• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Avengers: Endgame (2019)
5 5

2,252 posts in this topic

4 hours ago, marmat said:

Is there a site where it's explained how the adjustment is calculated? 

I honestly don’t know. 

1 hour ago, paperheart said:

$16MM Friday; not to quibble given the huge # already racked up but it's barely above Endgame's third Friday.  holds will have to improve for it to get much past $850MM US.

Endgame will struggle to get 800 domestic if it keeps dropping 60%. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, marmat said:

Is there a site where it's explained how the adjustment is calculated? 

 

26 minutes ago, chezmtghut said:

I honestly don’t know. 

Box Office Mojo gives it a try only with Domestic Box Office partly so it doesn't have to tackle how to deal with currency conversion. Though if you use USD as the common normalization rate in comparing films globally, it's not that awful.

BOX OFFICE MOJO: ADJUSTING FOR TICKET PRICE INFLATION

Quote

HOW WE ADJUST FOR INFLATION / EST. TICKETS 
In most cases you can calculate the estimated number of tickets sold for a given movie by taking its box office gross and dividing it by the average ticket price at the time it was released. To adjust it for inflation (or see what it might have made in the past), you then multiply the estimated number of tickets sold by the average ticket price of the year you are converting to.

 

In some cases we are able to obtain the actual number of tickets sold and we use that figure to base adjustments off of (apart from its reported gross). Usually this is the case with older movies, especially those released in the 30s and 40s (like Gone with the Wind).

 

Some movies have been released several times over the decades, and we do account for this. For example, Snow White was released in 1937, but half of its lifetime gross is from re-releases in the 80s and 90s, so each of these releases is adjusted according to the year it earned its money.

 

Also, December releases may earn money in two separate years. To account for this we take a movie's gross from its December opening until December 31 and adjust it according to the average ticket price that year, then adjust the remaining gross in the following year according to that year's ticket price.

 

ACCURACY OF FIGURES 
Adjusting for ticket price inflation is not an exact science and should be used to give you a general idea of what a movie might have made if released in a different year, assuming it sold the same number of tickets.

So it uses shifts in average ticket prices to guesstimate what a film may have made in 2019. Though even its data scientists recognize it is not an accurate approach. And depending on how old the movie is, the variance between the BOM adjusted estimate and inflation tables can vary drastically. Two examples:

Gone With The Wind (1939):

  • In-Year (1939): $200,852,579
  • BOM (2019): $1,822,598,200
  • Inflation Tables Conversion: $3,692,624,090.52 (50.6% difference)

Avatar (2009):

  • In-Year (2009): $760,507,625
  • BOM (2019): $876,759,300
  • Inflation Tables Conversion: $905,886,642.18 (3.2% difference)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

 

Box Office Mojo gives it a try only with Domestic Box Office partly so it doesn't have to tackle how to deal with currency conversion. Though if you use USD as the common normalization rate in comparing films globally, it's not that awful.

BOX OFFICE MOJO: ADJUSTING FOR TICKET PRICE INFLATION

So it uses shifts in average ticket prices to guesstimate what a film may have made in 2019. Though even its data scientists recognize it is not an accurate approach. And depending on how old the movie is, the variance between the BOM adjusted estimate and inflation tables can vary drastically. Two examples:

Gone With The Wind (1939):

  • In-Year (1939): $200,852,579
  • BOM (2019): $1,822,598,200
  • Inflation Tables Conversion: $3,692,624,090.52 (50.6% difference)

Avatar (2009):

  • In-Year (2009): $760,507,625
  • BOM (2019): $876,759,300
  • Inflation Tables Conversion: $905,886,642.18 (3.2% difference)

Makes sense, but I’d say it’s estimating what those ticket sales would have amounted to today rather than what the movie would have actually grossed today. They account for inflated ticket costs but not deflated ticket sales. Best example is Endgame making 800 domestic accounts for roughly 80 million tickets sold. In comparison GwtW’s 200 accounts for roughly 800 million tickets sold at $0.25 each. That should actually be more like 8 billion in today’s market at $10 each, but BOM adjusts it to 1.8 billion. Does anyone actually believe GwtW would outsell Endgame 10:1 in today’s market? It wouldn’t happen. It’s more likely the odds are 1:10 against Endgame. Avatar @ $7.50 & Titanic @ $5 are probably the only modern movies that sold around 400 million tickets, but that’s worldwide, not just domestic. 

