[Chefelf]

Everyone always ranks movies based on box office sales. Why don't they use ticket sales or is that too hard to track?

Star Wars grossed $461 million. The Phantom Menace "beat it" by grossing $925 million. Am I missing the point? Maybe I don't understand the business enough but it seems unfair to compare the two.

The average ticket price in 1977 was about $3.00. I can't back this up with any facts, I'm just guessing based on the opening from Hardware Wars where they declare: "You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll kiss three bucks goodbye!"

The average ticket price in 1999 was probably closer to $9.00. Shouldn't these rising ticket prices be taken into account?

Sorry. I just had to bring that up as I notice that no one ever seems to and the top grossing movies just keep becoming more and more recent. It's not because movies are selling anymore, it's because tickets have tripled in price. The fact that the original Star Wars is still in the top 10 (number 5 or 6 I believe) is amazing.

[Helena]

Yes, I'm surprised you don't find more ranking sites that take inflation into account. If you assume that ticket prices cost three times as much as in the 1970s (I'd have thought it would be more, actually), Star Wars easily beats TPM.

[Just your average movie goer]

I'm with you on it too. But of course, when you consider that trash like Independence Day (whoa, must add that to the "movies you shouldn't see" thread) rakes it in at the box office, financial success is no means of measuring how good a movie is.

It can be used to measure other things though, such as how many people will willingly hand over their hard-earned cash to watch total garbage.

[civilian_number_two]

You can't take inflation into account.

The rise in ticket prices is disproportionate to inflation. In 1977 you could NOT get a cheap steak for $12, and now you can see a movie in some cases for $14.50. Add to which it's harder to park or take the bus, and all the extras like popcorn and such have turned a family outing to a movie into a weekend at a theme park.

Fortunately (?) , at the same time, our entire society has become inflicted with a form of OCD, and we must see these things, no matter what. As for me, with most films if the reviews are good I just wait for the DVD and as often as not I just buy the thing before I've seen it. It's usually cheaper to buy a DVD than to pay two admissions. Even with that, I go to the movies from time to time, and endure the cell phones and the poeple who thing they can talk just like this was their living room.

...

When my mom was a kid (this is a long time ago, since she had me in her 40s, and I'm 35), people went to the movies three or four times a week. These were not the Rockefellers; my mother came from a typically large Irish Catholic family, single income, the works. And they all went to the movie all the time. So back then movies were even cheaper than they were in 1977, proportionately the equivalent of a candy bar or a cheap loaf of bread.

Where am I going with all of this? GONE WITH THE WIND, they say, sold more tickets than anything. This is real nice, but they were about a nickel apiece and no big deal there. Add to which = no tv or video market. Now if the next Star wasr movie makes $400 million domestically, it will be making it $12 at a time. So only about 7.5% of the population need to see the film for it to gross like that. On the other hand, at those prices, they shouldn't expect much more.

It's just too complicated a question: how low can/should they lower the price to pack in capacity crowds? Knowing that the video market is right behind, and the longer you run something, the more it costs to advertise? And how do you compare a thing like INDEPENDENCE DAY, with two screenings every hour, to a thing like GONE WITH THE WIND, which enjoyed rereleases every year for about 20 years?

[Laura]

Going to the movies isn't worth it anymore.

Sometimes my friends and I have parents or adults who ask us "Why don't you take advantage of living in Boston? When I lived there in the 70s (or 80s or whenver) we used to go to the movies or a concert and a ball game every week."

Great, but-- bleacher seats in Fenway Park cost $1-$5 back then. Now I think they cost $20-$30 for games nobody cares about. Even with inflation, that's a big increase.

Different things inflate at different scales. For example, how much did food, clothes, and books cost in 1977? I think it's roughly comparable, percent of paycheck wise, to what those things cost now. (Except for comic books which used to cost ten cents and now cost six-fifty.)

