AVENGERS 4: INFINITY GAUNTLET (5/3/19)
6 6

1,883 posts in this topic

79,820 posts
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
79,820 posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,417 posts

Interesting that, after adjusting for inflation, the average movie ticket costs ~10% less today than it did in 1969.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,553 posts
11 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

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.

You are free to assume you know what I mean better than I do, but I can't say it more clearly than this has nothing to do with any competition. This is about how the #'s don't add up on inflation imo. You don't have to agree with me but I don't see how that makes it a competition in your mind, especially when I keep saying it's not. I consider this inflation theory like algebra where only one # is being altered in the equation, when both sides are clearly effected. If x = 2a/x & you change X = 10 to X = 100, then a = 50 changes to a = 5000, in relation to X. It's that simple. You can't relate ticket costs of one market to another without factoring in ticket sales in relation to those markets as well. Again, the only realistic solution to inflation is seeing how a modern remake of a film does in today's market.

9 hours ago, ExNihilo said:

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.

It was Scott Mendelson. I personally think the only thing that could hurt Avatar is if the squeals do poorly. Since they have 4 films planned, I was hoping for 1 or 2 of them to be prequels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
79,820 posts
24 minutes ago, chezmtghut said:

You are free to assume you know what I mean better than I do, but I can't say it more clearly than this has nothing to do with any competition. This is about how the #'s don't add up on inflation imo. You don't have to agree with me but I don't see how that makes it a competition in your mind, especially when I keep saying it's not. I consider this inflation theory like algebra where only one # is being altered in the equation, when both sides are clearly effected. If x = 2a/x & you change X = 10 to X = 100, then a = 50 changes to a = 5000, in relation to X. It's that simple. You can't relate ticket costs of one market to another without factoring in ticket sales in relation to those markets as well. Again, the only realistic solution to inflation is seeing how a modern remake of a film does in today's market.

You are free to assume so. It ignores the audience attendance response at a point in time.

:flamed:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15,958 posts
Posted (edited)

$2.485BB $2.49BB; $303MM $298MM (after weekend actuals) to Avatar, going to be close

Edited by paperheart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,589 posts

With respect to the Box Office, I did my part. I went with my family a second time. I admit that I enjoyed it even more the second time as I picked up nuances that I missed the first time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,553 posts
5 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

You are free to assume so. It ignores the audience attendance response at a point in time.

It simply converts audience attendance just like it does ticket costs. After all, you are relating ticket costs to another point in time, so it's only logical to relate ticket sales to that same timeline. It doesn't change ticket sales from the initial equation/timeline, just the modern one.

$1(198M tickets) in 1965 with 50 - 100 movies in theaters that year = $9(22M tickets) in 2019 with 800 - 900 movies in theaters this year. In this example the same movie makes $198M at both points in time, factoring in timeline changes.

BOM shows 876 films came out in 2018 & only 34 made 100M+, of which 20 sit between 100M - 200M. Those 20 films sold 10 - 20 million tickets each. You would need 100 - 200 million tickets sold today to make the majority of the adjusted #'s on that chart, which is something even the biggest blockbusters don't reach today. The market is simply too saturated for any film to make those ticket sales today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,417 posts
1 hour ago, chezmtghut said:

It simply converts audience attendance just like it does ticket costs. After all, you are relating ticket costs to another point in time, so it's only logical to relate ticket sales to that same timeline. It doesn't change ticket sales from the initial equation/timeline, just the modern one.

$1(198M tickets) in 1965 with 50 - 100 movies in theaters that year = $9(22M tickets) in 2019 with 800 - 900 movies in theaters this year. In this example the same movie makes $198M at both points in time, factoring in timeline changes.

BOM shows 876 films came out in 2018 & only 34 made 100M+, of which 20 sit between 100M - 200M. Those 20 films sold 10 - 20 million tickets each. You would need 100 - 200 million tickets sold today to make the majority of the adjusted #'s on that chart, which is something even the biggest blockbusters don't reach today. The market is simply too saturated for any film to make those ticket sales today.

This is good point.