Edited by chezmtghut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, chezmtghut said:

Makes sense, but I’d say it’s estimating what those ticket sales would have amounted to today rather than what the movie would have actually grossed today. They account for inflated ticket costs but not deflated ticket sales. Best example is Endgame making 800 domestic accounts for roughly 80 million tickets sold. In comparison GwtW’s 200 accounts for roughly 800 million tickets sold at $0.25 each. That should actually be more like 8 billion in today’s market at $10 each, but BOM adjusts it to 1.8 billion. Does anyone actually believe GwtW would outsell Endgame 10:1 in today’s market? It wouldn’t happen. It’s more likely the odds are 1:10 against Endgame. Avatar @ $7.50 & Titanic @ $5 are probably the only modern movies that sold around 400 million tickets, but that’s worldwide, not just domestic. 

You're looking at it as a direct competition between the films if they came out against one another. It requires more a standalone analysis, assuming the same massive response for a given film like it experienced in the same year. But at a higher ticket price.

Back then, big productions like Sound of Music were very unique for the time because of how it brought together engaging stories with entertainers that could contribute to the soundtrack. Or if you look at one of my favorites, Doctor Zhivago. As a period piece, it probably would do mediocre numbers nowadays. But back then, there was nothing as massive when you consider the scenes.

So it could be a challenge to bring them forward to now and wonder would audiences respond to the same film within these modern times. Different times, different audience wow factor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bosco685 said:

You're looking at it as a direct competition between the films if they came out against one another. It requires more a standalone analysis, assuming the same massive response for a given film like it experienced in the same year. But at a higher ticket price.

Back then, big productions like Sound of Music were very unique for the time because of how it brought together engaging stories with entertainers that could contribute to the soundtrack. Or if you look at one of my favorites, Doctor Zhivago. As a period piece, it probably would do mediocre numbers nowadays. But back then, there was nothing as massive when you consider the scenes.

So it could be a challenge to bring them forward to now and wonder would audiences respond to the same film within these modern times. Different times, different audience wow factor.

I'm not looking at it in terms of direct competition, just in terms of ticket sales. They could come out 6 months apart & it wouldn't change the #'s. Those films would never get the same ticket sales today. That's just reality. I don't know why you relate most of my responses to competition. I'm just saying that if you inflate one end, you have to deflate the other end in the same respect to time, place & circumstance. If they brought out a remake of those old films today for example, with current cinematography & actors, they wouldn't make the adjusted #'s. Mary Poppins returns being a perfect example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, chezmtghut said:

I'm not looking at it in terms of direct competition, just in terms of ticket sales. They could come out 6 months apart & it wouldn't change the #'s. Those films would never get the same ticket sales today. That's just reality. I don't know why you relate most of my responses to competition. I'm just saying that if you inflate one end, you have to deflate the other end in the same respect to time, place & circumstance. If they brought out a remake of those old films today for example, with current cinematography & actors, they wouldn't make the adjusted #'s. Mary Poppins returns being a perfect example.

It's a statement like this that leads to the perception.

3 hours ago, chezmtghut said:

Does anyone actually believe GwtW would outsell Endgame 10:1 in today’s market?

So it sounds like a competitive statement concerning OLD MARKET versus NEW MARKET. It was a totally different time. So for that period, these films were cutting edge. Hard to compare the two.

Now as far as 'deflating one', I'm not sure you have to do that. You are just comparing two films at a point in time, but with even-handed financials, to gauge their performance. Right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Movies like Gone with the Wind and Snow White were periodically re-released.  In the 1960's, I saw Gone with the Wind and Snow White in theaters.  Since it had been a while since these films had been seen, they played in multiple theaters and had advertisements in the movie section of the newspaper just like the newly released movies.

So you can't just take a 1939 25¢ ticket sale as the basis for Gone with the Wind; for adjusted box office you'd have to look at ticket prices in 1942,1947, 1954, 1961, 1967, 1971, 1974, and 1989 and also know the individual box office sales for each of those releases, not just a total amount over the years.

Edited by Unca Ben
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

It's a statement like this that leads to the perception.

So it sounds like a competitive statement concerning OLD MARKET versus NEW MARKET. It was a totally different time. So for that period, these films were cutting edge. Hard to compare the two.

Now as far as 'deflating one', I'm not sure you have to do that. You are just comparing two films at a point in time, but with even-handed financials, to gauge their performance. Right?

