|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Avandel
Half-elven
Mar 16 2014, 7:04pm
Post #1 of 28
(5413 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Anyone have a DOS box office update?
|
Can't Post
|
|
Yes, I could look some stuff up myself, but some folks here seem to know which sites are the most accurate and can convert currency too!
Just wondering how it's doing?
|
|
|
AncalagontheBlack
Rohan
Mar 16 2014, 7:20pm
Post #3 of 28
(4704 views)
Shortcut
|
|
looks like it will make it to 950 million
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
It's starting to fade in Japan and China so it looks like that it likely where it will settle in at.
|
|
|
Elarie
Grey Havens
Mar 16 2014, 9:11pm
Post #5 of 28
(4611 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Too bad they don't do this by number of tickets sold
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I just went to see it yesterday afternoon at the second run theater ($3.50 for 3D and $1.50 for 2D) and the theater was almost full. But at those prices it doesn't make much difference in the box office numbers.
Hop to it, Radagast, we've got dark powers to sleigh.
|
|
|
imin
Valinor
Mar 16 2014, 10:10pm
Post #6 of 28
(4571 views)
Shortcut
|
If you went on number of tickets sold.
For example to see DOS in all its 3D, 48 fps IMAX glory costs £13.10 (thats like $10,000  )
When i went to see FOTR it cost £4.00 so you could see FOTR 3 times and still have money for popcorn. So for FOTR to have made More money than DOS means it has sold way more tickets.
However i do think films should give number of tickets sold (if that is even possible) as it gives a truer reflection on how popular a movie was.
All posts are to be taken as my opinion.
|
|
|
macfalk
Valinor
Mar 16 2014, 10:15pm
Post #7 of 28
(4588 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Did they pull DOS in USA this weekend?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I can't find it anywhere in the Weekend Estimates list. But this seems wierd, given that AUJ ran until mid-April until it was 100% removed from cinemas.
The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.
|
|
|
Escapist
Gondor
Mar 16 2014, 10:24pm
Post #8 of 28
(4552 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Half of my tickets were just $5.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Marcus Cinemas was running a Tuesday $5 movie + free popcorn deal and that's when all my friends and things wanted to go - obviously!
Also keep in mind that only some of the showings were in 3D and those tended to be the first to get pulled.
If all the world's a stage then who's writing the script?
|
|
|
imin
Valinor
Mar 16 2014, 10:44pm
Post #9 of 28
(4541 views)
Shortcut
|
But i think its fair to say tickets have increased in price over the years overall meaning less tickets sold to make a certain BO e.g. $1billion
All posts are to be taken as my opinion.
|
|
|
Avandel
Half-elven
Mar 16 2014, 11:11pm
Post #10 of 28
(4520 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Thanks everyone! Sounds great to me!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Mega profits are a nice affirmation of sorts to cast and crew, after all the hard work. I would have loved the movie anyway of course, just like I love Russell Crowe's Robin Hood which sadly doesn't seem to have a sequel coming - but DOS and AUJ are movies that truly DESERVE to make lots of dollars.
And I hope it becomes an off-the-chart rental and DVD/BR seller. Can't wait to finally have DOS in hand so I can watch it as much as I like, and study all those incredible scenes.
|
|
|
QuackingTroll
Valinor
Mar 17 2014, 1:32am
Post #11 of 28
(4514 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I know people argue about inflation and 3D ticket prices...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
But has anyone considered that the growing population of the planet could also be a factor in constantly rising box office numbers? I'm not sure how much the population has grown over 11 years? Just thought it was an interesting possibility.
|
|
|
patrickk
Rohan
Mar 17 2014, 2:44am
Post #12 of 28
(4504 views)
Shortcut
|
...and it looks like my $970-980m prediction may be well off the mark, but to be within 5% of AUJ ain't that bad given bad weather in some markets, stronger dollar in others etc. etc.
|
|
|
Rohirrim Rider
Rivendell
Mar 17 2014, 2:55pm
Post #14 of 28
(4375 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Judging by admissions is a flawed way to judge success
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
However i do think films should give number of tickets sold (if that is even possible) as it gives a truer reflection on how popular a movie was.
On the face of it, it does, and I see this argument a lot. But it's also a flawed way to judge a film's success as there are also mitigating circumstances, just as box office alone has the inflation argument.
