3 ms·

I've always wondered, even after adjusting for inflation wouldn't it make sense to adjust for population as well? In 1939 the population of the US was only 130

by axiom 17y ago

I've always wondered, even after adjusting for inflation wouldn't it make sense to adjust for population as well? In 1939 the population of the US was only 130millon, and a large portion was rural, which meant they had poorer access to theaters. This makes the returns of Gone with the Wind that much more impressive (although of course TVs/misc. entertainment devices didn't exist, which compete against movies.) Perhaps a good way to measure the success a of a movie would be the percentage of the population that has seen it.

karzeem 17y ago
If you're the movie studio, revenue is your concern, so then it only really makes sense to adjust for inflation. But yeah, if you want to gauge the popularity of the movie, the best measure is probably something along the lines of tickets sold per capita.
- Towle_ 17y ago
  > if you want to gauge the popularity of the movie, the best measure is probably something along the lines of tickets sold per capita. Not really. 1946 tickets per capita in the US: 34. 2004: 5. There's no way to do this right. Box office "records" don't mean anything, no matter how many variables you take into account.
ajg1977 17y ago
But for a "fair" comparison you would also have to adjust based on the cost of attending a movie compared to average income (it's increased disproportionally, even over the past 20 years), and take into account the other forms of entertainment that are available today compared to back then. Heck, forget video games, Cable BluRay, DVDs - even the choice of movies available today is likely to be far larger than back in 1939 :)
dejb 17y ago
> (although of course TVs/misc. entertainment devices didn't exist, which compete against movies.) Actually I think this is the most relevant point. People used to go to the cinema a lot more before TV. Also movies didn't 'go to DVD' so I'm guessing that the most popular ones could run for years and years.

by axiom 17y ago

karzeem 17y ago

If you're the movie studio, revenue is your concern, so then it only really makes sense to adjust for inflation. But yeah, if you want to gauge the popularity of the movie, the best measure is probably something along the lines of tickets sold per capita.

Towle_ 17y ago
> if you want to gauge the popularity of the movie, the best measure is probably something along the lines of tickets sold per capita. Not really. 1946 tickets per capita in the US: 34. 2004: 5. There's no way to do this right. Box office "records" don't mean anything, no matter how many variables you take into account.

ajg1977 17y ago

But for a "fair" comparison you would also have to adjust based on the cost of attending a movie compared to average income (it's increased disproportionally, even over the past 20 years), and take into account the other forms of entertainment that are available today compared to back then. Heck, forget video games, Cable BluRay, DVDs - even the choice of movies available today is likely to be far larger than back in 1939 :)

dejb 17y ago

> (although of course TVs/misc. entertainment devices didn't exist, which compete against movies.) Actually I think this is the most relevant point. People used to go to the cinema a lot more before TV. Also movies didn't 'go to DVD' so I'm guessing that the most popular ones could run for years and years.