Depressing Box Office Statistics

[monolith]

So after Jurassic World breaking lots of records I came across this article which lists the top 10 opening weekend highest grossing films adjusted for inflation:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33283693

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (2011)   $554m
Spider-Man 3 (2007)                                                   $543m
Jurassic World (2015)                                            $524m
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007)   $490m
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)   $486m
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)   $484m
Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011)   $439m
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)   $436m
The Avengers (2012)   $425m
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011)   $402m

Whilst the fact that all films listed are from this century indicates that overall the film industry is in good shape (although I might question their inflation adjusting techniques) I do find it quite depressing that the quality of films in this top 10 is generally pretty piss poor. I would say that only 3 of the above films I would enjoy with no real qualms (one of these is a Harry Potter film though which I know will divide opinion). But Spider-Man 3? Of all the Spider-Man films, Spider-Man 3?

And yet films like Mad Max are struggling to make a profit and have no guarantee of a sequel. I hate people sometimes.

[Subtle Mocking]

Jack and Jill:
Budget: $79 million
Box office: $149.7 million

No idea how this cost $79m given that it all looks and feels extremely cheap, although the Red Letter Media guys have a plausible suggestion that it's a massive ponzi scheme set up by Sandler in order to give his failed SNL mates inflated paychecks off the back of egregious product placement. How on earth did it manage to break even, let alone make a profit?

[monolith]

I'll see your Jack and Jill and raise you a Grown Ups 2:

Budget   $80 million
Box office   $247 million

I sat through Grown Ups 2 in the hope that I would enjoy the Worst Idea of All Time podcast more having seen the film.

It was so bad that I found it quite upsetting, it made me feel really down and just generally awful. And then you look at the box office....

At least if there is a Grown Ups 3 then The Worst Idea of All Time will be great when they have to sit through it.

[Urinal Cake]

And yet films like Mad Max are struggling to make a profit and have no guarantee of a sequel. I hate people sometimes.

I wonder how much piracy and the 'home theatre experience' has to do with this. I get the feeling it's kids (or regressed adults) and 'Michael McIntyre fans' that go to movies nowadays.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

The highest grossing films are due to family and groups going to see them- these multiply takings substantially by putting people in the cinema who don't necessarily want to be there but are there out of obligation.

Put in further multiplying factors such as the last or last-but one in a trilogy or series and the actual fact that these films are in every single cinema in the land, and how can it be surprising, or even depressing.

[Thomas]

Perhaps interesting or not that the top ten, there, are all sequels. 'Franchise' entries. I'm developing the shaky view that there should be far fewer sequels, reboots, and remakes, and more standalone original stories. But money.

[Stone Cold Jane Austen]

For me, it's mad to think that The Godfather held the highest grossing film ever record for four years back in the seventies. Nowadays that would get a bit of an awards season push and probably make a decent profit but wouldn't get anywhere near the top 10 come the end of the year.

I'd like to see a correlation between highest grossing films and largest advertising budgets.

Also, I read recently that, worldwide, the most recent Fast & Furious film is now the third highest grossing film ever, behind Avatar and Titanic. And that just makes me shake my damn head

[Dr Rock]

To be fair these are films and franchises that do well all around the world because there isn't much important dialogue and all the non-English speakers can enjoy them. The third shit ones of a franchise do well because the previous two became popular partly outside of their cinema runs but by the third they got more screens and more people wanting to see them asap at the cinema. Also a quarter of the population are total idiots, so any list will reflect that. At least Titanic isn't top.

[Ignatius_S]

The figures in the OP are for opening weekends. However, these box office numbers are never adjusted in real terms, which gives a better picture. 

Personally, I don't agree cinema is enjoying good health. There has been a continuing trend of smaller audience numbers and there's an increased reliance on franchises, reboots, remakes or some kind of adaptation; although that's always happened in the industry, if someone looked throughout the 1970s-80s at the top 10 grossing films for each year, I think there are plenty of surprises.  For example in the mid-70s, I can't remember the year off the top of my head, two of the biggest grossing films were documentaries (one was a religious one, the other about the history of flight).

