Welcome to the ICM Forum. If you have an account but have trouble logging in, or have other questions, see THIS THREAD.
NOTE: Board emails should be working again. Information on forum upgrade and style issues.
Podcast: Talking Images (Episode 22 released November 17th * EXCLUSIVE * We Are Mentioned in a Book!!! Interview with Mary Guillermin on Rapture, JG & More)
Polls: Directors (Waiting for results), 1929 (Results), Directorial Debut Features (Mar 12th), DtC - Nominations (Mar 20th)
Challenges: Experimental/Avant Garde, Benelux, Run the Director
Film of the Week: Lean on Pete, April nominations (Apr 1st)

How to deal with All-Time Worldwide Box office

Post Reply
User avatar
Darth Nevets
Posts: 140
Joined: September 30th, 2016, 6:00 am
Contact:

#281

Post by Darth Nevets »

PeacefulAnarchy wrote: October 28th, 2019, 6:57 am The new Boxofficemojo layout is a joke waste of space that requires more clicks than necessary for everything and brings nothing new to the table.

Yes the data is "objective" (it actually isn't because global gross is a mess of exchange rates and inconsistent reporting, but for the purposes of this discussion it is, yeah)[Edit: Also money is not admissions and inherently biased towards recent films (admissions is too, btw) so objectivity here is in the eye of the beholder] but the cutoff is not. We tied ourselves to mojo and it's cutoff, when we tried to change the cutoff everyone said "follow the source, they haven't changed the cutoff why should you," so we didn't. Now the source has changed the cutoff. The-numbers has no cutoff. We can use it as the source, but then we have to decide the cutoff. That is this discussion. The alternative to changing the cutoff is leaving the cutoff as BOM has it and adding decade lists of some undetermined length. We have not made any decisions, we are reading and discussing. Yes there are people on this forum who don't care about this list and people who would like it gone. They aren't currently participating in this discussion so it's weird to keep talking about what they want when we're not considering what they want. We're trying to find something that makes sense for those who work on the box office list, something that meaningfully represents the box office, something that makes sense for the site's lists, something that is reasonable to update, something that has some reasonable and justifiable criteria.

I understand your perspective on the list fine. I agree with it in general, I don't agree with some of the specifics or some of your conclusions, but I read them and think about them.

The empire 500 is still up: https://www.empireonline.com/movies/fea ... st-movies/ Whether it's meant to be replaced by the more recent top 100 https://www.empireonline.com/movies/fea ... -movies-2/ is not so clear, the former included votes from 150 Hollywood people and 50 Critics (I assume to massage the results and expand the list) while the latter appears to be a pure reader poll.
That's not to say there aren't inconsistencies with how the lists are curated, how they're chosen, their sizes, etc. I've said this before, list selection and curation is a compromise and attempt to give users interesting and popular lists to work with. Not everyone agrees with every decision nor do we as mods, much less all the users, have the same vision of what the site should be. Feel free to criticize these inconsistencies or selections if you wish, but be careful trying to draw conclusions about intent from them.
I thank you for your careful consideration on this topic. Obviously that Empire list is worthless and the one as it is should stay.

I'll speak to the decades lists and say if they have to be adopted maybe the adjusted list should get them. Otherwise it just makes the problem worse, every film will be a Hollywood production. Moreover if those films had value more than likely many lists would already include them, their gross in the past no longer has much relevancy especially if the movie is now lost. It certainly isn't an examination of modern trends, and would update so infrequently as to be a nuisance rather than especially helpful.
User avatar
Darth Nevets
Posts: 140
Joined: September 30th, 2016, 6:00 am
Contact:

#282

Post by Darth Nevets »

Fergenaprido wrote: October 28th, 2019, 7:19 am I don't think I knew about The Numbers before. It looks like a decent site, and even has an inflation-adjusted list... but it doesn't have anything pre-1977 (or pre-1980 on a few lists) anywhere on the site, which to me is a problem. While the modern (summer) blockbuster may have begun with Star Wars, it's strange to me to have a box office list that doesn't include Jaws or Gone with the Wind. I think at this point, if BOM is going to stick to their new changes, a segmented approach is best: break it down by decades or groups of decades, maybe pre-1977 domestic (since international BO data seems to be scarce), 1977-[insert year] domestic, and [insert year]-present global (and make [insert year] the year when it seems that studios started caring about the global box office, making their films more widely available, and reporting the numbers. I assume that would be some time in the mid-90s or later? Perhaps 1997 would be a good cut off since that's when Titanic came out and could be seen as the start of the modern global box office).

