I havn't read this whole thread, so I don't know if anyone said this...But when a movie like Gone with the Wind was released, it was one of the only movies in theaters, and the cinema was really the central point of American social life. TV wasn't extremely popular yet, and we were without the many other diversions we have today, or had even 10 years. Adjusted grosses just isn't right, and that's why I rarely pay attention to them.

the french man is right.

Gone with the Wind had no competition. And I'm not just talking about other films.

There was no TV. No internet. No cable/satellite. No computer/video games.

Only books and live theater were available back then. So when a film became a hit, everyone saw it. And they had to see it before it left theaters because after that, you were out of luck. And for this reasons (and also the smaller number of seats) films stayed in theaters for a very, very, very long time.

It is just a totally different world now. It is unfair to expect a film like POTC or LOTR to have that kind of impact or sell that number of tickets.

My personal rule of thumb is that it is OK to use adjusted grosses to compare films that were released within about 5 years of each other. In other words, it is fair to compare the gross of POTC 2 to the adjusted gross of Spiderman or ROTK, because the world simply hasn't changed that much in the intervening years. But go further back (like to the mid-90s) and you start getting into questionable territory again.

Another point that was made is that even when a film today makes ridiculous amounts of money, they still might not 'feel' like as big a deal as some blockbusters of the past. Like cultural events. Take POTC 2 again -- and I only mention it so much because it is the blockbuster on everyone's mind now -- it's numbers are phenomenal. But I remember when Jurassic Park was in theaters. Hell, I remember when Raiders of the Lost Ark was in theaters. This doesn't feel the same. It just doesn't. I know that isn't much of an analysis, but anyone who was around to remember the electricity in the air when those films originally played in theaters knows what I am talking about.

I will agree with the general principle of the prior two posts, although I think the issues are even more complicated than you present. It is not true to say the GWTW was one the few if only films in release at that time, not that it really matters what the others were, they were steamrolled. And it is a gross over simplification to simply state "there was no TV, or video, so film had no competition" This is also simply untrue. How soon we forget how important the stage, vaudeville and other forms of "non-technical" entertainment were. And how soon we forget the ways in which TV actually impacted the film business.

In my mind, the only real comparisions that can be made are from films within the same era, so here I agree with Rogue's general rule. Although I would say in some cases it is appropriate to go well beyond that 5 year span to compare, and in others five years may be too long. One final point to keep in mind - box office tracking is a fairly recent phenomen, as we understand the term. I sure everyone has noticed how dailies are unavailable for most films prior to 1982, and how even the total grosses for films even into the 70s are effectively estimates. So there is also a degree to which comparisons can't be made because the data is not there.

The way I see it, you have:
The Birth of Hollywood, running from the turn of the century up to the very early 20s. - Competition vaudeville, theater, fairs, circuses, travelling shows, etc. Studios came into being, owned their chains, and pushed product that was sold by seat, and not by film.

The Golden Age of Hollywood Part I, running from the early twenties until the advent of sound. Competition, same as prior, but hollywood entertainment becomes dominant in this era. Studios continued to own their chains, retain the same business model. Stars were far more important that specific titles.

The Golden Age of Hollywood Part II, running from the advent of sound to the end of the second world war. Competition: mainly theater, vaudeville is dying out, radio enters the picture - but Hollywood is king. Sound is not the only major trauma suffered in this transition. The studios were forced to divest ownership of the chains, and in 1934, the Hayes code became effective law for production. There are some independents, but this is also the crowning age of the studio system. This is the era of GWTW, a film which ruled Hollywood in the one era Hollywood was truly dominant.

Post War - running from 1945 to the early mid fifties. Competition: theater, radio, and now TV. TV has an odd effect, not the one most people might think. What it killed was the newsreel. Later it will kill the variety aspect of Hollywood entertainment, but for now it is a secondary media that tries to bring the best of Film and stage into your living room. The end of this era is a bit indefinte, but it is marked by the demise of the studio system. By the end of this era, major stars, directors and producers had gained enough influence to break free of the studio limits.

Interrugnum I, running from the death of the studio system to the death of the production code in 1966. TV and stage remain the main competition, but TV is becoming dominant. The variety show, teen oriented music shows, established series all take a toll on Hollywood's dominant position in the entertainment world. The audience for theater grows older, and smaller. In this era, several things happen - some of the earlier stars of the golden ages reach the end of their careers. The new film generation takes more risks, becomes more splintered, pushes the edge. Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf seals the death of the code and the entry of the ratings system.

