Support NeoGAF

[MIMIC]

So then by that definition Dark Knight is the second most popular movie of all time then? So we should use unadjusted box office charts as an indicator for popularity, but when talking about Avatar we should use the adjusted one? Huh?

OK...I see what you mean. I was going by adjusted for Avatar and unadjusted for other movies (since I said that gross and popularity used to go hand-in-hand until Avatar). I just realized my mistake. I wasn't accounting for the years upon years of inflation.

 

[border]

well number of tickets sold also puts avatar at the most popular since titanic right?

No, it puts Phantom Menace as the most popular film since Titanic.

anyway, gross is still my preferred metric because people dont easily part with their money. so many people paying a premium means that the movie is very very well liked.

Why? No other creative industry uses gross revenue as a metric for popularity, because it will naturally scale upward with inflation. But then again, no other industry is as obsessed with "record-breaking" and trying to look successful despite decreasing influence and relevance.

 

[-COOLIO-]

No, it puts Phantom Menace as the most popular film since Titanic.



Why? No other creative industry uses gross revenue as a metric for popularity, because it will naturally scale upward with inflation. But then again, no other industry is as obsessed with "record-breaking" and trying to look successful despite decreasing influence and relevance.

i think they all do.

 

[Dead]

No, it puts Phantom Menace as the most popular film since Titanic.

Not for long, since Avatar will more than likely end up higher than TPM on the Adjusted All time chart.

 

[border]

i think they all do.

The best selling album is the one that sold the most records/CDs. The best selling book is the one that sold the most books. The best selling videogame is the one that sold the most discs/cartridges. The most popular TV show is the one that had the most viewers. Billboard tracks unit sales, NPD tracks unit sales, New York Times tracks unit sales, Nielsen tracks viewer numbers.

All other industries use a metric that is unaffected by inflation, and reflects the actual number of customers -- not revenue. It should stand to reason that ticket sales should be the metric for films, but it isn't.

 

[-COOLIO-]

The best selling album is the one that sold the most records/CDs. The best selling book is the one that sold the most books. The best selling videogame is the one that sold the most discs/cartridges. The most popular TV show is the one that had the most viewers.

All other industries use a metric that is unaffected by inflation, and reflects the actual number of customers -- not revenue. It should stand to reason that ticket sales should be the metric for films, but it isn't.

best selling things, sell the most, yes. as far as gauging consumer appeal, im pretty sure most execs use gross.

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

The best selling album is the one that sold the most records/CDs. The best selling book is the one that sold the most books. The best selling videogame is the one that sold the most discs/cartridges. The most popular TV show is the one that had the most viewers. Billboard tracks unit sales, NPD tracks unit sales, New York Times tracks unit sales, Nielsen tracks viewer numbers.

All other industries use a metric that is unaffected by inflation, and reflects the actual number of customers -- not revenue. It should stand to reason that ticket sales should be the metric for films, but it isn't.

You had better add dvds/blurays/online downloads etc to the films' viewership then.

 

[koam]

The adjusted numbers are bullshit anyway. Avatar costs $4 more than titanic did here but only $2 more in 2d. Box office mojo is making sound like avatar costs $20 and titanic cost $7.

 

[border]

Executives use gross internally because they're running a company and have to show a profit, and "number of units sold" does not tell that tale. But if you're looking to actually gauge popularity, I don't think that revenue is a legitimate way to do it.....at least not if you're comparing products from decades ago against things released today.

 

[MIMIC]

best selling things, sell the most, yes. as far as gauging consumer appeal, im pretty sure most execs use gross.

Not really. A record label drops an artist because of failing to meet a certain number of albums sold. A TV show is prematurely canceled because of low ratings.

Gross is important but in these industries, success is measured by the number of customers, not how much money it made. That's why I much prefer the "reported by units" method.

 

[mattiewheels]

 

[koam]

Border: the problem is that people think that avatar grossed $1.8b total. What they're not taking into account is all the dvd sales and online sales that haven't even started. More importantly, the movie has only been in theatres for 40 or so days, by the time its out it will be at 2.8b+.