The idea someone had of all films that hit $100K domestically, ordered by date they crossed the threshold is also good, IMO.
https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Jaws#tab=summary
https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Gone- ... ab=summary

The numbers actually lists more movies crossing the threshold than less.
User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 25938
Joined: May 8th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#283

Post by PeacefulAnarchy »

Fergenaprido wrote: October 28th, 2019, 7:19 am I don't think I knew about The Numbers before. It looks like a decent site, and even has an inflation-adjusted list... but it doesn't have anything pre-1977 (or pre-1980 on a few lists) anywhere on the site, which to me is a problem.
It does, it's just a huge mess of a site to browse. I found some the other day poking around. Pre-1977 data is pretty sparse on the site (and on BOM too), it seems to be specific films that were manually added mostly from a couple of sources. There are other sources for pre-1977 data, but I have to dig through to see if there are any that yield more results than the one I used for the lists I posted earlier.
Darth Nevets wrote: October 28th, 2019, 7:22 am I'll speak to the decades lists and say if they have to be adopted maybe the adjusted list should get them. Otherwise it just makes the problem worse, every film will be a Hollywood production. Moreover if those films had value more than likely many lists would already include them, their gross in the past no longer has much relevancy especially if the movie is now lost. It certainly isn't an examination of modern trends, and would update so infrequently as to be a nuisance rather than especially helpful.
I'm not sure what your first sentence means.

The suggestion (and none of this is set in stone, especially not list length, it's simply where my thoughts have been trending) would be decade domestic lists through 2000, and decade worldwide lists for the current century. Previous decade lists would be fixed, yes. But the current decade list wouldn't be. Each decade list represents it's own set of trends and popularity standards. The idea would be one overall list to see how inflation, population growth and market expansion has completely changed the business, one inflation adjusted list for rough imperfect cross era comparison, and decade lists to compare films from the same era together and if you work on all of them you can see how the definition of blockbuster has evolved over time. And if you don't care about any of that then the lists from this century will have plenty of recent and relevant hits to check and you can ignore the old decades.
User avatar
Fergenaprido
Donator
Posts: 5095
Joined: June 3rd, 2014, 6:00 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

#284

Post by Fergenaprido »

Darth Nevets wrote: October 28th, 2019, 7:28 am
Fergenaprido wrote: October 28th, 2019, 7:19 am I don't think I knew about The Numbers before. It looks like a decent site, and even has an inflation-adjusted list... but it doesn't have anything pre-1977 (or pre-1980 on a few lists) anywhere on the site, which to me is a problem. While the modern (summer) blockbuster may have begun with Star Wars, it's strange to me to have a box office list that doesn't include Jaws or Gone with the Wind. I think at this point, if BOM is going to stick to their new changes, a segmented approach is best: break it down by decades or groups of decades, maybe pre-1977 domestic (since international BO data seems to be scarce), 1977-[insert year] domestic, and [insert year]-present global (and make [insert year] the year when it seems that studios started caring about the global box office, making their films more widely available, and reporting the numbers. I assume that would be some time in the mid-90s or later? Perhaps 1997 would be a good cut off since that's when Titanic came out and could be seen as the start of the modern global box office).

