There's no way that the amount of people who want it to "dethrone Avatar" is enough to even be noticeable on the box office numbers.

This is a dumb question, but how do the numbers calculate? Like if a person goes to see it at one of those theatrea that cost like $30 a pop contribute "more" than someone who sees it in a small local theatre? Does inflation play into it?

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

This is a dumb question, but how do the numbers calculate? Like if a person goes to see it at one of those theatrea that cost like $30 a pop contribute "more" than someone who sees it in a small local theatre? Does inflation play into it?

---

Do people really care? This is a weird dick measuring contest for a consumer to really care about.

Any time box office is brought up leads to this exact comment.

Every time.

Brian Earl Spilner said:

---

Any time box office is brought up leads to this exact comment.

Every time.

---

Ha. I enjoyed the movie, I get wanting others to enjoy movie, hell I'm even a Disney shareholder - I don't give two ****s how much money it makes.

TXAGFAN said:

---

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

This is a dumb question, but how do the numbers calculate? Like if a person goes to see it at one of those theatrea that cost like $30 a pop contribute "more" than someone who sees it in a small local theatre? Does inflation play into it?

---

Do people really care? This is a weird dick measuring contest for a consumer to really care about.

---

I want End Game to take both all time titles. I do not want it enough to spend $10.

And still, swimmers question goes unanswered for a dick measuring contest of who cares less.

MooreTrucker said:

---

And still, swimmers question goes unanswered for a dick measuring contest of who cares less.

---

Stop whining and answer it then.

Nm

Geebus, I'm not asking because I want to empty my savings account, I'm asking for curiosity sake on how these things are calculated. Theatres pay $$$ to show the film, do they pay out % of each ticket? Of each showing? Per ticket sold? I don't care how much any of you are willing to "donate" to see it beat Avatar.

Interesting but maybe wrong thread?

Honestly, more curious if some uber nerd could calculate a flat rate of how many more nerds need to watch the movie in theatres. Or if it's subjective to ticket prices in various locations.

Farmer1906 said:

---

MooreTrucker said:

---

And still, swimmers question goes unanswered for a dick measuring contest of who cares less.

---

Stop whining and answer it then.

---

I don't know the answer but would like to. That's why I pointed it out. Do you know the answer?

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

This is a dumb question, but how do the numbers calculate? Like if a person goes to see it at one of those theatrea that cost like $30 a pop contribute "more" than someone who sees it in a small local theatre? Does inflation play into it?

---

I've been waiting two weeks for someone on here to answer this question.

Wikipedia is telling me that it's ticket sales revenue, so your $20 IMAX ticket contributes four times as much as your $5 discount night ticket. Apparently the studio gets about half of that, but I'm assuming that's an average, not a true revenue split.

If anyone knows better, please correct me. That's what I wanted all along; I have TexAgs so I can avoid Wikipedia.

I'm pretty sure it's total revenue from ticket sales. There is no accounting for inflation/IMAX/3D add ons, just gross numbers. Here's a Forbes article that talks about where it ranks all time inflation adjusted.

Link

And a key quote

Quote:

---

In terms of inflation-adjusted-domestic grossers, Endgame is now ranked in 24th place, between Jurassic World ($652 million in 2015/$717 million adjusted) and Fantasia ($76.4 million including all reissues/$748 million adjusted). Offhand, I'd argue that Disney would like to get this one just past Avatar's inflation-adjusted total, which would A) be an arbitrary feather in the cap and B) 15th-place on the all-time ticket sellers list. Of course, many of the films above it benefited from multiple theatrical releases, but that's a conversation for another day.

---

My b

MooreTrucker said:

---

And still, swimmers question goes unanswered for a dick measuring contest of who cares less.

---

Can we make it a contest for who cares more?

Adjusting for inflation, Endgame is currently $881M short of Star Wars. (Only 45% of SW's total thus far.)

Basically, you could add Infinity War's total gross to it and it's still well short.

Something that helped Avatars numbers was that the proper way to see it was 3D and IMAX where available, so right off the bat, the average price paid for an Avatar ticket would have been much higher than other movies. I'm sure a lot of people saw it on standard screen 2D, but not compared to the 3D

Very true. Due to that, even though Avatar is only $345M behind Titanic on the adjusted list, Titanic probably sold close to double the amount of tickets.

(And especially considering Titanic was out for over year and many of the tickets were at cheaper, second-run theaters.)

Titanic is probably the biggest phenomenon in our lifetime. (Well, I should say in MY lifetime. Basically, if you're in your 30's.)

It really is. It held the domestic title for over a decade, and there wasn't anything close.

What did it make? Maybe 40% more than the previous #1?

It took the title from Jurassic Park (which took it from ET).

Jurassic Park - $357M
Titanic - $600M

A 68% increase from the previous record. Insane. One can forgive JC for calling himself king of the world.

Especially considering all the news leading up to it was about how it was going to be one of the all time bombs.

