|
Post by pitfallharry on May 28, 2007 18:20:20 GMT -5
Not that any of this has any impact on you or I unless where betting money on how much these films will make opening weekend, but....
I'm just a little confused by how they say one film beats out another for a certain record when there are so many different factors to play into breaking these records to begin with.
For example : I just read that POTC : At Worlds End beat Spidey 3's sixth day world wide opening record. Well, ok....but POTC also opened on more screens than Spidey did so of course it's got a better chance at beating Spidey's record because it's got more screens it's showing on. I would think it would in order for them to pit the two against each other it would have to be an equal playing field!?
Like I said I don't really care how much either of these films grosses. I'm not going to see any of that money.....in fact a tiny bit of their profit came from my pockets so I lost money. ;D
I just find the whole thing both interesting and a bit odd.
|
|
|
Post by IndyBlues on May 28, 2007 18:36:54 GMT -5
I think the only thing that should be counted is ticket SALES. Actual tickets sold, not money brought in. When Star Wars came out, it was like $2 a ticket,..now it's $9-11 dollars, easy. 'Blues
|
|
|
Post by Ragingblues on May 28, 2007 21:54:41 GMT -5
I think it's easy to open your movie on a 5 day weekend (in the U.S. anyway), and then cherry pick the highest 3 day in a row total of the 5 days to use in comparison. What I mean is, Spiderman 3 didn't have a Memorial Day in the mix, where tons of people go out to see movies that wouldn't normally. How did POC do against Spidey's Friday through Sunday take? That's the real question.
Like you said PH, there are too many variables to make these things real competitions. Along with what IB mentioned about ticket prices changing so drastically over the past 30 years, number of screens showing the film, holiday weekends versus normal ones, etc... how can anyone claim such a narrow victory at all?
I say... let's just enjoy the movies and not worry about who made how much money. Of course, they need the records to drive more people into the theaters.... so it will never end.
Ken
|
|
|
Post by pitfallharry on May 28, 2007 21:58:20 GMT -5
I thought that's all that was counted was actual tickets sold at the box office? I have to say another thing that kind of bothers me is the fact that in this day and age just about everyone you talk to about any of the current films knows how much the films making or made.....I even include myself in with that. Some people are really obsessive over it though. It almost like sports. People know all the stats on their favorite players and only with the movies it's box office totals and all the stuff that goes along with it. Back when I was a kid nobody cared about this stuff and the only time it was ever mentioned was when it was an extreme amount of money like when the original SW came out. And what's the deal now with the 100 million mark with these movies? It's like if any film doesn't reach that amount in it's initial run it's considered a flop! It also means that if you do reach that amount your almost guaranteed a sequel even if the film doesn't need one.
|
|
|
Post by Havana on May 29, 2007 7:13:34 GMT -5
I agree that they should only count the number of tickets sold. That's more fair especially in relation to older movies. Newer films certainly have the advantage as they are opened on thousands of screens now. Increased availability is a big factor infavor of modern films. Practically everyone that wants to get to a theater can. That wasn't always true. When I was a kid, my parents had to drive over 60 miles to find a theater playing Return of the Jedi. Today, there's a multi-plex theater within 5 miles of my home. Old movies used to open on dozens of screens and then travel a circuit around the country over a long period of months. Gone With the Wind played in it's inititial theatrical release for 4 years, sold many more tickets than Titanic, and yet it barely made a million dollars. It's hard to make a billion when tickets cost 50 cents or less. There are also many more people in the US than in 1950's for example. There are simply more people available to buy tickets. Also today, there seems to be this whole winner movie/loser movie mentality. If your movie doesn't open at number 1, it's a loser and not worth seeing. I think a lot of people actually believe this. Many will go see the most popular movie simply because it's number 1. People in the industry seem to like to compare stats like they're talking about baseball or something. The new Pirates is a "disappointment" because it only made $126 million on it's opening weekend. Since when is $126 million in a single weekend disappointing? That's more than most films ever make in their entire run and on DVD. If it made that much on it's opening weekend, it's likely to triple that over it's theater run and you have to add in overseas profits and then DVD sales. I'd like to get in on a disappointment like that. It just seems like the whole thing is out of control. Ragingblues is right. Just sit back and try to enjoy whatever you're watching.
|
|
|
Post by bendingoak on Jun 5, 2007 9:24:36 GMT -5
I'm confused as well with this pitfall. I remember a movie that I liked ( around twenty years ago). It was made for the same amount of money as another movie. Both made the same ammount of money but they called one a hit and ( the movie i like ) a flop. What the F***.
|
|