The biggest one is technology - a few decades ago, the cinema was the only place to see a film and so admissions were higher. Not only this but, as that was the case, the popular films would come back again and again and again, because it's not like you could just revisit it on video.
The came videos, then DVDs, then blu-ray. Then of course you have more films on TV, which was then increased with satellite and cable channels. Then more free-to-air channels.
Now you also have the internet - you have streaming services such as Netflix, you have on-demand, you have illegal downloads.
You have all of these different ways of watching a film - some legal, some not-so-legal. And they affect admissions - not just because of piracy but because people have multiple legal ways to watch it. And so judging how many people have chosen to see a film is much more difficult than just going by how many people bought a ticket to see it at the cinema because if you take away all the other options then it is certain that some of those people will have gone to see it at the cinema instead - what percentage is impossible to determine of course.
Add in to that the other technological changes - TV becoming much more widespread and better, gaming and internet offering alternative and popular forms of entertainment - and you can see why admissions to a film a few decades ago would be higher than those today.
Of course, that's on the general scale of judging films across decade. But even going back as far as FOTR the upswing in technology and different ways to see the film at home - and much quicker than you would have been able to back then (AUJ hit home video within three months; FOTR took eight) - plus the increase in home cinema leading to many to be happy and watch it on their own big screen and surround sound set-up, means a comparison would be interesting but hard to draw a conclusion out of.
(This post was edited by Rohirrim Rider on Mar 17 2014, 2:59pm)
|
|
|
imin
Valinor
Mar 17 2014, 3:42pm
Post #15 of 28
(4353 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I see what you mean and agree with it mostly.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I don't see a problem with releasing details on number of tickets sold (other than it must be hard to know this for sure), but it has been done in other industries such as the music industry which ranks artists songs and albums by numbers sold not how much they made.
Also there is nothing wrong to me about comparing from decades ago - ok so there were fewer alternatives. So what? It just meant people either did or didn't go, they had less entertainment options available but at the end of the day people either went or not so it still stands up to whether a film was popular or not.
I also don't see how changes from video to blu ray really effects anything, something more substantial is the changes to TV in terms of streaming content and being able to stream and download films illegally. Again though we can record how many times things have been watched illegally though i assume, hence how they know GoT was most illegally downloaded tv show of last year. You can also add number of movies sold from DVD/blu ray but if we are focusing on how they did in the cinema i think having a record of the number of tickets sold is a good place to start. Even if it was only of use for year to year it would be interesting to know. Streaming and internet has been with us for a while now so i think it would be fair to say over the next few years at least it would give a good comparison.
Personally i think the difference in prices has a bigger impact especially as no one wants to adjust for inflation but to me either adjust for inflation or use number of tickets sold, other wise any big film each year will make it into the top 20 which would suggest a massively popular movie when really they are just cashing in on IMAX and 3D.
I am not sure if the figures are the same in the US but in the UK cinema attendance is actually stable (not falling) but with revenues from 2012 being the highest figure for the past 40 years (UK has 15% global BO share) to me that points to films looking popular simply because cinemas are charging more. Now maybe the number of admissions are stable because IMAX and 3d are competing well with the other forms of entertainment i dunno.
Overall though the argument that there is more competition doesn't seem to have had that much an impact over the past decade in cinema attendance, at least in the UK.
So both seem flawed to me in some respects - maybe what would be best is to give both BO takings and attendance figures?
All posts are to be taken as my opinion.
|
|
|
Eruonen
Half-elven
Mar 18 2014, 2:01am
Post #16 of 28
(4271 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It finally left the AMC 30 in my area...but the Oscar films are still playing
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...Frozen, Gravity, 12 Years a Slave, American Hustle, Nebraska etc. Funny, the Blu Ray versions are coming out while in the theater.
Not sure I recall AUJ running into April at 1st release theaters....I would have thought March.
(This post was edited by Eruonen on Mar 18 2014, 2:03am)
|
|
|
glor
Rohan
Mar 18 2014, 3:27am
Post #17 of 28
(4251 views)
Shortcut
|
I also don't see how changes from video to blu ray really effects anything, something more substantial is the changes to TV in terms of streaming content and being able to stream and download films illegally
It means, I can watch films in my own living room that with, better sound and picture quality than the cinemas I sat in 20 years ago. The relative scale of TVs to livings rooms(distance) means that many families have the big screen experience from their sofas. It is not expensive, decent HD tvs with surround systems cost the same as my Sony 28" CRT did in 1996!