Related: I'm pretty sure that the last episode of M*A*S*H will forever hold the record for most-watched scripted episode of television in the United States.

First aired on Feb. 28, 1983, nearly 106 million Americans tuned in. That was 45% of the entire U.S. population at the time.

But that was also back in the day when there were only 7-8 non-cable TV networks.

Today, with 150+ channels - plus Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc. media fragmentation has done its thing.

For comparison's sake, only ~17 million Americans watched Game of Thrones' Season 8 premiere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,798 posts

It is looking likely Avengers End Game will finish #2 domestically behind The Force Awakens. I am surprised at how quickly it has fallen off domestically as I was sure it would be #1. There is really no competition for another week, so maybe it can make up lost ground this week.

It is too early to call if it will get #1 internationally. It has a good shot at it though.

If it finishes at #2 all time on both charts, that is still a great showing. Hard to see anything coming even close to this in the superhero genre for some time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
79,820 posts
2 hours ago, chezmtghut said:

It simply converts audience attendance just like it does ticket costs. After all, you are relating ticket costs to another point in time, so it's only logical to relate ticket sales to that same timeline. It doesn't change ticket sales from the initial equation/timeline, just the modern one.

$1(198M tickets) in 1965 with 50 - 100 movies in theaters that year = $9(22M tickets) in 2019 with 800 - 900 movies in theaters this year. In this example the same movie makes $198M at both points in time, factoring in timeline changes.

BOM shows 876 films came out in 2018 & only 34 made 100M+, of which 20 sit between 100M - 200M. Those 20 films sold 10 - 20 million tickets each. You would need 100 - 200 million tickets sold today to make the majority of the adjusted #'s on that chart, which is something even the biggest blockbusters don't reach today. The market is simply too saturated for any film to make those ticket sales today.

So on this we agree with the market being saturated. It is!

But to say a film that was a huge success from the past should then be converted to modern reactions (not just box office conversion) to the same film as part of comparing to a modern film is not taking into consideration WHY those films were huge successes for their times. There was a level of uniqueness for that time, leading to the massive response.

Look at 'Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs'. It was considered so cutting-edge for its time, the film was recommended for Best Musical Score - which it lost in that year but was presented with an honorary Oscar the next year. And it was so unique, the Academy made a special Oscar this presentation, which was one large Oscar and seven little Oscars. What film nowadays has been that impactful? So to expect that now to go up against Into The Spider-Verse, The Incredibles, The LEGO Movie or other huge hits would be unrealistic. But for its time, there is a reason why it is #10 on the BOM Adjusted Domestic Box Office List.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
79,820 posts
1 hour ago, rjrjr said:

It is looking likely Avengers End Game will finish #2 domestically behind The Force Awakens. I am surprised at how quickly it has fallen off domestically as I was sure it would be #1. There is really no competition for another week, so maybe it can make up lost ground this week.

It is too early to call if it will get #1 internationally. It has a good shot at it though.

If it finishes at #2 all time on both charts, that is still a great showing. Hard to see anything coming even close to this in the superhero genre for some time.

It is an impressive jump for Endgame at this point. But man, $302.5M is a lot to catch up on. Even right now Japan took a dip with an anime movie taking the #1 spot.

Avengers_Avatar190512a.thumb.PNG.c78e8002d8baee6ffe53ec0badbac504.PNG

We shall see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,553 posts
34 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

So on this we agree with the market being saturated. It is!

But to say a film that was a huge success from the past should then be converted to modern reactions (not just box office conversion) to the same film as part of comparing to a modern film is not taking into consideration WHY those films were huge successes for their times. There was a level of uniqueness for that time, leading to the massive response.

Look at 'Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs'. It was considered so cutting-edge for its time, the film was recommended for Best Musical Score - which it lost in that year but was presented with an honorary Oscar the next year. And it was so unique, the Academy made a special Oscar this presentation, which was one large Oscar and seven little Oscars. What film nowadays has been that impactful? So to expect that now to go up against Into The Spider-Verse, The Incredibles, The LEGO Movie or other huge hits would be unrealistic. But for its time, there is a reason why it is #10 on the BOM Adjusted Domestic Box Office List.

