Adjusting Gone with the Wind is not right.

I don't use adjusted numbers. It's too much data unaccounted for and it is like comparing apples to oranges.

I also don't really sit at home ranking films either. Gone with the Wind is something that will socially never, ever be repeated because this is frankly a different world. It's a different world from when Jaws was released. It's a different world from when Titanic was released.

There's too many factors which go into the process.

But to me the biggest problem is saying that "Gone with the Wind made 1.2 billion dollars" when it never did.

The "real" numbers are the real box office reciepts, not some fantasy numbers which are the result of a formula that isn't even correct.

You're right. Gone With the Wind would have undoubtedly made less than 200 million if released today.

No, I don't think there is. I'd agree with andaroo here, it's just better not to adjust unless the difference is about one to four years. After that, there will be errors.

It should always be tickets sold. I know this gives an unfair advantage to films garnered towards kids, but still, admissions should be the main factor.

There is no way. There is absolutely no way. You just have to let it go and realize that life isn't like VH1 and everything doesn't have to be labelled and ranked. Some things are just tooooooooooooooooo different to sit next to each other.

andaroo is right, theres alot of factors when adjusting a film. Like he said, different times/world, another big thing now is a highly popular format of watching movies known as DVDs, you gotta factor that in, many people dont like to go to the theaters anymore, they would rather wait for DVD.

I hate when people use adjusted numbers to make a point, it's flawed statistics.

When we say 'adjusted for inflation', we mean:


All other things being equal, how much would a film make if the estimated number of admissions the film registered durings its theatrical run were multiplied by the estimated contemporary average ticket price?

Adjusting for inflation has a lot of problems, but one thing I think it does peg is how "big" a film felt when it was released. I was a teenager when BATMAN came out in '89, and it was garguantan... the story of the summer. In fact, if I remember right, it was the film that caused newspapers to start reporting the weekend estimates every Monday.

So while BATMAN wouldn't necessary make $400 million if it was released today, when it came out, it felt as big as a $400 million film today. That sounds about right (subjectively speaking).

Basically you are trying to define popularity or impact. Magic adjusted inflation numbers are ONLY good for discovering "popularity" or the impact of a film on society, because Gone with the Wind never did 1.2billion dollars... that money does not exist.

You would have to find the price of every ticket vs. the currency. For every country, every year, every month, every region, every theater. And find the ticket break down.

You would have to research potential alternate viewing models. Research the history of re-releases, home video, dvd, vhs, etc.

You would have to measure the trend of cinemagoing on a yearly/monthly/daily basis, determining what value it had to people's lives vs. other forms of entertainment vs. social impact, and try to assign a number for it.

Then you would have to combine these numbers in some way to after researching (in depth) every huge picture (you don't have to do very many!). and their schedules, when they were released, HOW they made their money, etc. A lot of these numbers DO NOT exist.

You would probably have to research a lot more...

Then combine them and order them into the list of the most popular or impactful films. This list might be a better gauge but will never be perfect.

I know we all mean this but absolutely nothing is equal. That assumption makes absolutely no sense.

All other things being equal... if Gone with the Wind were produced and launched in 2006 it wouldn't have made more than 100 million dollars probably.

All other things being equal... based on the popularity of Titanic at the time, you could have probably made more than Gone with the Wind if you released Titanic in the 1930s.

But Shrek 2 made $442m in 2004, and it didn't feel big at all.

I think a film's cultural impact goes well beyond its box-office gross, to the extent where sometimes, its box office performance doesn't really give an account of its impact.

For example, I think Schindler's List, in its own way, had as big a cultural impact as Jurassic Park. Brokeback Mountain and Moulin Rouge had a bigger impact than either Revenge of the Sith or Chicago, respectively.

Well, duh?

The only reason why adjusted grosses are used is because it adds a new dimension to the box office, and because it's interesting to look at. It's really interesting to see Star Wars with a $1B+ gross attached to its name, or Jurassic Park with a $500m+ gross. Beyond the curiosity factor, there's very little that can be used to back up the validity or purpose of adjusted grosses.

You are absolutely correct. France counts it that way, and they're spot on with their system.


Spielberg has said he'd like to see that in the US (in part, no doubt, because Jaws, ET, Jurassic Park, Indy would all rank very high on that list), but he acknowledged that it won't happen, since North Americans are obssessed with big numers (20m admissions for Pirates doesn't sound as exciting as $135.6m, does it?)

Edit: Argh, how stupid of me! Of course!

Admissions rankings are legit because they show us how many people actually went to see the films.

Adjusted grosses are merely the multiplication of those admissions by the ticket prices.

Now, there is one way in which adjusted grosses acquire legitimacy from this viewpoint: if they are seen as the dollar amount corresponding to the number of admissions sold, then we can say that Titanic's $845m adjusted gross gives an indication of how much a film needs to make in order to attract the number of viewers that Titanic did.

It's because studios rely on the ticket inflation, not just because of the money, but as proof the cinema is as healthy or healthier than it has ever been.

Meanwhile people continue to turn to DVD and other services that are harder and far more complicated to track.


Yeah but Box... you are intelligent, and you realize the oddities and issues associated with using this numbers, and the cultural history (or the yearning to at least learn about that history) that many here do not.

At least, I don't think many do.


But not the popularity or ultimate cultural impact, which is what I think the point of comparing these numbers are. To find out what is the "most popular". Again, I don't think anybody needs to consistently revisit the idea that Gone with the Wind will never be repeated... it can never be repeated, it's impossible

Well, I don't think a film's cultural impact can be measured using the box office at all, as I said to Telemachos, whether adjusted or unadjusted. I mean, Citizen Kane was a bomb, but I have a feeling Click or X3 will not be as culturally significant as it has been.


But, I reserve the right to use adjusted grosses just for the thrill of it. I think it's like those "What if...?" moments, where you fictionalize the past and present a different present resulting from it. Like, what if Titanic opened this December and made it to $845m? It's an entirely useless endeavour, but it's nonetheless interesting (to me).

I think a good way to approach that is "ticket sales." I was under the assumption that adjustment for inflation was a way of calculating how many tickets were actually sold, and that had an equivalent price been attached to those same number of tickets today, that would be the new price. That's fair, and I think it has less to do with cost of a ticket as the emergence of new technologies like DVD.

If Batman sold xx tickets way back, and it sold xx tickets today, it would make 400 million. But movies today do not necessarily sell xx tickets anymore. There are more movies being produced annually, and there are other formats in which people consume them. So its a number that operates in an ideal vacuum, without friction, and as long as its considered as such, I think adjusting is fine.

The reason the studios care more about $ gross than tickets sold is simply because they are in the business of making money and thats how they determine there profit and loss.

For people like us - its more about loving movies and analysing box office receipts - so thats why adjusting for inflation can be fun to do. It however is of less valuse to studios.

As for this thread - I agree with most - its too hard to accuratley adjust films due to all the other factors that have eroded box office over the years - TV ------> cable/paytv ------>video -------->computer games/consoles/internet------->dvd etc

But ticket sales do tell us that box office in the 90s and 2000's is at its best since the 1950s but regarding individual movies its a little harder.

I also think adjusting for the previous year is a little silly as I dont think ticket prices change the minute the clock ticks over to the new year.

Another flaw is that films like Gone with the Wind and 10 Commandments - actually had higher ticket prices than regular films when they were released because they were must see and more epic.

ADMISSIONS, there should only be admissions when comparing old and current films, you also have to take into account Home Video was non existant some years ago.

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!