M.C. Swag said:
MBAR said:
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.
Well tbf they have a few things going for them as well:
1) US population growth since 1980 has increased by ~50% - more consumers
2) inflation + ticket hikes = more revenue per ticket sale
3) An American movie in 1980 (such as Star Wars) isn't being distributed nearly as globally as Engame is/was.
Its fun for us to talk about but from the studios perceptive its not completely about revenue. There's a cost element was well.
I've had several clients that have been apart of producing/financing movies/plays/musicals (nothing you've seen). Most didnt even make it passed early stages and the investment was sunk. The project may have funding for initial stages but it doesn't get any traction and falters later on in the process for unforeseen reasons (like not being able to lock down a venue that can hold enough ticket buyers to make back your money, and when they finally lock one down the name-on-the-marquee actor has other commitments). There's also an issue of artist differences and who is calling the shots. Lots of egos in that world.
From my limited experience, financing entertainment is it's own animal and while it looks like another hedge fund or investment vehicle from the outside, the inside is really messy and the accounting is fuzzy.
That's why, I think, studios arent so completely interested in total sales revenue adjusted for inflation, population, demographics, etc which is why they dont track it as closely as one would imagine. (Maybe they are but dont disclose?) Revenue is important but not as important as cost.