You're missing the point. It really doesn't matter that they were cutting edge at the time. There's no telling how a remake even with the best current technology would do in today's market. It's about supply & demand. Today's economy has a much greater supply with a much larger & diverse population, making demand for any film much lower than it once was. There's no guarantee Avatar 2 will make what it's predecessor did with today's tech either. Films that do poorly at the BO receive Academy Awards all the time, so that really doesn't factor into the equation. I'm not saying the films wouldn't be well received or make money, I'm simply saying they would never produce the same ticket sales. There are many examples in this regard & it takes nothing away from what the film did, it just relates to how a film would currently do.

Maleficent is a modern take on Sleeping Beauty which did very well & according to BOM domestic #'s brought in:

Maleficent:

241.41M/$8.17 (2014) = 29.54M tickets sold

Sleeping Beauty:

36.48M/$0.51 (1959) = 71.53M tickets sold

15.12M/$3.71 (1986) = 4.07M tickets sold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
79,820 posts
1 minute ago, chezmtghut said:

You're missing the point. It really doesn't matter that they were cutting edge at the time. There's no telling how a remake even with the best current technology would do in today's market. It's about supply & demand. Today's economy has a much greater supply with a much larger & diverse population, making demand for any film much lower than it once was. There's no guarantee Avatar 2 will make what it's predecessor did with today's tech either. Films that do poorly at the BO receive Academy Awards all the time, so that really doesn't factor into the equation. I'm not saying the films wouldn't be well received or make money, I'm simply saying they would never produce the same ticket sales. There are many examples in this regard & it takes nothing away from what the film did, it just relates to how a film would currently do.

Maleficent is a modern take on Sleeping Beauty which did very well & according to BOM domestic #'s brought in:

Maleficent:

241.41M/$8.17 (2014) = 29.54M tickets sold

Sleeping Beauty:

36.48M/$0.51 (1959) = 71.53M tickets sold

15.12M/$3.71 (1986) = 4.07M tickets sold

I recognize you are totally convinced this analysis makes sense. I disagree with the thinking, as it takes a successful film out of that point-in-time there was a reason it was so massive.

Some will agree one way or the other. Meanwhile, those older films are still recognized for being financially successful at that point, and adjusted for inflation the relevance comes through even more how massively successful. It is what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,553 posts
9 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

I recognize you are totally convinced this analysis makes sense. I disagree with the thinking, as it takes a successful film out of that point-in-time there was a reason it was so massive.

Some will agree one way or the other. Meanwhile, those older films are still recognized for being financially successful at that point, and adjusted for inflation the relevance comes through even more how massively successful. It is what it is.

I honestly doubt many would agree those adjusted prices could actually be a reality today. It is a nice fantasy & way of propping up old classics though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
79,820 posts

By the way, here is an image of that specially designed Snow White Academy Award.

snowwhite_oscar01.PNG.8d5e700542749a4250bdecb3b22eae6a.PNG

That's actually a really cool Trivial Pursuit question about the only movie with a unique Oscar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
79,820 posts
Just now, chezmtghut said:

I honestly doubt many would agree those adjusted prices could actually be a reality today. It is a nice fantasy & way of propping up old classics though.

I'm sure you're convinced of that. It's clear.

:insane:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,787 posts
9 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

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

Mom & Dad went to see Doctor Zhivago on a date night, without us kids.  So I missed out on Julie Christie until much later.
In fact, I just re-watched Doctor Zhivago a couple months ago.  What a great film!  :applause:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,553 posts
1 minute ago, Bosco685 said:

I'm sure you're convinced of that. It's clear.

I'm 100% convinced those classics would not sell as many tickets today as they did back then. It would be interesting to see a poll on the topic though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
79,820 posts
4 minutes ago, chezmtghut said:

I'm 100% convinced those classics would not sell as many tickets today as they did back then. It would be interesting to see a poll on the topic though.

That would be a fantastic poll.

"Would 'Snow White' be successful nowadays?" - YES NO

I'm 100% convinced they were successful at that point in time. Nowadays, not as much because of cinema advancements. That doesn't make them any less relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
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
6 6