[barend]

I've brought up this issue a few times here...

i'm quite pissed off about the lack crononomics incorperated into comparative market of film grossing at the box office...

not to mention the fact that films now open in more cinimas...
there are infinitley more sets of any film being played on opening day...

bigger cinimas too... that fit more people, people who pay money, money that contributes to the total gross.. getting the picture...

if a film in 1920 made 1920USD $10 000 opening in 30 cinimas that house each 500 people nation wide, it's hardly fair to compare that to a film in 2004 making 2005USD $900 million (which is probably only twice as much in retroactive value) opening in 10 000 cinemas housing 1000 people each...

it's just not fair or accurate...

DISCLAIMER: do not adjust figures to b more accurate i was just making a point!

[Jordan]

Where am I going with all of this? GONE WITH THE WIND, they say, sold more tickets than anything. This is real nice, but they were about a nickel apiece and no big deal there. Add to which = no tv or video market. Now if the next Star wasr movie makes $400 million domestically, it will be making it $12 at a time. So only about 7.5% of the population need to see the film for it to gross like that. On the other hand, at those prices, they shouldn't expect much more.

I don't understand. Are TV and video markets also a variable? Is that what you're saying? Wouldn't that then make movies that did well back in the day even more of a success since tailers, candy bars, bus signs, newspapers, magzines, video games etcc... did not in anyway lure people into the cinema.

Or are you saying that the demographics are so different that the comparisson is impossible?

[barend]

there's another to add to the list...

more advertising.... of upcomming movies.. shows like E news carrying on about a film untill you think you'll burst if you don't see it...


and many other promotions...

[civilian_number_two]

When I mentioned that there was no tv, I was bringing up another factor: movies were cheaper so everyone could afford them. Now that we have tv, movies can be elite. The theatres and distribution houses have figured out that home video in a rival market (sorta; the distribution houses have their cut of that as well), so they make the most of their theatrical runs. Rereleases of films is nearly impossible. There's a home video market, there's a first run market, and the frst run market does not on average go to the movies four times a week.

So yeah, I guess I was saying that comparison is essentially impossible.

[Chefelf]

You can't take inflation into account.

Right, that's a given.

As for me, with most films if the reviews are good I just wait for the DVD and as often as not I just buy the thing before I've seen it.  It's usually cheaper to buy a DVD than to pay two admissions.  Even with that, I go to the movies from time to time, and endure the cell phones and the poeple who thing they can talk just like this was their living room.

I find myself, more often than not, just buying or renting the DVD. I can't be bothered to pay the huge prices at the movies. Also, there are rarely any movies that I NEED to see that badly that I can't wait. I probably go to the movies twice a year (if that).

It's just too complicated a question: how low can/should they lower the price to pack in capacity crowds?  Knowing that the video market is right behind, and the longer you run something, the more it costs to advertise?

Well, there was a place near my house 6 or 7 years ago that would do $4.00 admissions every Tuesday night. And EVERYONE I know went. The place was packed. Then, suddenly, they stopped it. And we stopped going.

Going to the movies isn't worth it anymore.

That's exactly it. I'm only 26 and I can remember a time (when I was old enough to drive me and my friends around) where movies were still $5.00. We used to go to the movies all the time. We'd go see good movies, mediocre movies... it was just a fun thing to do. But the price of tickets, on average, has doubled in the past ten years. Concessions haven't gotten any cheaper either. Of course, even if I do go to a movie these days I dont' spend a penny on popcorn or drinks. That's just a fool's game.

I understand that it's a business, blah, blah, blah. But movies are the same as anything else. If movies were $5.00 a pop, I'd probably go quite a bit. If CDs were around $8-$10 I would probably buy them often. However, both industries have become unnecessarily bloated and I spend next to no money on either of them throughout a year. If I buy two CDs and see two movies in the theatre that's about average.

Anyhow, I don't think it's fair to compare movie ticket sales across 30 years. The list will always be more recent movies.