You're the one that keeps bringing competition into it, I'm just saying the inflation prices don't add up. I could have mentioned any movie but this is the Endgame thread. I also used Mary Poppins vs Mary Poppins as an example. Would it be fair to say every chart you post updating a movies gross is about competition? I take it as stats, but then you seem to relate any stats I post to be about competition in an argumentative fashion. It's not about old versus new market or performance, it's about how only one aspect of the market is considered in relation to those inflated adjustments. If you don't want to consider deflation in current market ticket sales, I don't know how you can consider inflation in current market ticket prices. The two go hand in hand. Like you said, it's hard to compare the two because they were different times. They were never comparable to begin with imo & the #'s are simply unrealistic.

2 hours ago, Unca Ben said:

Movies like Gone with the Wind and Snow White were periodically re-released.  In the 1960's, I saw Gone with the Wind and Snow White in theaters.  Since it had been a while since these films had been seen, they played in multiple theaters and had advertisements in the movie section of the newspaper just like the newly released movies.

So you can't just take a 1939 25¢ ticket sale as the basis for Gone with the Wind; for adjusted box office you'd have to look at ticket prices in 1942,1947, 1954, 1961, 1967, 1971, 1974, and 1989 and also know the individual box office sales for each of those releases, not just a total amount over the years.

You're right & that's likely why there are varying #'s between the gross & adjustments of certain films. I will use BOM ticket adjustments to compare both Mary Poppins. Mary Poppins Returns sold roughly 19.1 million tickets @ $9. The original Mary Poppins came out in 1964 @ 31M/$0.93 = 33.33M, being reissued in 1966 @ 57.27M/$1.09 = 52.54M & 1980 @ 14M/$2.69 = 5.20M for a total of 91.07M tickets sold. That's 4.5+ x the modern version & even if new one was reissued several times over the next few decades, it wouldn't make a dent in the original 33.33M tickets sold in 1964 alone. BOM shows reissues for GwtW in 1989 @ 2.4M, 1998 @ 6.75M & 2019 @ 2.17M, with an initial gross of 189.52M in 1939. It's tougher to quantify those ticket sales if the original 189.52M came in over 35 years without details on which years made how much. At any rate, even if it only sold 100 - 200 million tickets in that 35 year span (BOM says tickets were $1.87 in 1974 accounting for 100M+ tickets at that price), I don't believe the original or a remake would sell as many tickets today. It did make roughly 241k (2.17M/$9) in ticket sales over several weeks for it's 80th anniversary a few months back, though it was a very limited release. Maybe it would still do well, but can you even imagine 20M+ tickets sold on a wide reissue over several months in today's market? The only realistic way to know how GwtW would do now is if a modern remake came out, not by calculating 80 years of tickets sales at today's prices.

Edited by chezmtghut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, chezmtghut said:

You're the one that keeps bringing competition into it, I'm just saying the inflation prices don't add up. I could have mentioned any movie but this is the Endgame thread. I also used Mary Poppins vs Mary Poppins as an example. Would it be fair to say every chart you post updating a movies gross is about competition? I take it as stats, but then you seem to relate any stats I post to be about competition in an argumentative fashion. It's not about old versus new market or performance, it's about how only one aspect of the market is considered in relation to those inflated adjustments. If you don't want to consider deflation in current market ticket sales, I don't know how you can consider inflation in current market ticket prices. The two go hand in hand. Like you said, it's hard to compare the two because they were different times. They were never comparable to begin with imo & the #'s are simply unrealistic.

Argumentative fashion? You are reading into things.

Your own posts are what leads to the assumption you are implying a competition, or pointing out old versus new. So that's an odd statement on your part.

Edited by Bosco685
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/10/2019 at 12:26 PM, Bosco685 said:
On 5/10/2019 at 12:23 PM, AnthonyTheAbyss said:

 

If it comes within spitting distance, I wouldn't be shocked if Disney doesn't spend a few million dollars to try and beat that number.

 

But I honestly don't think it will take down Avatar.

Like it did with Black Panther when it boosted theater counts, it could attempt to do this again. But we shall see if it will bother since both are Disney properties now.

