Add Comment


All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 6 years, 6 months ago
    Wouldn't you have to normalize by population size? Raw dollars would be skewed by relative population size.

    btw - I contributed to that total, unfortunately. It was a horrible movie, in my humble opinion. The plot line was thin and convoluted. Mostly an excuse to build model buildings and tear/blow them up. Luckily, I went to the cheap Tues show, so only 1/2 the cost of normal.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by TheRealBill 6 years, 6 months ago
      It seems to me the best way to measure relative success of movies over time is to consider them a ratio of the "eligible audience". Not in dollars as there is inflation, and not per-capita as access to theaters has increased.

      So something more akin to an election. You, by some measure I've not divined, determine the pool of people capable of attending a movie, then determine the percentage of that pool who paid to see the movie (or saw it on someone else's courtesy).

      The other options I see are rooted in multivariate analysis, and precious few people are even interested in doing that, much less even know about them or why you'd need one.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by robertmbeard 6 years, 6 months ago
        I also liked Godzilla. For comparisons involving movie viewership, I prefer the following two:

        1) For historical comparisons of movies (in a country or specific location), compare tickets sold and not dollars of revenue. With inflation, a sales comparison in dollars makes newer movies look better. Also, 3D movies cost more, further skewing a dollar comparison. So, number of tickets sold is by far the best way to compare movies (old vs. new).

        2) For comparisons involving differences in access to a movie, whether the movie is only shown in select theaters or is in a country with limited theaters, compare tickets sold per theater. While not perfect, it's the best way to compare how well received a movie is versus the limited audience with access to it.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 6 years, 6 months ago
    Entertaining ideas about the entertainment industry. About Oz, mainly true, people here do not go out to see movies but watch whatever is available on their home screens.

    Anyway, to return the favor I throw in this link-
    " The National Science Foundation has spent nearly $700,000 on a climate change-themed theatrical production, "
    I will not be seeing that either.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 6 years, 6 months ago
      Me either. Those are box office losers not because they appeal to the intellectual elite--like an Atlas Shrugged--but because they are just dumb and rejected by the masses. After all, they are intended for the masses, but the masses don't want it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  


  • Comment hidden. Undo