The idea someone had of all films that hit $100K domestically, ordered by date they crossed the threshold is also good, IMO.
https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Jaws#tab=summary
https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Gone- ... ab=summary

The numbers actually lists more movies crossing the threshold than less.
Sorry, I wasn't clear in my previous post. For Jaws and GWTW, I was referring to their inflation-adjusted domestic list https://www.the-numbers.com/box-office- ... n-adjusted where it states "This chart contains the top 100 movies released since 1977 based on the cumulative inflation adjusted domestic box office." Since the Inflation-adjusted domestic list is what we currently have on icm but BOM removed it, I was looking for a similar replacement, and thought the one on The Numbers could be it.
User avatar
Fergenaprido
Donator
Posts: 5095
Joined: June 3rd, 2014, 6:00 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

#285

Post by Fergenaprido »

PeacefulAnarchy wrote: October 28th, 2019, 7:43 am
Fergenaprido wrote: October 28th, 2019, 7:19 am I don't think I knew about The Numbers before. It looks like a decent site, and even has an inflation-adjusted list... but it doesn't have anything pre-1977 (or pre-1980 on a few lists) anywhere on the site, which to me is a problem.
It does, it's just a huge mess of a site to browse. I found some the other day poking around. Pre-1977 data is pretty sparse on the site (and on BOM too), it seems to be specific films that were manually added mostly from a couple of sources. There are other sources for pre-1977 data, but I have to dig through to see if there are any that yield more results than the one I used for the lists I posted earlier.
Yeah, clarified my post after Darth's reply. Glad to see that you can see the individual data for pre-1977 films on the site, but confused as to why they're disqualified from their inflation-adjusted domestic list.
User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 25938
Joined: May 8th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#286

Post by PeacefulAnarchy »

Fergenaprido wrote: October 28th, 2019, 7:55 am
PeacefulAnarchy wrote: October 28th, 2019, 7:43 am
Fergenaprido wrote: October 28th, 2019, 7:19 am I don't think I knew about The Numbers before. It looks like a decent site, and even has an inflation-adjusted list... but it doesn't have anything pre-1977 (or pre-1980 on a few lists) anywhere on the site, which to me is a problem.
It does, it's just a huge mess of a site to browse. I found some the other day poking around. Pre-1977 data is pretty sparse on the site (and on BOM too), it seems to be specific films that were manually added mostly from a couple of sources. There are other sources for pre-1977 data, but I have to dig through to see if there are any that yield more results than the one I used for the lists I posted earlier.
Yeah, clarified my post after Darth's reply. Glad to see that you can see the individual data for pre-1977 films on the site, but confused as to why they're disqualified from their inflation-adjusted domestic list.
I can't speak for them, but inflation adjustment is hard due to rereleases and the general variability of early ticket prices. I don't know what method of inflation adjustment they do but they may have decided it's just easier to say only since 1977 and not deal with those difficulties. Also this way they don't have to account for missing data and add "as far as we know" as a qualifier. Some people also think inflation adjustment is a fools errand that makes non-comparable things comparable, and the nature of pre 70s cinema was different so this limits comparables. Or maybe they just hate seeing old movies at the top.
User avatar
erde
Posts: 376
Joined: January 2nd, 2019, 9:13 pm
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Contact:

#287

Post by erde »

PeacefulAnarchy wrote: October 28th, 2019, 7:43 am The suggestion (and none of this is set in stone, especially not list length, it's simply where my thoughts have been trending) would be decade domestic lists through 2000, and decade worldwide lists for the current century. Previous decade lists would be fixed, yes. But the current decade list wouldn't be. Each decade list represents it's own set of trends and popularity standards. The idea would be one overall list to see how inflation, population growth and market expansion has completely changed the business, one inflation adjusted list for rough imperfect cross era comparison, and decade lists to compare films from the same era together and if you work on all of them you can see how the definition of blockbuster has evolved over time. And if you don't care about any of that then the lists from this century will have plenty of recent and relevant hits to check and you can ignore the old decades.
I very much like this suggestion! I would love to check individual official decade lists one at a time, and the variety of box-office hits from different eras would be much better than now.
Image Image
User avatar
Fergenaprido
Donator
Posts: 5095
Joined: June 3rd, 2014, 6:00 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

#288

Post by Fergenaprido »

