Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2017 October 21

= October 21 =

Where are the other pre-war blockbusters?
Today about 10% of Americans go to the cinema each week, a figure which has remained stable since about 1960, but in the 1930s/40s that figure was reliably over 50%. This is why, adjusted for inflation, Gone With The Wind is the highest grossing film of all time.

But why aren't all the highest grossing films from that era? Second place is Avatar, a film released when film attendance had fallen fivefold. Other top 10 films include Star Wars (1977) and The Sound of Music (1965). Though there has been population growth, it's nowhere near enough to compensate. Shouldn't the 30s/40s have generated sales records every month which are untouchable today?

Are film audiences massively more concentrated today? Has there been a corresponding collapse in films released in the post-war era? Does inflation-adjusted not mean what I think it does?

I thought it might be the rise of other markets (China, especially) to make up for the loss of western revenue, but the impact of western films over there is extremely recent and nowhere near sufficient.

uk.businessinsider.com/movie-attendance-over-the-years-2015-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films_in_China

51.9.121.153 (talk) 07:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you think inflation-adjusted means, but our article that you linked to seems to explain this resonably well. When something is inflation-adjusted this normally means by some general measure of inflation, most likely some Consumer price index. As our article says, inflation may not correlate well with changes in ticket prices as they will only be a very minor part of the index, if anything. Box Office Mojo appear to have tried to adjust specifically for ticket-price inflation you can have a look and see if their figures are very different. This shows  how ticket prices have varied in an inflation adjust manner although it only goes back to 1961. Nil Einne (talk) 12:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Some thoughts:


 * 1) In the 1930s and 40s, movie theaters were just about the only source of income for films (there were some minor tie-ins, like Shirley Temple dolls). But since then, they could be replayed on TV, or sold on BETAMAX, then VHS, then DVD, now streaming.  Also, there may be more foreign sales now, to places that didn't even have electricity back then (or were busy fighting WW2).  So, US theater income is now a smaller percentage of the total sales.


 * 2) The higher attendance then may have been because they were the first places to get A/C, and there was a lack of entertainment at home. They had radio, but no TV or video games.  Also, I suspect that movie theater prices have gone up more than inflation, so it really was cheaper then.


 * 3) Ironically, the Great Depression may have increased theater attendance. That is, with nothing to do all day, an unemployed person could take in a double-feature and take their mind off their troubles, for not much money.  StuRat (talk) 20:26, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * A quick and not very scientific search suggests that cinema tickets were comparatively much cheaper in the 1940s than now. This site say that an average ticket cost $0.23 in 1939 while this site says that a loaf of bread cost $0.08 in the same year. Therefore 1 cinema ticket = 3 loaves in 1939. I don't think the same sum would work today. Alansplodge (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Loaves of bread may not be a good basis for comparison, as they vary dramatically in price. They may not have had all the same fancy varieties then, but I bet they had white, pumpernickel, rye, etc., and in various sizes.  (I pay 45 cents for my Brownberry multigrain bread, but few get bread that cheaply now.) A comparison with median wages might be better. StuRat (talk) 23:57, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I would agree bread alone isn't the best comparison but median wages isn't a great comparison either. As I already pointed out above the best comparison is to actual inflation (which would likely have been measured by CPI, not bread or median wages). Please remember the question was about why the gross figures are so, not random thoughts about how cinemagoing has changed over time. Note also AFAICT, the OP is using the term highest grossing the way it's normally used namely to refer to theatrical release income, as used by our article, List of highest-grossing films. So DVD etc income is mostly besides the point. Likewise what may or may not have caused changes in cinema attendances. The OP appears to have theater attendance figures and they are not asking why these figures are so but instead for an exlaination of the differences in gross figures over time given the known attendance figures. If you believe their figures are inaccurate, you should provide details with refs. The fact that worldwide isn't just China and the US is relevant, although it seems to be the OP's best solution is to look at US gross figures. Note as the Collider source pointed out, BoxOfficeMojo do have data going back further back than 1961, to 1910 in particular, so you could do your own comparison. However the reason they didn't so so was because these figures are not very every year. Of course rather than doing this, you could also just look at BoxOfficeMojo's ticker prices adjusted figures. Nil Einne (talk) 16:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * A) It would be a stunning upset of the laws of supply and demand if the increased supply of alternative forms for viewing movies did not, in fact, affect the demand for theater seats.


 * B) The is no "actual inflation", only different ways to approximate it for a given purpose. Some basket of items (possibly only one) must always be compared, and such comparisons tend to break down over decades.  For example, if cars are included in the calcs, you would end up comparing very different cars from then to now, and also fewer people had cars then, so it was less relevant to the average person's spending habits.  One way to adapt to this is to change the basket of goods from time to time, but this also causes it's own problems.  In this specific case, since we are talking about affordability of movie theater tickets, the most relevant comparison is with incomes.  However, if we were to use average incomes, then we have the problem that incomes are far more unevenly distributed now, so that when looking at the average, we all seem far richer than a more balanced measure (the median) would indicate. StuRat (talk) 23:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The US population has increased by 146% since 1940: Demography of the United States. Ticket sales per American has dropped greatly. Total ticket sales have dropped far less. And World population increased even more than American. I think there were more theatrical films to split the ticket sales back then. Most films today are only on tv. I have also heard the claim that Gone with the Wind isn't really that impressive and is just #1 because general ticket sales were higher, or because it could be rereleased many times in theaters without tv and home video. I don't buy it. According to, Gone With the Wind is the only live action film before 1956 to make more than $600 million adjusted on the domestic market (USA+Canada), and it made three times that. Lots of films have done it since then, including five in the last decade. Conditions didn't favor Gone with the Wind. It was just a bigger phenomenon than anything else, and it happened to occur early in film history. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well I think the OP has a point that everything else being equal, even a 146% change is not enough to account for the difference assuming their attendance figures are accurate as they are suggesting over 1/5 decrease in attendances but the population has only increased 2.5x. So naïvely you may expect there to be some recent hits, but there would still be a lot more from the 1930s-1940s. (My understanding is the OP isn't saying Gone with the Wind itself demonstrates that all old movies should be like that. Rather because people went to cinemas so much more in the past, and because the population growth it not close by itself to make up for this change in attendances, they would expect there to be a lot more hits from the 1930s-1940s.) It doesn't seem ticket prices changes are by themselves that much of a factor here. As you said, if you look at the Box Office Mojo's domestic (i.e. US only so worldwide stuff is largely irrelevant) ticket price adjusted figures, there's still only 2 in the top 10 from the 1930s-1940s. Although interesting, there are none since 1997, and actually besides that 1997, and the 2 1930s-1940s everything else is covered in the period 1956-1982. From 11-25 there is only 1 more 1940, and 26-50 has 2 more 1940s. So definitely there seems to be very few 1930s-1940s.  I'm not sure on the quality of Box Office Mojo's data for ticket prices, they themselves mention it isn't an exact science. Notably since they are using average prices, diffent prices within the year per movie isn't taken into account/  Also the OP seems to be only comparing 1930s-1940s to now. It may be it's resonably expected there would be significantly more 1950s-1960s-1970s if attendances were still very high given the demographic increase. But for I don't think this is the case. Again I don't know the quality of the data but it looks like it might be peer reviewed. Anyway this paper suggests by about 1964 it had dropped to around 10%  with only minor fluctations since then until the end of their data in 2001. That said, it also suggests the OP's "reliably over 50%" isn't correct, it as actually between 40%-50% for much of the 1930s which makes a difference although it's still 4x cf 2.5% population. (I didn't look carefully enough to determine if these figures are complete averages or what. I mean or example, does the data mean that it's possible that 40% of people attended at least once a week in 1930 and 60% of people never attended; and 10% of people attended at least once a week in 2010 but 90% of people attended once every 2 weeks?)  Anwyay, even assuming attendance was only at current levels by the 1990s, or even probably 2000s, there seems to be a lot more 1990s and 2000-2010s then there are 1930s-1940s in the top 50. So it still seems population growth probably can't account for it by itself as the OP said.  You do have a point it's likely multiple factors at play, population growth being one but probably including people going to see hits more, and there being more movies in the cinemas in the past and the poor quality of the data as Matt Deres suggested below. Now the OP already seesm to have thought of most of these reasons and I'm not sure if there's much point simply repeating them without further data. (I did try and see if I can get some info on the number of theatrical releases, but gave up.)  But I think one significant overall factor which while not directly answering the question is IMO important and I'm not sure how well the OP considered and your answer touched on is. Hits are by nature anything but average. So it's probably not that useful to assume that just because people attended cinemas a lot more means that the would be a lot more hits.  Nil Einne (talk) 11:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * A) You still seem to be completely missing the point (as always). The OP already knows the demand for theather seats has changed. The very basis of their question is that the frequency of people attending the cinema has changed singificantly. There is nothing in the question suggesting they want to know why the demand for theater seats has changed. The only want to know why, give the change in attendance they already know of, the gross figures are so. (Again if you actual have some evidence disputing these changes, you should present it.) Let me repeat one more time, since it's already been said lots of times but you still don't get it. Why the frequency of people going to cinemas has changed is appears to be largely besides the point of the question. The only way it becomes relevant if it's part of a wider point, for example the claim is made that people are more likely to go to see hits compared to less popular movies because they can see the less popular ones at home. Or at very least, as PrimeHunter pointed out after you, instead of concentrating on how these changes have affected how often people go to the cinemas, which isn't part of the question; you could have mentioned that these changes may mean that despite there being the same, or even more releases of movies, there may be far fewer that even make it to the cinema. Etc etc.  But you didn't actually say any of that. And note from what I can tell, the OP is looking for actual evidence/data, not so much random thoughts of random wikipedians. It already occured to them that perhaps people are going to see hits more ("more concentrated today"). Although it's not clear to me if it occured to them how other options means a movie doesn't have to make to the cinemas. (Or for that matter may last a lot shorter in the past even if it does.)  B) Maybe my comment was phrased poorly, still the gist was there and once again you've missed both my point an the OP's questions. The OP was asking about inflation adjusted figures. These "inflation adjusted figures" are, as I already said before anyone else replied, almost definitely adjusted based on some form of CPI. Random thoughts about different ways you can account for inflation are again, largely irrelevant. The key point the OP has to understand here is, as I pointed out why my first reply, what inflation-adjusted means in this context and how it varies from from ticket price changes. In other words, what needs to be looked at here is the actual inflation data used to adjust the figures the OP is looking at (as I've said several times now, almost definitely some form of CPI).  It doesn't matter how else you can account for inflation, unless it is part of a wider point about how this has affected what movies people watch then they do go to the cinema (or something similar). Let me repeat one last time there's no evidence that the OP is interested in why the frequency of people attending the cinema has changed or anything of that sort. Nor even really on learning how inflation can be measured. Instead they are simply wondering why given the known change in attendances, the gross figures are as they are, and it would help to have some limited understanding of inflation as specific to their figures for this, and in particular how this compares to ticket prices. Although as I pointed out, another alternative is simply to look at the ticket price adjusted figures.  Nil Einne (talk) 11:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Please remain civil. I try to be concise in my writing, which means leaving out what I assume to be the obvious connections.  To spell it all explicitly would make me very long-winded.  But, that seems to be what you prefer, so here are the parts I omitted previously, for brevity:


 * 1) The OP asserted that theater attendance is much lower now than then. Since this is an underlying assumption of their argument, it must be given the "smell test", to see if such a claim is reasonable, despite much higher wealth now than then.  I then listed several reasons why this is so, which supports this idea, making it no longer a suspect premise.  Therefore, we don't need to find other sources to confirm or refute this assertion, since it is no longer suspect.


 * 2) They then compared revenues then with those now, adjusted for inflation in some manner. However, the exact nature of the inflation adjustment is absolutely critical to determine if their comparison of highest revenue movies over decades is accurate, and they did ask "Does inflation-adjusted not mean what I think it does ?".  It is my assertion that a mere average CPI adjustment is not an accurate representation of the effect price has on willingness to attend movie theaters, over such a long time period.  While CPI might be good for a few years, you run into an issue similar to the extrapolation problem, that the more you extend the graph, the further off it goes from an accurate representation, if you are comparing the prices of the wrong (less than ideal for this situation) items.  Therefore, I revealed the need for more sources to determine the effects on revenue of using different (and hopefully better, in this situation), inflation adjustment measures.  I did not find those sources myself, but others are free to do so.  Without such sources, I believe one of the fundamental premises of the OP to be inaccurate.


 * 3) As for which sources of revenue are included (foreign sales, video, streaming, merchandise tie-ins, video games), this is obviously critical to the calcs, but I wasn't sure exactly which items are included and excluded, and if that has changed over time. Since some of these categories didn't exist at all back then, they should obviously be excluded from the calcs.


 * I see that "smell test" is a red-link, so I will explain that further. In math and science, we often look at the answer at each step of a problem to try to determine if it's reasonable, and go back and check our work and assumptions, if not.  For example, if I was trying to calculate the MPG my car gets at various speeds, to determine the ideal cruising speed, and at one speed my calcs show that I get 1000 MPG, then I know something is wrong, and go back and check my work and assumptions.  But, if I get something reasonable, I don't need to go back and check my work and assumptions. StuRat (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Given the realities of Hollywood accounting extend to ticket sales figures (why even use $ gross sales of tickets anyway, given that margin is variable between chains, second screenings, etc.?), it really does make me question how accurate and complete those lists really are. In particular, the absence of lower-brow early movies like King Kong, Dracula, and Frankenstein, among many others, certainly is curious. Beside enormous initial runs, schlocky movies were also popular to send out for second runs as midnight showings. Matt Deres (talk) 15:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The answer is pretty simple, because of price inflation, the gross money spent on ticket sales will ALWAYS increase every year, so the industry looks like it is doing better every year. In terms of number of butts in seats, the industry is actually doing no better year to year.  See here.  Notice that the number of ticket sales remains relatively flat, but the dollar amounts go up every year.  How to Lie with Statistics in one simple chart.  -- Jayron 32 14:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I should know by now that sarcasm doesn't translate to the printed page. That was a rhetorical question by me, since I'd provided the answer before asking it. "Hollywood money isn't money. It's congealed snow, melts in your hand, and there you are." - Dorothy Parker. Matt Deres (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Matt, try my method: "Wow, why didn't I think of that, you're a genius !" :-) StuRat (talk) 02:47, 28 October 2017 (UTC)