The fact that we even use revenue sales as a measure for how popular a film is in theaters is just very stupid. How about we measure how many actual movie tickets were sold so we never have to take into account inflation and other economic variables? Why is it so hard to count the number of tickets sold?
Imagine if they displayed the attendance at an Aggie football game on the revenue of ticket sales. Today's game against Bama is the largest ever at Kyle Field with $25,863,735!!

cav14 said:

---

The fact that we even use revenue sales as a measure for how popular a film is in theaters is just very stupid. How about we measure how many actual movie tickets were sold so we never have to take into account inflation and other economic variables? Why is it so hard to count the number of tickets sold?
Imagine if they displayed the attendance at an Aggie football game on the revenue of ticket sales. Today's game against Bama is the largest ever at Kyle Field with $25,863,735!!

---

Because the value isn't how many people saw a movie. It's how much money people were willing to spend to see it.

It's also because budgets are such a big thing in Hollywood. Football games are never reported on in terms of how much money they cost to produce.

That said, I get the complaint. I've never understood why Hollywood doesn't publicly track both revenue AND number of tickets sold.

Seriously. I wish they did.

And I also wonder if there's any way to retroactively access this data and eventually release it on a public database.

AliasMan02 said:

---

cav14 said:

---

The fact that we even use revenue sales as a measure for how popular a film is in theaters is just very stupid. How about we measure how many actual movie tickets were sold so we never have to take into account inflation and other economic variables? Why is it so hard to count the number of tickets sold?
Imagine if they displayed the attendance at an Aggie football game on the revenue of ticket sales. Today's game against Bama is the largest ever at Kyle Field with $25,863,735!!

---

Because the value isn't how many people saw a movie. It's how much money people were willing to spend to see it.

---

That logic can apply the same way to a football game or any other entertainment showing or event in general. But yet, movies are the only medium that reports revenue and not number of tickets sold. I get it from the standpoint of movie studios needing to know that information which is fine. But for revenue to be the ONLY quantifiable measure of a films success is pretty ridiculous.

cav14 said:

---

The fact that we even use revenue sales as a measure for how popular a film is in theaters is just very stupid. How about we measure how many actual movie tickets were sold so we never have to take into account inflation and other economic variables? Why is it so hard to count the number of tickets sold?
Imagine if they displayed the attendance at an Aggie football game on the revenue of ticket sales. Today's game against Bama is the largest ever at Kyle Field with $25,863,735!!

---

Still wouldn't account for population growth or the impact of air conditioning on ticket sales which is still a thing in developing markets.(there is a reason blockbusters were released leading into the summer)

bangobango said:

---

MooreTrucker said:

---

bangobango said:

---

double aught said:

---

But you haven't seen the movie.

---

I'm talking about her performance in endgame

---

There isn't enough of her in Endgame to determine that she needs to be "fixed" unless you're going off of what was SAID ON HERE about her movie.

---

She comes across as an ******* in that movie. My wife doesn't read Texags and she didn't like her at all

Maybe it works if you see her stand alone, but it is very off-putting if this is your first introduction to the character.

That's not even to mention that she is ridiculously OP and will have to either be nerfed or "busy" for majority of movies to give any of the other heroes something to do.

---

My complaint about her is the same one I have with superman. Too powerful of a character to be entertaining

cav14 said:

---

That logic can apply the same way to a football game or any other entertainment showing or event in general. But yet, movies are the only medium that reports revenue and not number of tickets sold. I get it from the standpoint of movie studios needing to know that information which is fine. But for revenue to be the ONLY quantifiable measure of a films success is pretty ridiculous.

---

Why would anyone care how much revenue was generated at any sporting event, especially something like a college football game?

The whole thing about a home game is having a crowd there to support the home team. The more people there, the louder the crowd is.

And when it comes to movies, the studio most definitely only cares about how much revenue comes in to gauge if their money was well spent. And in actuality, like with Endgame, usually the top money-makers have a ton of sold-out or really full auditoriums during the opening weekend so there's that too.

Edit to add: Why does it matter? Just like fans who want their favorite movie to be the highest grossing film ever, Does it make any difference?

Not gonna lie... this would have been absolutely amazing if this is what they did

TCTTS said:

---

It's also because budgets are such a big thing in Hollywood. Football games are never reported on in terms of how much money they cost to produce.

That said, I get the complaint. I've never understood why Hollywood doesn't publicly track both revenue AND number of tickets sold.

---

I thought it had to do with the history of theaters being owned independently from the studios. Trade publications would report box office revenue for theater owners see what was trending, so there was a practical purpose in helping them decide what films to order.

Sports franchise owners don't need that kind of reporting and they have no purpose to disclose revenue numbers publicly every week.

Its unfair to compare Endgame numbers to the numbers of movies 20 years ago or more anyway. Endgame has to compete with Netlfix and more entertainment options than people have ever had. Star Wars had to compete with the nightly news.