How does it compare to the consumer price index though? Is the inflation greater or less than the average product?

I agree inflation needs to slow down. But I also find comparisons such as the one O just posted pretty ridiculous. Sure, B & R technically adjusts to $174 million, but basic 'adjusted for inflation' charts don't take into account trends in audience attendance. If Batman and Robin were released today in the same conditions (i.e. following a movie like Batman Forever, being a third sequel) it still probably would have only grossed $110-$120 million. It all really levels off, as ticket prices go up, less people have gone to the movies, and at least for the last 15 years or so, I think adjusting grosses for inflation is just an empty statistic that allows us to foolishly convince ourselves that today a movie like Independence Day would make nearly $500 million, when it undoubtedly would not. Let's think about it alternatively: if ticket prices were the same as they were in say, 1996, do you really think Transformers would be on its way to outgrossing Titanic?

Inflation is quite out of hand. These are the adjusted box office grosses for films that during their time, were considered big disappointments:

Godfather 3 $116.93 m
Waterworld $150.53 m
Batman and Robin $173.50 m
Godzilla $215.66 m
Wild Wild West $166.23 m
Dinosaur $189.63 m
Unbreakable $130.78 m
A.I. $103.04 m

Wild Wild West is nearly a $170 m film today. Waterworld is a $150 m film. Batman and Robin is at $174 m! Godzilla as well is at $216 m.

But expectations would be higher for all of them. If Godzilla was a 2009 film, and made $216m, it'd be a disappointment.


In fact, $216m would still have been a disappointment for it in 1998. Sony stated that it had hoped the film made at least $250m. That's why they pushed it so much.

And both sucked.

Just a quick, and probably very stupid, question...

Why don't people look at number of admissions over how much money made? I mean, sure, the business is all about making money, but shouldn't the number of tickets sold be important in showing which movies are doing the right things and therefore, the more tickets sold, the more money made? I dunno... Maybe I'm just curious to see number of tickets sold being compared amongst the big-name movies...

Joy

You gotta give the studios credit though, they really pumped up ticket prices to increase revenue this decade compared to the last one and moviegoers keep paying for it.

Ticket prices:

1987
$3.91

1998
$4.69 +19.95% (11 years later)

2009
$7.42 (est) +58.20% (11 years later)

Ticket prices increases at 3 X the pace of a decade before.

Ya, I've been thinking this a lot this year. It's starting to make box office not as fun as when the records are "broken," you know ticket sales-wise, it's not even close.

I know I would be 100% for studios only reporting ticket sales. It would change every way we do things around here.

I'm not sure about that, though. I mean, even based on ticket sales, all those records TDK broke still hold up and then some, for one example.

Oh definitely, it would make the records that hold even more amazing. I'm talking about more the general shift in the charts for the next 5-10 years to come. Specifically, the opening weekend charts, where only about 5 movies are from before 2000.

In 2004, it cost me $6 to see a matinee show, $6.50 to see a night show. Today, it costs me $9.50 (58.3% increase) to see a matinee show and $10.50 (61.5% increase) for a night show.

It's pretty insane. The only good thing is that I don't really have that much expenses outside of movies, so I don't mind it that much. But if tickets start costing $15+...I'm going to be downloading a lot more movies.