Simply put, DVDs and then Blu-rays coupled with HD flat screens negated the need to go to the cinema to see a film properly, to see the details, to experience the scale, the sound, a blu-ray and a 42" TV can do this well at home. Why pay £25 for yourself and a friend to watch a film surrounded by other people, talking, texting, rustling, kicking you in the back and getting up in the best bits of the film to go to the toilet when, you can watch the film without all that potential iritation, at your own convenience for under £15 and still on a big screen?
It just meant people either did or didn't go, they had less entertainment options available but at the end of the day people either went or not so it still stands up to whether a film was popular or not.
Boxoffice figures tell us how popular films are in cinemas not, how popular films are. Back in the early to mid-20th century, the did tell us how popular films were because cinema viewing was the only medium people could chose to see them on. Now in the 21st century, with the multiple platforms and mediums available, legally and illegally, the popularity of a film cannot be gauged by it's cinema takings alone. The Shawshank Redemption is a film that is properly one of the most popular of all time but you wouldn't know that from the Box office figures.
(This post was edited by glor on Mar 18 2014, 3:28am)
|
|
|
demnation
Rohan
Mar 18 2014, 3:45am
Post #18 of 28
(4279 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It's up to $70 million in China
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The films third biggest market after the US and Germany. Quite impressive, really.
"It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till. What weather they shall have is not ours to rule." Gandalf, "The Last Debate."
|
|
|
BlackFox
Half-elven
Mar 18 2014, 6:36am
Post #19 of 28
(4270 views)
Shortcut
|
Source: Box Office Mojo.
"Logic will get you from A to Z; imagination will get you everywhere." - Albert Einstein
|
|
|
cats16
Half-elven
Mar 18 2014, 7:36am
Post #20 of 28
(4239 views)
Shortcut
|
...that we have reached the point where WB doesn't report an estimate for the weekend on Sunday, and chooses to simply post the actual gross Monday afternoon. I remember this happening with AUJ last year.
It should have a few more weeks left to go in the U.S.
|
|
|
Avandel
Half-elven
Mar 18 2014, 2:52pm
Post #21 of 28
(4217 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Excellent comment and completely agree
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Because thanks to the comfort level of home viewing, the quality, and finally having access to a good TV and BR player, I see less movies in theaters than ever.
I don't quite agree with the poster that says in-home viewing can match a theater experience, at least with my set-up. Sometimes better, sometimes worse, depends on the theater. For me movies like DOS don't suffer from the technological advances, because they are worth the effort and price for the spectacular IMAX that my favorite theater has. But many other movies that are on the B list for me are instantly ones where I say "oh, I'll catch that one at home".
For instance initially I really wanted to see Pacific Rim. But eventually the story sounded boring to me, so I could opt to sit it out until it hit the rental market. If it hadn't been for the technological advances I would have seen it in a theater, but I knew I could happily view it at home. Very few movies are ones I make the effort for and even see again and again in a theater. Especially movies that are not grand blockbusters with huge sets and special effects and landscapes - why should I pay to see some modest character movie when I can see it just as well in my own home?
Will be interesting seeing DOS BR/DVD sales - can't wait for my collector set, anyway, and to finally have DOS in hand.
|
|
|
Eruonen
Half-elven
Mar 18 2014, 3:06pm
Post #22 of 28
(4202 views)
Shortcut
|
|
For me, nothing compares to the large cinema screen experience.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The dark room, large screen and sometimes group atmosphere make seeing a film in the theater the ideal way to enjoy it. Yes, later, for future viewing having excellent home theater is great, but for me, it is not the same.
|
|
|
Bexlin
Rivendell
Mar 18 2014, 5:17pm
Post #23 of 28
(4185 views)
Shortcut
|
Box office have tried to adjust the figures
http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm
Hobbit 1 is at 179
Fellowship at 77
Two Towers at 62
and ROTK at 52
|
|
|
glor
Rohan
Mar 18 2014, 10:20pm
Post #25 of 28
(4136 views)
Shortcut
|
There is also the very short timeframe between cinema release and dvd/bluray/digital download, there is not the 9 to 18 month gap between the two anymore.
Some films are now being released on home viewing formats weeks after opening in cinemas and your average film is available only a few months afte hitting theatres.
Not only is homeviewing a far better experience, it is one without the extended waits of the past. So, the need to see it in theatres just to see a film that is current is pretty much redundant.
|
|
|
|
|
1