 

[border]

The adjusted numbers are bullshit anyway. Avatar costs $4 more than titanic did here but only $2 more in 2d. Box office mojo is making sound like avatar costs $20 and titanic cost $7.

AVATAR = $558,179,737 / 74,823,000 tickets = $7.46 average ticket price

TITANIC = $600,788,188 / 128,345,900 tickets = $4.68 average ticket price

Less than a $3 difference, and that average ticket price for AVATAR is more than fair considering you probably can't get into a 3D showing for less than 10 bucks.

Border: the problem is that people think that avatar grossed $1.8b total. What they're not taking into account is all the dvd sales and online sales that haven't even started.

Except we'll never get numbers for those, nor will we get them for all the films Avatar might be compared against. The records system generally includes theatrical runs only anyway. I'd argue that Avatar's performance on download will be worse than the average film since 3D isn't available to most consumers, and without that it loses a good bit of its allure.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Not really. A record label drops an artist because of failing to meet a certain number of albums sold.

Resulting in them not making enough money.

A TV show is prematurely canceled because of low ratings.

Ratings dictate how much the network can charge for commercials, which is how the show makes money. Low ratings means low commercial revenue which is why shows get canned.

It's irrelevant anyways. Different industries have different traditions in how they report their success to the public. It's box office receipts for films.

I think there's an interesting conversation to be had about declining theater attendance amid greater entertainment competition, the subsequent rise in ticket prices, and how Avatar has been able to break through all that despite charging a premium for its most popular format. That's the more relevant context to discuss Avatar's relative popularity, but that's probably not as compelling as the current one, sadly.

Except we'll never get numbers for those, nor will we get them for all the films Avatar might be compared against.

Which is exactly why you should not adjust for ticket price inflation - ticket prices have gone up due to competition from those formats. Don't subtract on one end what you can't add back on the other.

 

[universalmind]

AVATAR surpasses Titanic to become the best movie OF ALL TIME.

 

[border]

I feel like the move to 3D is a part of the death knell for Hollywood (or at least movie theatres). Avatar benefited because it was unique, but when everything gets made in 3D then everything is equal, and all you're left with is grossly inflated ticket prices which will only lead to more sagging attendence numbers.

Maybe "death knell" is a little too dramatic, but I think this is only going to accelerate Hollywood's diminishing theatrical returns rather than reverse them.

 

[GhaleonEB]

I feel like the move to 3D is a part of the death knell for Hollywood (or at least movie theatres). Avatar benefited because it was unique, but when everything gets made in 3D then everything is equal, and all you're left with is grossly inflated ticket prices which will only lead to more sagging attendence numbers.

Maybe "death knell" is a little too dramatic, but I think this is only going to accelerate Hollywood's diminishing theatrical returns rather than reverse them.

The same argument could be made for both the gradual rise in ticket prices in response to increased home competition, and to IMAX (which makes up 18% of Avatar's earnings so far), yet that hasn't proven to be the case. As long as theaters are able to create a unique and compelling experience that people are willing to pay for, they'll be fine. 3D is simply the latest round of theaters finding a way to do so.

The success of Avatar does present two dangers, though. The first is that we're in for a glut of shitty 3D movies that won't do well because they're going to be shitty. The other is that it accelerated the push for 3D in the home, which mitigates the advantage of 3D theaters.

Errr, shouldn't competition result in a price decrease rather than the steep increase we've seen?

Theaters have been raising prices to make up for lost revenue due to declining ticket sales to the home markets and other forms of entertainment. This is not a controversial statement.

The whole point is that inflation shouldn't be an issue since they should have a metric that is immune to currency fluctuation. Unfortunately the whole system is corrupt since nobody was ever interested in tracking ticket sales, so we'll never have numbers for older films. Box Office Mojo's ticket numbers just seem to be gross divided by average ticket price for a particular years.

Again, there's nothing corrupt about it. The success of movies has traditionally been reported in box office receipts, and continue to be. It's not a conspiracy.

 

[border]

Which is exactly why you should not adjust for ticket price inflation - ticket prices have gone up due to competition from those formats. Don't subtract on one end what you can't add back on the other.