PeacefulAnarchy wrote: October 28th, 2019, 3:12 pm
Fergenaprido wrote: October 28th, 2019, 7:55 am
PeacefulAnarchy wrote: October 28th, 2019, 7:43 am
It does, it's just a huge mess of a site to browse. I found some the other day poking around. Pre-1977 data is pretty sparse on the site (and on BOM too), it seems to be specific films that were manually added mostly from a couple of sources. There are other sources for pre-1977 data, but I have to dig through to see if there are any that yield more results than the one I used for the lists I posted earlier.
Yeah, clarified my post after Darth's reply. Glad to see that you can see the individual data for pre-1977 films on the site, but confused as to why they're disqualified from their inflation-adjusted domestic list.
I can't speak for them, but inflation adjustment is hard due to rereleases and the general variability of early ticket prices. I don't know what method of inflation adjustment they do but they may have decided it's just easier to say only since 1977 and not deal with those difficulties. Also this way they don't have to account for missing data and add "as far as we know" as a qualifier. Some people also think inflation adjustment is a fools errand that makes non-comparable things comparable, and the nature of pre 70s cinema was different so this limits comparables. Or maybe they just hate seeing old movies at the top.
Fair point about the difficulty, and I'm sure that's why they only do inflation-adjusted lists for domestic box office, so as to only have to deal with two currencies instead of dozens. I presumed they followed whatever economists were using to track inflation, but I don't rightly know. I don't know how BOM did it either, but they seemed to have done something to make it work.

Whatever solution is worked out for our official lists, I hope it includes pre-1977 box office hits. Otherwise, it will just feel incomplete and inadequate (to me).
User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 25938
Joined: May 8th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#289

Post by PeacefulAnarchy »

Box office mojo has an inflation adjusted list, we'll keep using that. They adjust by average ticket price. (Technically, they use average ticket price data to estimate ticket sales, and then convert those estimated ticket sales into box office, hence why you can choose whichever year's ticket price to adjust to)
User avatar
yllow
Posts: 254
Joined: December 10th, 2018, 2:22 am
Contact:

#290

Post by yllow »

Oh yes, inflation adjusted is the only sort of box office list that would interest me.
User avatar
jvv
Donator
Posts: 8696
Joined: May 28th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#291

Post by jvv »

Only partly related to this discussion, but is it possible to make a list of most checked movies that were released in the last x months ?

That list would of course be ever changing since movies released x+1 months ago would fall off the list, but it might also
be a fun blockbuster/popular movies type list.
User avatar
albajos
Posts: 6942
Joined: May 24th, 2016, 6:00 am
Location: Norway
Contact:

#292

Post by albajos »

That feature (most checked movie in recent time) is on the opening page of the beta, but that page isn't live right now

But, in other words, the site already have the stats to make lists from
tommy_leazaq
Donator
Posts: 3624
Joined: May 18th, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Chennai, India
Contact:

#293

Post by tommy_leazaq »

That Numbers site looks alright, for the current WW Box Office list (with no inflation). I wouldn't mind if we ditch BoM and adopt this site for the source. I also wouldn't mind if we have a cap at 1000, even if that means films with $160oddM would be official for time being. It's not like only $200M+ films are better. Unless and until there is a functional and maintenance problem, I don't see why we shouldn't have a dedicated 1000 lister for mainstream blockbuster films.
User avatar
albajos
Posts: 6942
Joined: May 24th, 2016, 6:00 am
Location: Norway
Contact:

#294

Post by albajos »

The issus is that they aren't blockbusters (by definition)- Several of them were flops, and could easily killed a smaller studio, so a top 200 is for the time being the only way to get rid of those bombs.

The highest one is on 131st: Justice League, but that one will drop off soon if we keep it at 200.
User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 6117
Joined: December 23rd, 2012, 7:00 am
Contact:

#295

Post by Onderhond »

albajos wrote: October 29th, 2019, 12:23 pm The issus is that they aren't blockbusters (by definition)
Depends what definition you use (sales or budget).
User avatar
albajos
Posts: 6942
Joined: May 24th, 2016, 6:00 am
Location: Norway
Contact:

#296

Post by albajos »

It is clarley not a list of the movies with the highest budgets. That one is here: https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/budgets/all

A list that just wants to make you cry
User avatar
Darth Nevets
Posts: 140
Joined: September 30th, 2016, 6:00 am
Contact:

#297

Post by Darth Nevets »

albajos wrote: October 29th, 2019, 12:23 pm The issus is that they aren't blockbusters (by definition)- Several of them were flops, and could easily killed a smaller studio, so a top 200 is for the time being the only way to get rid of those bombs.