Interrugnum II - running from 1966 to 1975 or 1977. TV becomes the dominant form of mass entertainment. The stage fades. A whole generation of hollywood stars ends it career in this era. Who will replace them remains unclear. Film becomes increasingly obsessed with "reality", and most films splinter the audience as the audience IS splintered. The older generation wants film as they remember it. The younger, like all youth, want something else.

The Summer Blockbuster - 75/77 to the mid/late 80s. TV remains the major competition. The VCR and cable provide competition at the end of the era and force its close. I won't pretend to settle the question of whether Jaws or Star Wars "invented" the summer blockbuster as we know it now, but it is quite clear that between them, they set hollywood onto the path it has taken today. The tentpole release becomes the major moneymaker. towards the indefinite end of this era, VCR, cable and Pay per view impact not the ability of films to make money, but rather the path they take to profitability.

The VCR era - mid/late 80s to around 2002. Broadcast TV begins its slow fade. Cable rises. The second market run life for film expands beyond the dollar theaters to a very set scheme - VHS Rental to PPV to Cable to Broadcast and VHS Sale. This era starts indefinitely somewhere in the mid 80s depending on where you consider VHS to become mainstream and ends around 2002, when it becomes clear that DVD has shattered the VHS rental model for good. The internet begins to change how films are marketed, and begins to impact how entertainment is delivered. Films still have legs as the term was always understood, but the leg time becomes shorter and shorter. Titanic is clearly the dominant film in this era.

The DVD age - around 2002 to present. Cable itself begins to fade under the impact of the internet and DVD based home theater. DVD kills the rental model as it was understood for VHS. Sales now become the driving force in the home market, allowing the studios to earn far more profit then was ever possible under the VHS model. This is the era of the monster open and no legs.

Deathawk, a fantastic post. I commend you.

This might seem pessimistic, but it really is the truth:

Lately, the greatest application and fun of inflation has been not seeing how much better films before once were, but rather, how much WORSE films today are.

Ex. GWTW, yes, its hard to see that doing $1 billion now. But To look at say, MI3, and see that it isn't even half what #1 and #2 did 10 and 6 years, ago, is quite relevant. I think it really comes down to generational gap. I don't see any sense in me using adjusted inflation grosses for Thunderball, and other JB films of the 60's, some of which would adjust to $400 m +, to compare to today's James Bond films. But, I do see a sense in using something like Ghost, which was EERILY similar in its run to The Sixth Sense, but came out 9 years earlier. Everything comes down to context, but its really the present that needs to be the focus, but its important to take into account just how much more a new film could do (ex. If Rush Hour 2 adjusts to $300 m + by the time the 3th comes out, even 6 years later, I can see that film doing $300 m + as a possibility). Yes, its hard to use Rocky 1-4 as comparisons on what Rocky 6 will do, BUT, I think to demonstrate consistency of audience support, it can be used, to demonstrate why you think a film will do well, but not necessarily at the same level.

Pixar is another great example. Inflation over the past 11 years is very necessary to demonstrate how the company's film's really are doing, and their trends. Pixar is fairly consistent, with average grosses of $296 m for their previous 6 films. Is it fair to compare Cars to A Bug's Life, TS2, and TS1? To some it isn't, but when we have people, and studios stating publicly: "It's now Pixar's ___th biggest film, surpassing _____," we have to scrutinize as box office analyzers, because we're all about seeing trends, and sometimes, even if the 6 year olds at TS 1's time, are now 17 years old, there is alot of merit in really looking hard at adjusted figures, and admissions. Yes, ticket revenues should be whats reported, and are important, but at the same time as ticket revenues have been going up, and opening weekends going up, theater counts have gone up, budgets have gone up significantly, etc. So what we have to do is look at the circumstances of the situation. If Jaws had been able to open in 4000 theaters, in stead of just 409 opening weekend, and it had 100 m marketing budget as some of today's films, how would its performance have been like? We don't have any idea at all. If we're going to argue that adjusted grosses are speculative, so are so many other things, and we can never truly gauge what film is "tops." Titanic may officially be tops, but it also had a $200 m budget. Blair Witch Project cost $40,000, and yet went on to make $100 m +.

The power, and importance of adjusted gross analysis, is to only add another color to the overall picture. But the important thing to remember, is that every picture is drawn differently, and every picture can take different forms in the eye of the beholder.

Bump. This thread could get some more discussion!

There are some really fantastic posts in this thread guys. Keep it up.

I thought Admissions was the determining factor rather than creating fake #s for past films.