Re: Sandler - that's hardly new. One reason that studios go along with such inflated budgets, is that the films are basically guaranteed good box office takings.  However, as I mentioned in one or two threads, one reason why he's now signed on to Netflix was that a studio refused to sign off on the production budget for a comedy western; however, it was spun rather differently.

[El Unicornio, mang]

And yet films like Mad Max are struggling to make a profit and have no guarantee of a sequel. I hate people sometimes.

Eh?

Budget    $150 million
Box office    $348 million

Edit: Oh wait, misread the OP, nevermind

[monolith]

Eh?

Budget    $150 million
Box office    $348 million

Edit: Oh wait, misread the OP, nevermind

Still hasn't made a profit apparently when other costs are taken in to account. I also thought it was straight up "Box Office>Budget = Profit" but unfortunately it isn't that simple it seems.

[Delete Delete Delete]

Tickets are like £10 these days more if its 3d. So people are paying more per head. I'd love to see attendance numbers rather than gross, I don't think they publish these. It might explains films short tails. Its all about opening weekend, then your done unless your one of the mega franchises. Take Tommrowland as an example, opened in the UK on the 22nd  of may. By the 3rd week it was down to like 1 or 2 showings a day this week its completely gone. So You get three weeks if your lucky, no chance of unknown properties becoming sleeper hits any more, not until the DVD/ Blu Ray release at least.

[monolith]

I think the adjusted for inflation thing is supposed to take care of ticket prices.

Still seems crazy to me that Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi are no where in sight.

Even The Phantom Menace. Before everyone knew what an abomination of a film it would turn out to be it was just a new Star Wars film after a 16 year gap. Would have thought that alone would give it top 5.

[Glebe]

Still seems crazy to me that Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi are no where in sight.

Empire grossed less than Star Wars and was a huge financial risk for Lucas, even after the success of SW - he basically put all his money into it.

[Ignatius_S]

I think the adjusted for inflation thing is supposed to take care of ticket prices.

Still seems crazy to me that Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi are no where in sight.

Even The Phantom Menace. Before everyone knew what an abomination of a film it would turn out to be it was just a new Star Wars film after a 16 year gap. Would have thought that alone would give it top 5.

Inflation adjustment doesn't properly adjust ticket price changes and it doesn't reflect real term changes; the relationship between different goods and services don't remain constant over time and that needs to be kept into mind. In the case of very old films, people paid for cinema shows (e.g. A picture, B picture, cartoon, newsreel) and we don't have the same kind of data for those films as we do now.

As mentioned above, the figures are for opening weekends - if you look at the box office for the entire run (via the link in the story that you linked to) you'll see that Empire made a lot more money than any of the films listed in the OP when adjusted for inflation. These days, film revenue is a lot more front-loaded and they mainly make money in the first few weeks, whereas the films that gross the most tend to do so over a longer period of time.

Also, these days films will come out at the same time at every cinema - that didn't use to happen for a variety of reason (e.g. Limited number of prints). So today, you have far more screens showing a film in its first week, than once was - so trying to compare opening weekend grosses have limited value because of the changing situation over time. Slight tangent, but in America one reason that films began to open at the same time at every cinema was so that more money could be made from bad films - an early example was Neighbors starring Dan Aykroyd and John Belushi - by marketing a film heavily, there would be a good opening gross, which would tail off when word of mouth got round; under the older system of a staggered release, box office might be good to begin with but would be awful when it opened at other cinemas because of word of mouth.  Basically, Hollywood was able to make money, or reduce losses anyway, from bad films by doing this.

[greenman]

Still hasn't made a profit apparently when other costs are taken in to account. I also thought it was straight up "Box Office>Budget = Profit" but unfortunately it isn't that simple it seems.

I would imagine a film like Fury Road will do very well in the home market though(DVD/BR, Streaming, TV, etc), its been a trend for years that R rated blockbusters make much less at the cinema, I'd guess because kids/families have generally become a much bigger market whilst teens/adults tend to preffer home viewing.

[Bhazor]

Whenever I'm feeling overly optimistic about the world I like to look at whatever is number 1 at the box office. Then I breath a sigh of relief and return to my normal level of loathing.

(one of these is a Harry Potter film though which I know will divide opinion)

I tried to like Harry Potter. I really did.