The highest one is on 131st: Justice League, but that one will drop off soon if we keep it at 200.
First smaller studios need bigger movies because the cost of advertising is so high. Smaller movies with big grosses often have a much lower return because of basic sunk costs that no production can exactly avoid. Otherwise sub one million horror films would be the only thing the majors produced, instead of being the domain of small potatoes Blumhouse. Any claim otherwise is fuzzy math (hiding money from partners) or political (people railing against blockbusters arguing small scale stories make more money).

The primary determinant that the studios use is that if a movie doubles its production budget at the WWBO it will make a profit (no film obviously approaches black from theatrical) from its ancillary dollars. Using this simple formula JL will have a ROI of about 9%, which is why they are making more movies in this universe. The Hate U Give grossed more domestically than its production budget but its loss was actually much more than its entire budget.

However profitability is not what is being necessarily discussed, this is about blockbusters. The movies which draw in masses of people that form the cultural landscape, some of them losing a few dollars is a minor point when virtually all of them are the ones that determine what is happening in the society at large.

A list of 200 is so small that it becomes a comical joke, showing a ludicrous hatred of popular films as important works. I'd say given the large numbers of checks given to dozens of irrelevant works I'd say this should be the biggest ICM list at 2000. There is no way it should have ever been under 1000.
dirty_score
Posts: 415
Joined: October 10th, 2016, 6:00 am
Contact:

#298

Post by dirty_score »

Apparently, there's already a battle cry:

https://screenrant.com/box-office-mojo- ... n-rebuild/
dirty_score
Posts: 415
Joined: October 10th, 2016, 6:00 am
Contact:

#299

Post by dirty_score »

So, what you've decided to do about this list?

Go by Top lifetime Grosses (as linked by the source) and cut it down to 200 movies

or

just follow the current year list https://www.boxofficemojo.com/year/worl ... nb_cso_tab and update the list everytime a movie grosses more than 200K (I think this was the mininum to become official) thus, for instance, making the chinese movie "The Bravest" official check since it made $238,004,304 and is in front of "Annabelle Comes Home".
User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 33397
Joined: February 16th, 2012, 7:00 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#300

Post by joachimt »

No definite decision, but probably there will be decade lists in the near future. PA is working out the several possibilities, especially for older decades.
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"
dirty_score
Posts: 415
Joined: October 10th, 2016, 6:00 am
Contact:

#301

Post by dirty_score »

I don't want to pressure you guys but I think a decision must be made as soon as possible, otherwise this list becomes completely stale.

Maleficent: Mistress of Evil; My People, My Country; The Captain; The Bravest; Terminator: Dark Fate and Better Days would be official checks by now. And Frozen II would probably be the next.

I'm starting to dislike these chinese incursions in the list (much like the indian mafia that doesn't let me finish top250) but I was never trying for a 'plat' anyway, but I do like from time to time to check a hot garbage blockbuster and say at the end "well, at least is an official check!" :shifty:

I hope you guys can reach a consensus on what to do with this list ;)
User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 33397
Joined: February 16th, 2012, 7:00 am
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#302

Post by joachimt »

Yeah, I know. This week I asked PA how far he's done with his investigation of multiple sources. No reply though.
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"
User avatar
Darth Nevets
Posts: 140
Joined: September 30th, 2016, 6:00 am
Contact:

#303

Post by Darth Nevets »

Well sense has returned to BOM, something I predicted as inevitable, and I hope all those arguing will hold not to their prejudices but to their arguments. I can really see that happening.
User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 25938
Joined: May 8th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#304

Post by PeacefulAnarchy »

For now we're going to wait to see if this is mojos final move or not, just as we waited to see when mojo cut it to 200, but if they stick to 1000 then yes that's the list size we'll use even if it's not a list size I agree with for inflation reasons.
User avatar
jeroeno
Posts: 3765
Joined: June 22nd, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Valkenswaard, The Netherlands
Contact:

#305

Post by jeroeno »