[Helena]

You can't take inflation into account.

The rise in ticket prices is disproportionate to inflation.  In 1977 you could NOT get a cheap steak for $12, and now you can see a movie in some cases for $14.50.  Add to which it's harder to park or take the bus, and all the extras like popcorn and such have turned a family outing to a movie into a weekend at a theme park.

Surely there must be data on how much cinema tickets cost in 1977? Although you have a point about all those other factors making comparisons difficult. Even so, the box office gross still seems the least sensible way to judge the success of a movie.

[civilian_number_two]

According to one site I found, the average price was $2.23 in 1977. This site however names $6.14 as the average current price, so I think it's including the numerous second-run and rural theatres as well. I remember 1977, and pretty much every theatre was first-run. I think that price is accurate as well; I recall seeing EMPIRE nine times on the big screen, at $3 per visit.

The subject of inflation-adjustment is a bug up a lot of asses, as a quick google search can attest to. But I still say there are other factors, The ticket prices have gone up disproportionate to inflation, and seeing a movie is a bigger deal than it once was (I was a 12-year old kid; I saw EMPIRE 9 times. A twelve-year-old kid today performing a comparable feat (first-run, living in the city) would spend at least $90. What I spent was NOT the 1980 equivalent of $90 I assure you. I never considered it a big deal to drop $3.

You have to take that into account, and I find most don't. Most economists just consider the Consumer Price Index, or the general rise of inflation. Here's someone taking a stab at it, and here's someone else's take.

Anyway, I don't have a big enough brain, or a properly-organized one, anyway, to know where I'm going with this. I mispoke in an earlier rant as well; I'd meant to say you couldn't buy a cheap steak for $3. Nowadays you can buy a fast food meal for less than the price of a movie. So the decision to see a film is different. That's my defence of the current records, by the way: GONE WITH THE WIND is always hailed as the revisionist best-seller of all time, since it sold the most tickets, but again they cost a lot less, proportionately, and it had multiple runs, which current films don't.

Blah. I honestly don't know what my argument is, apart from : you just can't compare box office results across time. Inflation isn't enough of a scale.

[Hannibal]

I will do what I have done the last time, that is find a movie worth giving my money to, usually during matinee, 4:30/5:00 discount time, and refuse to pay for a Star Wars ticket--and just walk into the theater playing star wars and sit down and watch the crap unfold. I encourage more people to do this, its kind of like...well, voting. Why sit through 2 more hours of George Lucas' crap, because I am going to have to have at least seen the crap I'm going to be posting about in the most negative way possible, and I am certainly not going to pay for it.

I encourage everyone to boycott star wars, not necessarily NOT go to see it, just don't give Lucas any more money, he doesn't need it anyway. I also advise everyone out there to DVD-R, and VIDEOTAPE and download and COPY the crappy Star Wars DVDs if you feel you must watch them or have them. After all, how many copies of Star Wars on VHS have you bought already? How many times have you paid Lucas, rented the videos, seen the Special Editions blah blah blah, etc. George Lucas urinated on his fans long ago--all of you. Its time you took what you wanted from him and stopped putting up with his crap. Turn your old tapes into DVD-Rs and trade them to your friends, get the ball rolling. Its not piracy, its civil disobedience. Send a message to George W. Lucas that you're not putting up with his crap anymore. Most people out there could make better movies than George Lucas, damn, most could make better DVDs.

You want Star Wars back? You're going to have to TAKE it back yourself and stop whining about it. Its yours, you bought it. You all spent hundreds of millions of dollars on STAR WARS...YOU own it. Lucas can stick it. I heard about the website scandal,(where he pissed on fans and their fansites over COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT FOR CHRISTS SAKES! FREE ADVERTISING!) the THX sound sample scandal, the Special Edition Fiasco #1, and #2(DVDs), Jar Jar Binks, Midichlorians, and d'Jango Fett. Take it back! The Prequel letdowns...when will you people learn, you have to take AMERICA--...er I mean STAR WARS BACK!
You are about to lose it forever...the DVDs are out they are crap, they don't have the special features you wanted and so on and so forth...

