The Force Awakens Early Star Wars 7 Box Office Prediction Thread - Part 3

[kedrell]

I am not talking about just Mojo. How do you adjust Titanic so high? It would mean it nearly doubled since its release, when most put it just ahead of Avatar.

I just divided the inflated domestic amount by the original domestic amount and then multiplied that result with the total WW amount.

Also, you do realize that you need to adjust diffrent between the two amounts for Titanic right? Different inflation.

I already addressed this. I just did them all in one swoop. Adjusted is unreliable anyway I figured so I was just getting a very, very basic WW adjusted result of $3.8b. Keep in mind that all these old films like GWTW have had untold numbers of re-releases as well which aren't being differentiated either so I figured what's good for the goose is good for the gander and applied the same method to Titanic of just using the 1997 adjustment for it all just like GWTW gets the 1939 adjustment for it all. Neither are accurate really.

 

[kedrell]

# of tickets do enter in, as that is what you hit with the inflation. How else would you calculation inflation? You are comparing ticket for ticket. It isn't an exact science because of premium formats now, but that is an advantage for newer films. They still lag behind Gone with the Wind.

Same way you account for anything with inflation. You apply the national inflation metrics. It's a blanket way of doing it but let's face it this is never going to be real accurate.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics has a calculator.

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

 

[spiderman2]

I don't think # of ticket sales enters into it. If so I suspect the list of most popular movies would look a bit different than the adjusted chart. It's based on the annual rate of inflation. Not only has the worth of $ decreased over time(which is inflation) but the comparative cost of seeing a movie today is not what it was back in the day. In other words even when accounting for inflation and taking that out of the equation the cost of a ticket back then as a percentage of how much money you made is far less than it is today.

I am pretty sure they just take the amount of tickets and times it by how much tickets now cost today. I don't see how any thing else would make sinces and when it comes to how the list would look different I think that is more because movies in the last 20 years or so don't sale has many tickets because again how much ticket cost and things like sports, video games, Netflix ect. So if you take TFA for example and it had to not deal with those things that keep people from going to the movie now days I am sure it sales more tickets but the question would be how many more tickets? I saw something about how tickets sales have been down for some time like the last 20 years and you could say maybe movies are not has good has they used to be if you fell that way but considering how long ticket sales have been going down I don't think it is the quilty of movies because now matter how you fell about movies today I don't think you can say ever year is worse then the year before movie wise.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I just divided the inflated domestic amount by the original domestic amount and then multiplied that result with the total WW amount.



I already addressed this. I just did them all in one swoop. Adjusted is unreliable anyway I figured so I was just getting a very, very basic WW adjusted result of $3.8b. Keep in mind that all these old films like GWTW have had untold numbers of re-releases as well which aren't being differentiated either so I figured what's good for the goose is good for the gander and applied the same method to Titanic of just using the 1997 adjustment for it all just like GWTW gets the 1939 adjustment for it all. Neither are accurate really.

Show me the numbers you used, because I have never, ever seen these type of results.

 

[kedrell]

Don't they just input whatever amount a movie made way back when into an inflation calculator(like the one I posted above) and adjust the $ total that way?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Same way you account for anything with inflation. You apply the national inflation metrics. It's a blanket way of doing it but let's face it this is never going to be real accurate.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics has a calculator.

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

That isn't how I have ever seen anyone do it, because that wouldn't make sense. The idea is to see the amount of money based around a ticket average established today.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Don't they just input whatever amount a movie made way back when into an inflation calculator(like the one I posted above) and adjust the $ total that way?

No. They take the amount of tickets sold, and multiple it by today's ticket average. It is why you don't have to adjust for premium formats for new films. They just get that advantage.

 

[spiderman2]

Same way you account for anything with inflation. You apply the national inflation metrics. It's a blanket way of doing it but let's face it this is never going to be real accurate.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics has a calculator.

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

I still don't really sea how that is not just taking the price of tickets and timing it by how much tickets cost now. I just put in how much tickets cost at the theater I tend to go to today at that is $11.25 witch = $32.40. So with ESB coming out in 1980 are you saying that when they say inflation for that movie that they are doing the amount of tickets it sold times $32.40? That would make even less sinces.

 

[spiderman2]

No. They take the amount of tickets sold, and multiple it by today's ticket average. It is why you don't have to adjust for premium formats for new films. They just get that advantage.

Right even then it is still some what flawed because you don't know how much extra a movie would have made from 3d and Imax.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I tried to use that calculator. You can't even put in a number over 10m.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Right even then it is still some what flawed because you don't know how much extra a movie would have made from 3d and Imax.

I don't think that is a real problem, because they weren't released in that format.

 

[kedrell]

Show me the numbers you used, because I have never, ever seen these type of results.

$1,166,435,200(adj. domestic)/$658,672,302(unadj. domestic)= 1.77

1.77 X $2,186,772,302(unadj. Worldwide)= $3,872,529,905

 

[kedrell]

I tried to use that calculator. You can't even put in a number over 10m.

Yes but you can just do a $1 dollar amount and get the multiplier for any given year and then just do the rest of the math yourself. BTW, a $1 in 1939 is worth $17.07 today.

