan. And that number in a way reflects what could be happeneing in those countries taking into account some of the unknowns The number of tickets sold draws on the similar idea and gives you a general idea.
Guest Gunner Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 I get you. What I'm trying to say is that other factors have also changed between 1939 and 2009. For eg: If there were 20 crore people in the US in 1939, and there are 30 crores now, then obviously you are going to get more footfalls today. So even if I adjust for inflation for a 1939 movie, how can I take into account the 10 crores who weren't there to watch the movie in 1939 but are there now? And today's numbers also include overseas markets like China/India etc , something that wasn't there in 1939. Am I even making any sense? I would say that inflation is also a factor of such things as population increase. Of course it depends on whether it is supply side inflation or demand led inflation but it still works.
yoda Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 Because how much a movie grosses = price of ticket x no. of tickets sold. And no. of tickets sold will be more if there are more people. Hypothetical example: if the best film that could possibly ever be made was in Hungarian which only Hungarian people can see and understand. If each Hungarian saw the film 10 times in the hall, in its year of release - 1950, it would still not have enough footfalls to match a crap Bollywood movie like "Yamla Pagla Deewana" . So no matter what your adjustment wrt ticket prices is, the population will stay unadjusted. Thats not level playing field. Yes, yes, number of people who watch a movie varies a lot, not just because of the time period it was released and the total population but also by other choices the said population had at that time of the movie release. All that aside, Inflation adjusted is just what it is - Inflation adjusted.
cowboysfan Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 Not a big fan of both Avatar and Titanic. Two of the most overrated movies. I like Godfather II more than I. I think it's richer and more complex. i agree,Avatar is ok but not a "epic" movie.titanic just makes me barf.
rkt.india Posted June 10, 2011 Author Posted June 10, 2011 I think the number of films at theaters at any given time might have an effect on the earning of a movie. If you have less choice of movies to view you might end up watching the most popular movie more often than not. Then there is piracy' date=' DVDs/blue-rays being released within a year or aired on TV. So even if you do not watch the movie in theater you can still view it within a year.[/quote'] yes...absolutely right....it is like comparing Bradman to Tendulkar
rkt.india Posted June 10, 2011 Author Posted June 10, 2011 I get you. What I'm trying to say is that other factors have also changed between 1939 and 2009. For eg: If there were 20 crore people in the US in 1939, and there are 30 crores now, then obviously you are going to get more footfalls today. So even if I adjust for inflation for a 1939 movie, how can I take into account the 10 crores who weren't there to watch the movie in 1939 but are there now? And today's numbers also include overseas markets like China/India etc , something that wasn't there in 1939. Am I even making any sense? But there are other things too like there were not many options back then for entertainment..Movies were only entertainment for people...so more people went to watch it. There were competition between the movies. Now you can see half a dozen movies running in a same cinema hall so choice of moves also have increased and then the piracy factor and also high ticket rates also prevent people to go to cinema hall and watch movies when they can see it through pirated DVDs
Recommended Posts