Predicting the Movie Hits & Bombs of 2022

Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by Vidiot, Jan 7, 2022.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Isaac K.

    Isaac K. Forum Resident

    Yeah, but inflation being what it is, it isn’t that huge of a deal. In 50 years every movie will make a billion dollars. I’m not saying that Maverick isn’t a success, but I think what’s more relevant is the number of actual tickets sold, which is something that they never report.
     
    brownie61 and Deuce66 like this.
  2. Deuce66

    Deuce66 Senior Member

    Location:
    Canada
    That's true inflation, changing/expanding markets/exchange rates makes it near impossible to compare movies over the decades. The studios would have the raw data to make accurate comparisons but they'll never share that info.

    Right now TG: Maverick sits in 49th place all-time (not adjusted for inflation). The only movies pre-2000 above it are #3 Titanic (1997), #31 Jurassic Park (1993), #38 The Lion King (1994) and #44 Star Wars - Phantom Menace (1999).
     
    SandAndGlass likes this.
  3. PH416156

    PH416156 Alea Iacta Est

    Location:
    Europe
    Top Gun made $357M worldwide in 1986; that's $952M in 2022 money...so the sequel is even a bigger hit, but... the first one had a $15M budget ($40M in today's money), the 2022 sequel cost $170M.

    So far it has made x6 its budget - impressive and there's no signs it's going to stop soon.

    But if we consider inflation, the 1986 film was even more profitable. Also, how many tapes and DVDs the 1986 film has sold?
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2022
    Thwacko and Deuce66 like this.
  4. Deuce66

    Deuce66 Senior Member

    Location:
    Canada
    The home video market was just taking off - Top Gun on VHS sold a ton of copies 3 million at $27/pop.
    Top Gun - Wikipedia


    All-Time Domestic Adjusted for Inflation movies released 1977 -->>> - Top Gun is ranked 78th $437.8 million - Maverick is 45th.

    All Time Domestic Inflation Adjusted Box Office

    Top Gun
    Top Gun (1986) - Financial Information
     
    PH416156 likes this.
  5. Oatsdad

    Oatsdad Oat, Biscuits, Abbie & Mitzi: Best Dogs Ever

    Location:
    Alexandria VA
    I assumed it was Iran! :shrug:
     
  6. Isaac K.

    Isaac K. Forum Resident

    I doubt that it will be playing there, either.
     
  7. fuzzface

    fuzzface Forum Resident

    Location:
    Lebanon, MO
    "Inflation" dollars are garbage. That's just not real. Sorry for anyone that concerns themselves with it. Just not a real thing.
     
  8. SandAndGlass

    SandAndGlass Twilight Forum Resident

    How else would you be able to compare the performance of a movie that was released fifty years ago to today?
     
    Deuce66 likes this.
  9. Deuce66

    Deuce66 Senior Member

    Location:
    Canada
    The average price of a movie ticket in 1986 was $3.71, today it's closer to $9.20. That's how The Numbers.com website came up with adjusted for inflation movie grosses.

    Note: in order to provide a fair comparison between movies released in different years, all rankings are based on ticket sales, which are calculated using average ticket prices announced by the MPAA in their annual state of the industry report.
    https://www.the-numbers.com/market/

    If there's a better way to compare say Star Wars IV to any modern box office hit I'd like to know.
     
    SandAndGlass likes this.
  10. SandAndGlass

    SandAndGlass Twilight Forum Resident

    I suppose that you could go by ticket sales alone. But the public is conditioned to make comparisons by using dollars as a metric.
     
  11. SandAndGlass

    SandAndGlass Twilight Forum Resident

    Speaking of dollars...

    Lightyear is now in full crash and burn mode, setting a new record for Pixar.

    "The well-reviewed but (relative to Pixar) indifferently received Toy Story spin-off earned just $17.7 million in its second domestic weekend. That’s a record-for-Pixar drop of 65%. Lightyear’s “falling without style”
     
    Deuce66 likes this.
  12. Deuce66

    Deuce66 Senior Member

    Location:
    Canada
    It's the almighty $$ that runs the show for the studios not the number of tickets sold although that's important also especially for the theatre owners. More bums in seats = more popcorn/soft drinks sold.
     
    mBen989 and SandAndGlass like this.
  13. SandAndGlass

    SandAndGlass Twilight Forum Resident

    Yes, but that is a metric that shows the dollars brought in for a movie. Which does indicate a movie's success at the box office.

    But the success of a movie with the public can be easily equated strictly by ticket sales.

    Whether or not a movie made money for the studios is not something that the general public even remotely is concerned with.
     
