View Single Post
Old June 23 2013, 04:16 AM   #2380
Creepy Critter
Admiral
 
Creepy Critter's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: STID "tracking" for $85-90 million opening [U.S. box office]

Therin of Andor wrote: View Post
CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
Once you've answered that, apply it to a different era, when there were far fewer theaters, like, say, the silent era in 1915.
Are you sure there were fewer theatres in those days?
Pretty sure.

As of 2011, there were almost 40,000 screens in the US [link].

The number of nickelodeons exceeded 10,000 by 1910, but they were in decline and being shut down by 1915 [link]. They were replaced by movie palaces, that were fewer in number but which could seat more. Movie palaces in the US in 1922 numbered only around 4,000 [link].

Interestingly, the population of the US in 1920 was one-third of what it is today [link]. That means that, in aggregate, the ratio of screens per person was approaching what it is today, until the nickelodeon market collapsed. However, the typical seating at the nickelodeons (of 50-200 people) was more limited than at the typical movie theater today (about 200).

The law of supply and demand. It's not as if good films ever had trouble finding audiences. Or that people missed out on seeing movies because it was hard to find a cinema. Rural towns ran "picture shows" in local community halls - and even tents.
Again, I was simply trying to help show why the straightforward metric of counting tickets alone can't serve to accurately quantify a comparison of films from different eras, as if there were any question of that to begin with. As I said, I firmly believe that taking into account multiple metrics can give a clearer picture, by providing better context for data. Analyzing the distribution of theaters is just such an exercise, one that cannot be simply glossed over without consideration of the evidence. What exactly the lay of the land is affects the quantitative measures.

I was going to avoid opening this can of worms, but since I'm here, I may as well mention this too. The question I was responding to was whether ticket sales indicate popularity. In answering, I implicitly interpreted "popularity" as "interest", even though that's not really accurate.

People can line up and buy tickets to see a film, but still come away "meh" by the whole experience. A pretty good example here might be Superman Returns. Somehow, Warner made the call that, even though there was arguably a lot of revenue generated, it wasn't really a popular enough film to spawn a sequel (they're pros after all, so they must look at things from a lot of different angles). Now that MoS appears to be rejuvenating Superman on film, maybe more people can agree now that SR was best left as the period on the end of that continuity.

Belz... wrote: View Post
CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
Oh, good grief. Moving on....
What ? I simply don't care about tickets NOT sold.
Actually, just to clarify, despite my repeated suggestion that maybe you were interested in something else than what I was discussing (in response to a question from someone other than you in the first place), you said:
Belz... wrote: View Post
You are creating a problem that doesn't exist.
As if I'm responsible for the complexities involved, or was even intending to address the issues you had in mind in the first place!
__________________
CorporalCaptain
Creepy Critter is offline   Reply With Quote