Radical fans are out there...making their own star wars movies, pirating original version DVDs, editing out Jar Jar Binks...and on and on and on...this still doesn't seem to get through to Lucas or the drooling fanboys who worship him. YOU WANT SOMETHING DONE RIGHT YOU HAVE TO DO IT YOURSELF.

Me, I'm refusing to give the fatboy any more money, and will stand here, against him and his Lucasfilm and all his stupidity. You have seen the facts with your very eyes, are you still...after everything that has transpired for the last 10 years and tell me that Lucas has good reasons, that he's a genius, that he can do whatever he wants, that he's master of his own creation, that you like getting reamed up the wazoo by a fat rich tycoon who ripped you for all he could get, and has the balls to say "I'm tired of the fans complaining about every detail...and you can't please eveyone...bah blah blah blah..." Anyone who accepts this is a moron.

[The Scornful Roman]

You want Star Wars back? You're going to have to TAKE it back yourself and stop whining about it. Its yours, you bought it. You all spent hundreds of millions of dollars on STAR WARS...YOU own it. Lucas can stick it. I heard about the website scandal,(where he pissed on fans and their fansites over COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT FOR CHRISTS SAKES! FREE ADVERTISING!) the THX sound sample scandal, the Special Edition Fiasco #1, and #2(DVDs), Jar Jar Binks, Midichlorians, and d'Jango Fett. ...

...Me, I'm refusing to give the fatboy any more money, and will stand here, against him and his Lucasfilm and all his stupidity. You have seen the facts with your very eyes, are you still...after everything that has transpired for the last 10 years and tell me that Lucas has good reasons, that he's a genius, that he can do whatever he wants, that he's master of his own creation, that you like getting reamed up the wazoo by a fat rich tycoon who ripped you for all he could get, and has the balls to say "I'm tired of the fans complaining about every detail...and you can't please eveyone...bah blah blah blah..." Anyone who accepts this is a moron.

http://www.shavenwoo...tory/hist3.html

Copied and pasted from the site:

THE LUCASFILM WEB SITE SCANDAL

Although this didn't start on RASSM, it can be viewed as RASSM history because of the part the members played in this monumental event. It began back in September 1996 when without warning news reached RASSM that Lucasfilm Ltd. were searching the Web for unofficial Star Wars sites with a view to closing them down. Why this was was unknown at the time, until people began claiming that they had been sent letters from Lucasfilm telling them that their Star Wars Web site was breaching copyrights and had to be closed. This wasn't true. Lucasfilm had apparently asked a man named Jason Ruspini to close his site, and that is where the rumours had started about a Web site holocaust. Of course these rumours sparked a bitter revolution as far as Star Wars Web site authors were concerned, and this too reached RASSM. A boycott began whereby Star Wars Web site owners, if they were against the proposed closures, would display a special symbol on their sites indicating their disaproval. This was quite a wide-spread protest. But within a matter of weeks Lucasfilm announced that the proposed closure of Jason Ruspini's site had been "a misunderstanding" and they did not plan to close any sites what-so-ever. Many people, upon further evidence of Lucasfilm's activities, still find this hard to believe.

A formal letter written to Jason by Lucasfilm denouncing the closure was printed in the Star Wars Insider issue #30.

1996

I'm willing to give Lucasfilm the benefit of the doubt on this one. Closing down fansites is an abysmally stupid thing to do, in 99% of the cases. Do you have proof that they have or have had in the past shut down sites? If so, why?

And, no, no one on here has said that Lucas is a flawless genius for gracing our lowly selves with the prequels. Quite the opposite, in fact.

[Just your average movie goer]

Maybe he's got us confused with the fanboys at the Force.Net.