:party: :party: :party: :party: :party:
Nathan Treadway
Donator
Posts: 4412
Joined: June 26th, 2015, 6:00 am
Location: Springfield, MO, USA
Contact:

#306

Post by Nathan Treadway »

For those curious, Here's what it'd look like for now if the Inflation list is expanded to 1000.
User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 25938
Joined: May 8th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#307

Post by PeacefulAnarchy »

Nathan Treadway wrote: January 3rd, 2020, 5:10 am For those curious, Here's what it'd look like for now if the Inflation list is expanded to 1000.
There are 51 pre 1970 films on this list, with the adjusted value as being over 130 Million. Inflation adjustment and box office totals aren't perfectly precise before 1970, but there should be over 400 that adjust over 200 Million, so even with different adjustments and estimates at least a third of what should be on the list is missing. It's really disappointing they didn't fill out their data.
User avatar
maxwelldeux
Donator
Posts: 8911
Joined: June 7th, 2016, 6:00 am
Location: Seattle-ish, WA, USA
Contact:

#308

Post by maxwelldeux »

PeacefulAnarchy wrote: January 3rd, 2020, 5:29 am
Nathan Treadway wrote: January 3rd, 2020, 5:10 am For those curious, Here's what it'd look like for now if the Inflation list is expanded to 1000.
There are 51 pre 1970 films on this list, with the adjusted value as being over 130 Million. Inflation adjustment and box office totals aren't perfectly precise before 1970, but there should be over 400 that adjust over 200 Million, so even with different adjustments and estimates at least a third of what should be on the list is missing. It's really disappointing they didn't fill out their data.
Yeah, I just looked at their "how do we adjust" page, and while I appreciate the information there, I don't agree with their decisions, and REALLY don't agree is the best they can do.
User avatar
erde
Posts: 376
Joined: January 2nd, 2019, 9:13 pm
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Contact:

#309

Post by erde »

Whoa, thank you, Nathan!

151 new official checks! And I've seen 11 of them... :rolleyes: Not my forte, these box office lists. tehe
Image Image
User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 25938
Joined: May 8th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#310

Post by PeacefulAnarchy »

maxwelldeux wrote: January 3rd, 2020, 5:46 am
PeacefulAnarchy wrote: January 3rd, 2020, 5:29 am
Nathan Treadway wrote: January 3rd, 2020, 5:10 am For those curious, Here's what it'd look like for now if the Inflation list is expanded to 1000.
There are 51 pre 1970 films on this list, with the adjusted value as being over 130 Million. Inflation adjustment and box office totals aren't perfectly precise before 1970, but there should be over 400 that adjust over 200 Million, so even with different adjustments and estimates at least a third of what should be on the list is missing. It's really disappointing they didn't fill out their data.
Yeah, I just looked at their "how do we adjust" page, and while I appreciate the information there, I don't agree with their decisions, and REALLY don't agree is the best they can do.
The "how they adjust part" is ok, imperfect and a bit odd at times, but I do think it is roughly about as good as they can do. My issue is that they're missing a lot of data because most of it wasn't relevant when the goal was tracking current films and having a top 100. They weren't bothered about a film being ranked 234 since it wasn't relevant for setting records so they never added it.

This also applies to the worldwide list for 80s and 90s films, though not as much (inflation would wipe out any pre-80 film that's not already on the list).
User avatar
albajos
Posts: 6942
Joined: May 24th, 2016, 6:00 am
Location: Norway
Contact:

#311

Post by albajos »

We know (educated guess) the most tickets sold were in the 40s in the US, so by that logic a big percentage of the movies on the adjusted list should be movies from that decade. Is there even one?

https://www.filmsite.org/boxoffice2.html (top grossing movies of the 40s)

Image

Yes, the graph is the percentage of the US that saw a movie at least once a week. Not tickets sold. So we need another

Image

The population has tripled since the 1940s, but the average moviegoing rate is just 1/6 today of the 40s.

I thought I knew of a bare tickets sold statistic somewhere. I'll keep looking.