Errr, shouldn't competition result in a price decrease rather than the steep increase we've seen?

The whole point is that inflation shouldn't be an issue since they should have a metric that is immune to currency fluctuation. Unfortunately the whole system is corrupt since nobody was ever interested in tracking ticket sales, so we'll never have numbers for older films. Box Office Mojo's ticket numbers just seem to be gross divided by average ticket price for a particular year.

 

[PhoncipleBone]

I feel like the move to 3D is a part of the death knell for Hollywood (or at least movie theatres). Avatar benefited because it was unique, but when everything gets made in 3D then everything is equal, and all you're left with is grossly inflated ticket prices which will only lead to more sagging attendence numbers.

Maybe "death knell" is a little too dramatic, but I think this is only going to accelerate Hollywood's diminishing theatrical returns rather than reverse them.

The point of 3d is to deliver an experience that is unique and you are unable to get at home. That is why I am surprised hollywood is so behind getting 3d tvs out there so fast. I would think that would eat into the 3d theater experience.

 

[GhaleonEB]

The point of 3d is to deliver an experience that is unique and you are unable to get at home. That is why I am surprised hollywood is so behind getting 3d tvs out there so fast. I would think that would eat into the 3d theater experience.

Bear in mind the stakeholders here:

Theater operators are installing 3D theaters to draw consumers to theaters.

The content providers - studios - are the ones who want 3D in the home, so they can sell more content in a new format. The theater operators are likely utterly dismayed.

 

[PhoncipleBone]

Bear in mind the stakeholders here:

Theater operators are installing 3D theaters to draw consumers to theaters.

The content providers - studios - are the ones who want 3D in the home, so they can sell more content in a new format. The theater operators are likely utterly dismayed.

Thankfully the price of entry for 3d in the home will be at a premium for a bit, and people are just finally transitioning to HDTV completely now, so it will be a bit of time before 3d at home negatively impacts 3d at the cinema. I just hope the filmmakers look to Avatar on how to properly handle 3d and not the multitude of "eye poker" 3d stuff thats been used lately.

 

[border]

Again, there's nothing corrupt about it. The success of movies has traditionally been reported in box office receipts, and continue to be. It's not a conspiracy.

I don't mean that it's a shady conspiracy, just that it's broken and completely irreparable. Nobody tracked ticket sales, and there is no reasonable way of extrapolating those numbers -- particularly now that 3D and IMAX have introduced different tiers of pricing. I seriously doubt that the average AVATAR ticket was $7.46.

I'd be curious to know how gross became the preferred metric -- maybe it wasn't a conscious decision, but as a result they will always be able to show growth and set records even as attendance plummets.

Theaters have been raising prices to make up for lost revenue due to declining ticket sales to the home markets and other forms of entertainment. This is not a controversial statement.

Well arguably they might have been better off lowering ticket prices in response to competition (the normal economic practice), but I know that's not what happened.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Thankfully the price of entry for 3d in the home will be at a premium for a bit, and people are just finally transitioning to HDTV completely now, so it will be a bit of time before 3d at home negatively impacts 3d at the cinema. I just hope the filmmakers look to Avatar on how to properly handle 3d and not the multitude of "eye poker" 3d stuff thats been used lately.

Yeah. And I'm encouraged that IMAX is such a huge share of Avatar's take. They're the real winner in this entire enterprise, and they're not in any danger of competition from the home.

 

[PhoncipleBone]

Well arguably they might have been better off lowering ticket prices in response to competition (the normal economic practice), but I know that's not what happened.

The other problem is that studios started taking larger parts of the money from tickets as time went on.

 

[MIMIC]

Resulting in them not making enough money.


Ratings dictate how much the network can charge for commercials, which is how the show makes money. Low ratings means low commercial revenue which is why shows get canned.

True...when it's all said and done it comes back to money (EVERYTHING does) but the point is that many industries (books/tv shows/video games/music) would rather report their success by the unit, not by the dollar to indicate true popularity. Otherwise, why do it? Just me personally, I'm more interested in the popularity of an item rather than how much it made. But that's just me.