 

[kedrell]

I still don't really sea how that is not just taking the price of tickets and timing it by how much tickets cost now. I just put in how much tickets cost at the theater I tend to go to today at that is $11.25 witch = $32.40. So with ESB coming out in 1980 are you saying that when they say inflation for that movie that they are doing the amount of tickets it sold times $32.40? That would make even less sinces.

No. Let's use the 1939 model since I've calculated it already. A $1 in 1939 is worth $17.07 today. How many movie tickets can you buy for $17.07? 2 at best I'd say. Ah but movie tickets in 1939 only cost like a nickel or a dime so for $1(which is their comparable amount) they could buy 10-20 tickets. That's why using #'s of tickets doesn't work.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

$1,166,435,200(adj. domestic)/$658,672,302(unadj. domestic)= 1.77

1.77 X $2,186,772,302(unadj. Worldwide)= $3,872,529,905

And now I see the problem. Your multiplier is wrong. Using the calculator you posted that is not the exchange rate. I typed in $1 for 1997 and it came out with a $1.48. Even if you don't adjust for the obvious increase in the re-release, that is only around 3.2bil. Not close to Gone with the Wind, which comes out as 400m multiplied by 17.07. Which comes to over 6.8 billion.

 

[kedrell]

And now I see the problem. Your multiplier is wrong. Using the calculator you posted that is not the exchange rate. I typed in $1 for 1997 and it came out with a $1.48. Even if you don't adjust for the obvious increase in the re-release, that is only around 3.2bil. Not close to Gone with the Wind, which comes out as 400m multiplied by 17.07. Which comes to over 6.8 billion.

Well with this one I wasn't using that BLS calculator but simply trusting BOM's inflation models and extrapolating from there.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Well with this one I wasn't using that BLS calculator but simply trusting BOM's inflation models and extrapolating from there.

And you realize that Gone with the Wind is then number one right? Also I believe the multiplier is 1.69. Also, you need to look to the re-release as a different number as it happened in 2012.

 

[kedrell]

Because just using BOM then GWTW's WW adjusted is:

$1,739,604,200(adj. domestic)/$198,676,459(unadj. domestic)= 8.75596539598

8.75596539598 X $400,176,459(unadj. worldwide)= $3,503,931,227.29

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Because just using BOM then GWTW's WW adjusted is:

$1,739,604,200(adj. domestic)/$198,676,459(unadj. domestic)= 8.75596539598

8.75596539598 X $400,176,459(unadj. worldwide)= $3,503,931,227.29

And your Titanic number is wrong. You aren't adjusting the totals correctly. Titanic's total before the re-release in 2012 was $1.83bil I believe. You don't adjust that $300m amount nearly as much, which is exactly why you are coming up with a number I have never seen before.

 

[kedrell]

And your Titanic number is wrong. You aren't adjusting the totals correctly. Titanic's total before the re-release in 2012 was $1.83bil I believe. You don't adjust that $300m amount nearly as much, which is exactly why you are coming up with a number I have never seen before.

As I said before, GWTW has had numerous re-releases and we're not accounting for that so I figured why treat Titanic any differently.

 

[kedrell]

The bottom line is that adjusting for inflation is completely unreliable beyond a difference of a few short years(say 5 to 10 maybe) as the further apart movies that are getting compared are the more and more extra variables enter into the picture so as to make a true comparison all but impossible.

 

[spiderman2]

No. Let's use the 1939 model since I've calculated it already. A $1 in 1939 is worth $17.07 today. How many movie tickets can you buy for $17.07? 2 at best I'd say. Ah but movie tickets in 1939 only cost like a nickel or a dime so for $1(which is their comparable amount) they could buy 10-20 tickets. That's why using #'s of tickets doesn't work.

I think you still have this backwords.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

As I said before, GWTW has had numerous re-releases and we're not accounting for that so I figured why treat Titanic any differently.

Do it. You are still left With 189m from the initial run.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=releases&id=gonewiththewind.htm

I have never, not once, seen an adjusted list that had Titanic #1 and not Gone with the Wind. 2-4 adjust between Avatar, Titanic and Star Wars, but never #1. It is always GWTW.

 

[spiderman2]

The bottom line is that adjusting for inflation is completely unreliable beyond a difference of a few short years(say 5 to 10 maybe) as the further apart movies that are getting compared are the more and more extra variables enter into the picture so as to make a true comparison all but impossible.

That is why for the most part I think the only real comparison is to compare movies that came out form the same year and star wars I think 4 of the 7 movies where the number one for the year they came out WW.

 

[kedrell]

I think you still have this backwords.

My point is that movies were comparatively cheaper back then even taking inflation into account. So you can't extrapolate the cost of a ticket in 1939 to today so easily. If a ticket was $.10 in 1939 and the average cost is $8.50 today then that's 85 times more but inflation itself accounts for only 17.07 times of that so tickets are more expensive today. This makes comparing by # of tickets sold very unreliable. If we were just going on strict inflation then tickets today would just cost $1.71 and clearly that's not true.