I forget who mentioned it here in this thread, but I feel like earlier someone theorized that it was actually in Disney's best interest that Avatar remain the #1 grossing film in order to increase/maintain interest in the franchise for when the sequels come out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, chezmtghut said:

You're right & that's likely why there are varying #'s between the gross & adjustments of certain films. I will use BOM ticket adjustments to compare both Mary Poppins. Mary Poppins Returns sold roughly 19.1 million tickets @ $9. The original Mary Poppins came out in 1964 @ 31M/$0.93 = 33.33M, being reissued in 1966 @ 57.27M/$1.09 = 52.54M & 1980 @ 14M/$2.69 = 5.20M for a total of 91.07M tickets sold. That's 4.5+ x the modern version & even if new one was reissued several times over the next few decades, it wouldn't make a dent in the original 33.33M tickets sold in 1964 alone. BOM shows reissues for GwtW in 1989 @ 2.4M, 1998 @ 6.75M & 2019 @ 2.17M, with an initial gross of 189.52M in 1939. It's tougher to quantify those ticket sales if the original 189.52M came in over 35 years without details on which years made how much. At any rate, even if it only sold 100 - 200 million tickets in that 35 year span (BOM says tickets were $1.87 in 1974 accounting for 100M+ tickets at that price), I don't believe the original or a remake would sell as many tickets today. It did make roughly 241k (2.17M/$9) in ticket sales over several weeks for it's 80th anniversary a few months back, though it was a very limited release. Maybe it would still do well, but can you even imagine 20M+ tickets sold on a wide reissue over several months in today's market? The only realistic way to know how GwtW would do now is if a modern remake came out, not by calculating 80 years of tickets sales at today's prices.

Mary Poppins!  Between that movie and The Sound of Music, I fell in love with Julie Andrews when I was a young boy.  :luhv: 

She was probably the first movie star I paid any attention to.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Unca Ben said:

Mary Poppins!  Between that movie and The Sound of Music, I fell in love with Julie Andrews when I was a young boy.  :luhv: 

She was probably the first movie star I paid any attention to.  

Mary Poppins and Doctor Zhivago brought two wonderful ladies to the attention of general audiences. But I have to say, Julie Christie always stood out more for me. The character of Lara made her such a sympathetic individual.

julie_christie_0.jpg.b2036c5a77219aaa7de369c1816b99bd.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/10/2019 at 10:29 AM, RedRaven said:

 

What intrigues me most about this chart is lines 30 and 36 (for Black Panther and Avengers: Infinity War).

These films' adjusted grosses -- from 2018 -- are actually deflated today.

The implication is the average theater ticket costs less in 2019 than it did in 2018, leading to adjusted grosses for those films being lower.

Could this be due (in part) to subscription services like MoviePass? Or simply that there are a greater percentage of "normal" screens vs. more expensive "3D" ones?

Or did a major theater chain actually lower its prices?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

Could this be due (in part) to subscription services like MoviePass? Or simply that there are a greater percentage of "normal" screens vs. more expensive "3D" ones?

Or did a major theater chain actually lower its prices?

BOM is noting a slight drop in average ticket price for 2019.

BOM01.PNG.6f856ab70e63279e1a96db6b4ece3347.PNG

Average Movie Ticket Price Drops 1.6% in First Quarter of 2019

Quote

The average movie ticket price dropped 1.63% from Q1 of 2018 to Q1 of 2019, the National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO) announced on Friday.

 

Last year, the average ticket price was $9.16, whereas today, it is $9.01. The 2018 yearly average was $9.11, a 1.56% increase from the previous year. The average ticket price is a reflection of all tickets sold in big cities, small towns, in all demographics and all time slots.

 

For reference, the average ticket price in 1969 was $1.42. Adjusted for inflation, the price was $10.14.

 

265.6 million tickets were sold last quarter, which accounts for a decrease of 14.92% from the previous year, and the Q1 box office accounted for $2.4 billion, down 16.31% from the same time period in 2019.

So it could come down to lower attendance, leading to theaters adjusting prices slightly to encourage more viewers. Especially with those substantial drops compared to 4Q 2018.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Variety gives it's take on the 1Q 2019 ticket price drop.

U.S. Movie Ticket Sales, Box Office Plunge in First Quarter

Quote

The overall ticket price for the quarter slipped 15 cents to $9.01, compared to the same quarter in 2018. NATO’s Patrick Corcoran attributes the decline to films skewing toward family/animated titles such as “How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World” and “The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part.”

 

Disney-Marvel’s “Captain Marvel” was by far the best performer during the quarter, grossing $354 million domestically to date, followed by “How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World” with $153 million. Part of the drop-off during the 2019 quarter was due to the blockbuster performance of “Black Panther” during the same period last year. “Black Panther” became the third-highest domestic grosser of all time with $700 million, trailing only “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” and “Avatar.”

So I wonder if in 2Q-3Q 2019 they will show it leap up substantially due to Avengers: Endgame results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
5 5