Maybe the whole statistic is people watching Gone with the Wind 500 times each :blink:
User avatar
erde
Posts: 376
Joined: January 2nd, 2019, 9:13 pm
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Contact:

#312

Post by erde »

Ok, so the inflation-adjusted list is basically unusable then: it gives out wrong or hugely distorted information. Couldn't we simply replace it with decade lists (e.g. top 100 grossed films of each decade)? Then each decade would be well represented.

The worldwide list does not seem to have the same problem, so there we could just follow the source.
Image Image
User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 25938
Joined: May 8th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#313

Post by PeacefulAnarchy »

albajos wrote: January 3rd, 2020, 8:10 am We know (educated guess) the most tickets sold were in the 40s in the US, so by that logic a big percentage of the movies on the adjusted list should be movies from that decade. Is there even one?
There aren't comprehensive lists, and the data is not accurate down to the dollar, or even thousands, like modern grosses, but yes there are lists and data for those decades that cover the vast majority of the top grossers. And yes the 40s in particular have a lot of films that would adjust over 200.
User avatar
flavo5000
Posts: 4102
Joined: July 10th, 2014, 6:00 am
Location: Arkansas, USA
Contact:

#314

Post by flavo5000 »

erde wrote: January 3rd, 2020, 5:49 am Whoa, thank you, Nathan!

151 new official checks! And I've seen 11 of them... :rolleyes: Not my forte, these box office lists. tehe
C'mon. This list is GOLD I TELL YA! It would finally get Cool Runnings an official check that it so rightfully deserves!
User avatar
Harco
Donator
Posts: 612
Joined: May 3rd, 2013, 6:00 am
Location: Groningen
Contact:

#315

Post by Harco »

Nathan Treadway wrote: January 3rd, 2020, 5:10 am For those curious, Here's what it'd look like for now if the Inflation list is expanded to 1000.
Seems to be the wrong Everest?
:ICM: | :letbxd:
Nathan Treadway
Donator
Posts: 4412
Joined: June 26th, 2015, 6:00 am
Location: Springfield, MO, USA
Contact:

#316

Post by Nathan Treadway »

Harco wrote: January 3rd, 2020, 3:21 pm
Nathan Treadway wrote: January 3rd, 2020, 5:10 am For those curious, Here's what it'd look like for now if the Inflation list is expanded to 1000.
Seems to be the wrong Everest?
No, it's the right one. I pulled the links directly from the boxoffice mojo website. If I recall, that doc had an incredibly long run at IMAX theaters.
User avatar
Eve-Lang-El-Coup
Posts: 446
Joined: February 3rd, 2017, 7:00 am
Location: Aussieland
Contact:

#317

Post by Eve-Lang-El-Coup »

All I want to comment on is how badly, in comparison to Tron: Legacy, the new Blade Runner did. I would have assumed them to be similarly anticipated and yet it's not even close with a 7 year buffer.
User avatar
jeroeno
Posts: 3765
Joined: June 22nd, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Valkenswaard, The Netherlands
Contact:

#318

Post by jeroeno »

It's actually quite simple. Tron:Legacy came out when IMAX 3D was relatively new (only a year after Avatar) and it came out the week before Christmas. People who wanted to see spectacle during Christmas had a choice between Tron: Legacy and The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader.
User avatar
sol
Donator
Posts: 10776
Joined: February 3rd, 2017, 7:00 am
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#319

Post by sol »

https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/all- ... ox+office/

https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/all+time+box+office/

Some time in the past few hours, joachimt finally updated both lists and they now stand at 1000 titles each. :D

I'm happy with this update, though it does mean that once again my All-Time WW Box Office bronze will disappear. :pinch:
Former IMDb message boards user // iCM | IMDb | Letterboxd | My top 750 films // Long live the new flesh!
Image Image Image
User avatar
Darth Nevets
Posts: 140
Joined: September 30th, 2016, 6:00 am
Contact:

#320

Post by Darth Nevets »

sol wrote: February 15th, 2020, 3:20 am https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/all- ... ox+office/

https://www.icheckmovies.com/lists/all+time+box+office/

Some time in the past few hours, joachimt finally updated both lists and they now stand at 1000 titles each. :D

I'm happy with this update, though it does mean that once again my All-Time WW Box Office bronze will disappear. :pinch:
I still hold a gold on both. :$
Post Reply