  14. Deuce66

    Deuce66 Senior Member

    Location:
    Canada
    Dollars resonate with people, when they hear that Top Gun made $50 million last weekend it sounds better than TG sold 4.167 million tickets. If the studios want to provide # of tickets sold along with the $$ grosses I'm all for it.
     
    mBen989 likes this.
  15. mBen989

    mBen989 Senior Member

    Location:
    Scranton, PA
    Fairly easy to generate; the magic number seems to be 9.17 at the moment.

    So Elvis sold 3,391,494 tickets this past weekend, Maverick 3,326,082 and Dominion 2,883,315.
     
    SandAndGlass likes this.
  16. mBen989

    mBen989 Senior Member

    Location:
    Scranton, PA
    Shall we ask the $32,000 question; does Lightyear last Disney's contractual month playdate in theaters?
     
    SandAndGlass and Deuce66 like this.
  17. Deuce66

    Deuce66 Senior Member

    Location:
    Canada
    If one is going to use the average to determine # of tickets, it's a lot more complicated now with different screening options & formats/market pricing still I would like to see the actual # versus one that is calculated using the average, how close would it be + or - ?
     
    mBen989 likes this.
  18. mBen989

    mBen989 Senior Member

    Location:
    Scranton, PA
    Well, I suppose if one knew what % of ticket sales were for premium formats, we could factor that in.

    If also one knew where a movie is playing in which theaters at the local mutiplex and you knew each theater's capacity, that would be a factor too.
     
  19. SandAndGlass

    SandAndGlass Twilight Forum Resident

    I did already agree...

    Really, the big difference in attendance today as compared to 1939 was that there was no other visual option, like TV.

    But even in the 60's and 70's, if you didn't catch a movie while it was still in the theaters, you would likely never see that movie. Usually, after it left the theaters, it was gone for good!

    Today, I seldom concern myself with having to catch a movie in the theaters, neither does anyone else, after a few weeks, it will be available to some kind of home viewing.

    I see that Uncharted has just hit Netflix.
     
    Deuce66 likes this.
  20. Dillydipper

    Dillydipper Space-Age luddite

    Location:
    Central PA
    Also, there is no comparative metric for television streaming that translates into the same money. The same monthly Disney+ charge that figures into Disney's profit for Lightyear, could just as easily be attributed to Dr. Strange II, or Woke Baby Yoda: the Musical, or whatever else is a draw for the customer to consider adding Disney+.

    Yes, the company can determine how many times one feature was streamed over another one...but, how can they attribute any rise in subscriptions, if they don't know if it's from offering exclusive access to a single feature, or 450 others. Or, a drop in subscriptions from angry fanboys quitting the platform because one feature they added was a turd. No metric measures that.

    An admission charge is for one auditorium only, not the whole cineplex.
     
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2022
    Deuce66 likes this.
  21. Isaac K.

    Isaac K. Forum Resident

    Dollars is fine when we’re comparing two movies released at the same time, but it isn’t a good method when gauging two films successes when they’re released decades apart from each other. Even adjusting for inflation isn’t that good of an indicator because things inflate at different rates. Like the dollar might decrease in value X amount over 20 years but that doesn’t mean that the cost of a ticket changed by exactly X amount. The only way to make an accurate reading is by counting the tickets sold.
     
  22. Deuce66

    Deuce66 Senior Member

    Location:
    Canada
    Network TV movie of the week?? I do remember those being a big deal in the 70's, I don't remember how much time had elapsed from theatre to TV probably a year minimum. The industry has all the angles for revenue generation covered now.
     
  23. SandAndGlass

    SandAndGlass Twilight Forum Resident

    Oh, way more than that!

    Growing up in the late 50's and early 60's, they used to play 50's era sci-fi movies on TV and monster movies from earlier years. But that was because the studios considered these as movies that have already otherwise been financially discarded.

    I was in college in the mid 70's when Gone With the Wind aired on TV for the first time.

    Even really small movies took many years before they appeared on TV.
     
    Deuce66 likes this.
  24. Deuce66

    Deuce66 Senior Member

    Location:
    Canada
    The MPA (Motion Picture Association) has the data on avg. price per ticket for each year. I think you can make a reasonable comparison between the two eras with this info for Domestic releases.

    100 tickets at $4.35 in 1995 = $43.50
    100 tickets at $9.16 in 2019 = $91.60

    MPA Research & Policy link
    Research & Policy
     
    SandAndGlass likes this.
  25. MikaelaArsenault

    MikaelaArsenault Forum Resident

    Location:
    New Hampshire
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine