Admiral Buzzkill wrote:
Do you have the sense that I do, that doing the "adjusted numbers" thing in comparing box office is basically bullshit? By that I mean it misleads into the notion that we're then comparing apples to apples, but that's premised on the ridiculous proposition that all other variables are somehow equal or can be made equal.
IMAO there's actually no reasonable way to compare either the economic decisions or the taste of someone in, say, 1939 deciding to spend some change on The Wizard Of Oz
to someone deciding in 2009 to drop twenty dollars to see Avatar
in IMAX. It's always
Yeah, I agree completely. There is no way to make apple-to-apple comparisons of movies from different eras, way too many variables. The best we can do is to say that both STID & TWOK were hit movies in the years they were released (e.g. in the top 10 movies of the year), but any direct comparison of boxoffice numbers (adjusted or not) is not that meaningful.
Would Gone With the Wind
make $1.6 billion domestically if it was released today? It wouldn't even come close. But it made a lot of money when it was released, which was at a time that not only it didn't have too much movie competition or any home video competition, it didn't have any TV competition at all. Also as you say the taste of the moviegoers from different generations will not be the same.