 

[border]

Yeah. And I'm encouraged that IMAX is such a huge share of Avatar's take. They're the real winner in this entire enterprise, and they're not in any danger of competition from the home.

Imax is most definitely competing with the home, because at this point I gotta imagine that the majority of their screens are LieMax. They've destroyed their brand, and between AVATAR, TDK, and Harry Potter a lot of people are waking up to it. They got a nice short term gain, but I know I'm sure as hell not paying a premium for their screens again.

The hilarious flip side is that the true IMAX is probably the worst 3D tech out there since it relies on 24fps analong celluloid.....so they are kinda taking it in both ends.

 

[MiamiWesker]

I can't wait to see how people react when Titanic gets rereleased in 3D and takes back it's #1 spot.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Imax is most definitely competing with the home, because at this point I gotta imagine that the majority of their screens are LieMax. They've destroyed their brand, and between AVATAR, TDK, and Harry Potter a lot of people are waking up to it. They got a nice short term gain, but I know I'm sure as hell not paying a premium for their screens again.

IMAX's latest winning streak started last year with the latest Harry Potter film, The Dark Knight, and will continue with more big names. The next movie in the vampire-filled Twilight franchise, Alice in Wonderland and Tron are also slated for release in the coming months.

The hilarious flip side is that the true IMAX is probably the worst 3D tech out there since it relies on 24fps analong celluloid.....so they are kinda taking it in both ends.

IMAX said its fourth-quarter global box-office sales more than tripled to a record $100 million compared with last year. About $54 million came from Avatar, it said.

http://www.thestar.com/business/article/747228--imax-rides-high-on-avatar-success

 

[border]

I'm not arguing that IMAX isn't doing better than it ever has before, just that they've sacrificed their competitive edge for those short term gains. I've seen Avatar in LieMax and in RealD, and there's pretty much no difference. With ticket prices already approaching $15, I'm not going to throw down any extra money for a regular-sized screen with IMAX branding.

They will not be immune to competition from home theaters simply because they aren't providing anything more than home theaters. IMAX doesn't mean "HOLY SHIT HUGE EPIC SCREEN" anymore -- it just means an extra couple bucks added to the ticket price. If they were the only game in town for 3D it might be something different, but with competitors like RealD not charging yet another premium on top of the 3D premium, I don't see a reason to buy an IMAX ticket.

 

[wRATH2x]

Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation Inflation

Spoiler

Inflation

 

[jett]

Yeah. And I'm encouraged that IMAX is such a huge share of Avatar's take. They're the real winner in this entire enterprise, and they're not in any danger of competition from the home.

I wouldn't say huge. I think worldwide it accounts for around $100 million of the total.

BTW border, we do get domestic figures for video sales and rentals.

 

[Korey]

To be fair, though, Avatar is not the highest-grossing movie "OF ALL TIME," Kayne notwithstanding. It's the highest-grossing movie up to now. Saying "of all time" means it will never, ever, be surpassed in the future, even 100 years from now, which is, as so many people have pointed out, absurd given how Hollywood loves to use raw numbers so the record keeps getting broken. But "highest-grossing movie thus far" isn't quite as catchy.

I just want to reiterate that this is the most amazing post I've read in quite a while.

 

[xrich]

I'm not arguing that IMAX isn't doing better than it ever has before, just that they've sacrificed their competitive edge for those short term gains. I've seen Avatar in LieMax and in RealD, and there's pretty much no difference. With ticket prices already approaching $15, I'm not going to throw down any extra money for a regular-sized screen with IMAX branding.

They will not be immune to competition from home theaters simply because they aren't providing anything more than home theaters. IMAX doesn't mean "HOLY SHIT HUGE EPIC SCREEN" anymore -- it just means an extra couple bucks added to the ticket price. If they were the only game in town for 3D it might be something different, but with competitors like RealD not charging yet another premium on top of the 3D premium, I don't see a reason to buy an IMAX ticket.

wrong. you dont see a reason to buy a LIMAX ticket. IMAX is fucking awesome, especially when scenes are filmed for it.