3 ms·

I went all the way back to the mid 80's, and the blockbuster back then was Top Gun, which apparently didn't even break 250 mil. Nowadays, we have huge blockbus

by iamwil 19y ago

I went all the way back to the mid 80's, and the blockbuster back then was Top Gun, which apparently didn't even break 250 mil. Nowadays, we have huge blockbusters that regularly surpass 250 mil every season. Even though we have DVDs and can download copies (pirated or not), collectively, we're spending more on movies than we use to. However, we don't know whether that's due to more people going to see movies, or merely just an increase in ticket prices. It'd be more interesting to see the graph adjusted for this so we can see if more or less people are going to the movies than before. It also seems that movies that are series get a second hump, like Jurassic Park III, Harry Potter, etc. IMAX movies have a looong shelf-life, compared to all other movie types. Mysteries of Egypt was there all the way from 1999 through to the end of 2000, when it had a small resurgence before disappearing.

wallflower 19y ago
Less movie goers. "In 1948, with studios earning all their revenues from the box office, that audience was moviegoers. Even as late as 1980, when the audience had television sets and video players, studios still earned 55 percent of their money from people who actually went to movie theaters. In 2005, however, those moviegoers provided the studios with less than 15 percent of their worldwide revenues, while couch potatoes provided it with 85.8 percent." From 2005 and still relevant http://www.slate.com/id/2123286 http://www.slate.com/id/2123286
zandorg 19y ago
Yes but Top Gun was made on a budget of $17 million. The focus then was on low-budget, high-concept movies, based on a good story, NOT spending lots of money. Unfortunately, people now think of high-concept as meaning big budget, when that's not the case.
pchristensen 19y ago
The graphic says it is inflation-adjusted. Scrolling from left to right, the graphic clearly gets fatter, so revenues are bigger. Ticket prices are a part of that (inflation adjusted dollars are one thing, inflation-adjusted prices are another). A graphic showing ticket sales wouldn't be much fun because it would get narrower every year, with occasional blips like Star Wars, Jaws, Harry Potter, but nothing like the old powerhouses of Wizard of Oz, Snow White, Gone with the Wind, etc.

by iamwil 19y ago

wallflower 19y ago

Less movie goers. "In 1948, with studios earning all their revenues from the box office, that audience was moviegoers. Even as late as 1980, when the audience had television sets and video players, studios still earned 55 percent of their money from people who actually went to movie theaters. In 2005, however, those moviegoers provided the studios with less than 15 percent of their worldwide revenues, while couch potatoes provided it with 85.8 percent." From 2005 and still relevant http://www.slate.com/id/2123286 http://www.slate.com/id/2123286

zandorg 19y ago

Yes but Top Gun was made on a budget of $17 million. The focus then was on low-budget, high-concept movies, based on a good story, NOT spending lots of money. Unfortunately, people now think of high-concept as meaning big budget, when that's not the case.

pchristensen 19y ago

The graphic says it is inflation-adjusted. Scrolling from left to right, the graphic clearly gets fatter, so revenues are bigger. Ticket prices are a part of that (inflation adjusted dollars are one thing, inflation-adjusted prices are another). A graphic showing ticket sales wouldn't be much fun because it would get narrower every year, with occasional blips like Star Wars, Jaws, Harry Potter, but nothing like the old powerhouses of Wizard of Oz, Snow White, Gone with the Wind, etc.