Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > Entertainment Discussions > Movie Talk
Reload this Page >

Is there something wrong with this top 10?

Community
Search
Movie Talk A Discussion area for everything movie related including films In The Theaters

Is there something wrong with this top 10?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 04-27-04 | 04:00 PM
  #26  
Banned
 
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 6,154
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
From: "Sitting on a beach, earning 20%"
Originally posted by soxfandoug
I think even paid admissions don't due the trick. I know quite a few people that skipped LOTR:ROTK in theaters because they would prefer to watch it in the comfort of their home theater. People that wanted to see Gone with the Wind had no such option.

Even if I do go see a movie in theaters, no matter how much I love it I most likely will only see it once, and wait for the DVD for my repeat viewings. If DVD didn't exist, I probably would have seen a movie like Memento 10 times in the theater, when I actually only saw it in theaters once.
Also everyone, don't forget that Gone With The Wind has benefitted from video. It's continues to be a popular title and make millions in revenue from video.
Old 04-27-04 | 04:24 PM
  #27  
Senior Member
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From: USA
Originally posted by marty888
Otherwise, they should simply be counting the number of paid admissions.
This is the way it should be done! The number of tickets sold. That way there's no other influences such as inflation. Simply the amount of people who actually watched the movie in a theater.

CD sales are not tracked by the dollar amount, but by the copies sold. When they announce sellouts for stadiums they don't say how much money was made for the game, its how many people are in the stands.

This is something that really aggrevates me!
Old 04-27-04 | 06:03 PM
  #28  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 17,677
Received 79 Likes on 61 Posts
Originally posted by Pants
You are so dead wrong it's not even funny. At the height of the studio system each studio turned out an average of one film a week. That means each studio released 50+ films a year. Multiply that by 6 major studios, then add in the few smaller studios. The output of films today is miniscule by comparison.
http://us.imdb.com/TitlesByYear?year...include-titles
http://us.imdb.com/TitlesByYear?year...include-titles

Skip the TV series, made-for-TV movies, pornos, etc and the 2003 list is still longer. Same with the other letters of the alphabet.

Last edited by Jeremy517; 04-27-04 at 06:05 PM.
Old 04-27-04 | 08:51 PM
  #29  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 20,080
Received 822 Likes on 575 Posts
Originally posted by tanman
The industry really should switch to [the number of paid admissions]
The reason the industry doesn't is because unadjusted BO gives them the best numbers.
Old 04-28-04 | 11:22 AM
  #30  
Banned
 
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 6,154
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
From: "Sitting on a beach, earning 20%"
Originally posted by Jeremy517
http://us.imdb.com/TitlesByYear?year...include-titles
http://us.imdb.com/TitlesByYear?year...include-titles

Skip the TV series, made-for-TV movies, pornos, etc and the 2003 list is still longer. Same with the other letters of the alphabet.
Many of the titles on that list are short films.

The IMDb is great up to a point but they've got an entry for everything. I was a PA on a movie that was shot but ran out of money and was never even completed and my name is on there. It's a joke. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0248273/
Old 04-28-04 | 01:53 PM
  #31  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 17,677
Received 79 Likes on 61 Posts
Like I said, even if you remove all those, the 2003 list is still longer. IMDB is probably inaccurate about some things, but not enough to make the 1939 list longer.
Old 04-29-04 | 11:44 AM
  #32  
Banned
 
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 6,154
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
From: "Sitting on a beach, earning 20%"
Looking at those lists I maintain that if we were to do as you say and take off all the porn and TV shows, we would still have to take off the short films, exercise videos, independent films that were put up on the IMDb for publicity purposes but were never finished or released, avante garde experimental films, etc. Lets face it, the number of new, feature length films that appear on America's screens each year is no where near the approximately 400 feature films per year released by H'wood studios each year under the studio system. Each major studio today only releases approximately 12 films a year now.
Old 04-29-04 | 12:21 PM
  #33  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 17,677
Received 79 Likes on 61 Posts
Originally posted by Pants
Looking at those lists I maintain that if we were to do as you say and take off all the porn and TV shows, we would still have to take off the short films, exercise videos, independent films that were put up on the IMDb for publicity purposes but were never finished or released, avante garde experimental films, etc.
That is why I said "etc" in the original post (although independant movies wouldn't be pulled as many still appear in theaters and garner some of the movie-going dollar). You also have to take the short films off of the 1939 list. The 2003 list is still longer.

Last edited by Jeremy517; 04-29-04 at 12:26 PM.

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.