But I just can't get past how poncy those little wands are. They make everything look so fucking stupid, especially towards the end where it's supposed to be mature and dark and the great climatic battle of destiny and they're still fannying about with little twigs with stirring orchestral music.

[greenman]

The system Ignatius describes is really why Hollywood is so obsessed with franchises and existing properties. Most films stand or fall not by there quality but by audience expectations meaning the impact of a poor film might actually be felt in the box office of the next film in the franchise. That's often why potential franchises that did pretty well at the box office get canned, the studio knows there isn't the appetite for a another pre/sequel.

[Steven]

Could it be telling that most of the truly memorable auteur studio films were made in the 70s, before the advent of massive piracy in the 80s with VHS and video cameras and even more massively with the advent of the internet and digital cameras? The money and guts to take a chance simply isn't there any more.

[mothman]

Well, I think the 70s are considered to be a culmination of the impacts TV had on the film industry, as well as the collapse of the "studio system." It was in the doldrums having reacted very poorly to the challenges that the counter-culture brought to "mainstream" culture...

[Rolf Lundgren]

Still hasn't made a profit apparently when other costs are taken in to account. I also thought it was straight up "Box Office>Budget = Profit" but unfortunately it isn't that simple it seems.

Budget doesn't take into account marketing costs. At least that was I told 10 years ago and believe to still be the case. So a film with a $100 million dollar budget might make $200 million dollars profit so it looks like a hit but marketing costs could bite heavily into that if it's an overexposed blockbuster.

[Replies From View]

And yet films like Mad Max are struggling to make a profit and have no guarantee of a sequel.

I thought it was a sequel.  The reason I didn't go was that I haven't seen the other Mad Max films and assumed I wouldn't enjoy it as much as people who are invested in the franchise.

It's odd the way we talk of films like Jurassic World and Terminator Genisys "getting sequels".  Hollywood are doing a superb job of convincing people that fourth and fifth entries in tired franchises are actually the first entries in entirely new ones.

[Replies From View]

Tickets are like £10 these days more if its 3d.

Quite a mark up from 10 pounds being 2400 old pence.  I bamlem inflation.

[Replies From View]

they're still fannying about with little twigs with stirring orchestral music.

"Fuck you, lad."

[monolith]

I thought it was a sequel.  The reason I didn't go was that I haven't seen the other Mad Max films and assumed I wouldn't enjoy it as much as people who are invested in the franchise.

It's odd the way we talk of films like Jurassic World and Terminator Genisys "getting sequels".  Hollywood are doing a superb job of convincing people that fourth and fifth entries in tired franchises are actually the first entries in entirely new ones.

A sequel to a sequel is still called a sequel.

[Replies From View]

A sequel to a sequel is still called a sequel.

Yes that's strictly true, but I would generally consider a late sequel to be a sequel of the initial film rather than the earlier sequels.  To talk about a sequel getting such box office success that it will generate its own sequels feels quite a new phenomenon to me.

[Hangthebuggers]

Perhaps interesting or not that the top ten, there, are all sequels. 'Franchise' entries. I'm developing the shaky view that there should be far fewer sequels, reboots, and remakes, and more standalone original stories. But money.

I concur, but the (American) film industry is greedy and would happily shit out more Marvel bullshit and sequels rather than taking the chance on a flop. Gone are the days of Hollywood wanting to produce art.

[newbridge]

I think the adjusted for inflation thing is supposed to take care of ticket prices.

I don't think it is. For example, not opening weekend, but here is a purported list of the films that have sold the most tickets:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm?sort=adjustedgross&order=DESC&adjust_yr=1&p=.htm

The most recent movie is Avatar at #14, which sold less than half the tickets that Gone with the Wind did (and roughly half of Star Wars).

[Replies From View]

I reckon the most recent high-scoring movie is Titanic (1997) at number 5.

If you're not fussed about their place on the list there are slightly lower-scoring films that were released more recently than Avatar.

[newbridge]

I reckon the most recent high-scoring movie is Titanic (1997) at number 5.

If you're not fussed about their place on the list there are slightly lower-scoring films that were released more recently than Avatar.

I should have said the most recent move near the top is Avatar, obviously.