Also take into consideration how many movies were competing with a particular film. I loved your take on the "much better" director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven. I found that to be a huge understatment as I HATED the theatrical cut but LOVED the director's cut so much. It was like they were two different films.

Awesome piece. Well written and intelligent. I wish more stuff of this quality could be found on movie news sites. Thanks for a good read.

Baseball has this same issue, comparing stats across generations. It's not an exact science, but I think much can be measured in terms of the impact of a film.

You're also missing a huge point with both Gone With the Wind and Every Which Way But Loose:

US Population 1939: 130m
US Population 1978: 225m
US Population 2008: 300m

Which means that a way higher percentage of people saw both Gone and Loose than Gran Torino.

Yes, media is more fragmented these days, and no one is counting BitTorrent and PSP. But I'd say that balances with population growth, wouldn't you?

To say that Gran Torino is a "bigger" box office movie than Every Which Way But Loose was simply hyperbole, and used in the service of writing a story over at Mojo. You mention yourself Gran Torino will be lucky to sell half the tickets, and that in a country with 30% more population. And as the term used is "Box Office", and not "impact" or "overall dollars" it's still not close.

I never understood why the actual number of tickets sold wasn't the most important number. Yes, I know how much a movie made is the most important number to everyone, but isn't the number of people who saw it the best indicator of how popular a movie was? Plus if we just used that number to gauge how well a movie did we would NEVER have to spend time figuring out adjusted inflation for new releases, etc.

You, Brad Brevet, have your head screwed on 100% right!

Here's how to judge how popular a film is: show it for free, and see how many people show up. On my campus, the student union shows movies for free every week, right after they've gotten out of theaters but have yet to reach DVD. So of course people show up to watch.

I was one of two dozen people in "Standard Operating Procedure." I was one of five hundred in "Wanted." But when "The Dark Knight" played, they had to turn 200-300 people away from the door–at midnight!–because so many people had showed up. That's how popular "The Dark Knight" is.

Nice article. I do believe though that the weekend box office charts has to include a table for the no. of actual tickets sold to make it all the more comprehensive

I've never understood the general public's – even folks who never go to the movies – fascination with "box office," i.e., the dollar amount. It seems to me the ONLY way to judge the popularity of a film (as if that mattered) is to count how many PEOPLE see it. I admit this is impossible with video rental, on demand, etc., but at least it makes some sense. Comparing the price of anything over a 50 (or even 10!)-year period is silly.

Million Dollar Baby made 216.7 million worldwide… so how does Gran Torino make more than that when it's barely 100 million?

I still maintain my view that the current way of showing box office is wrong and only justifies the hyperbole at the sales office and the cinemas. How can a movie in an age with more population and fewer tickets sold be more popular than a movie which sold a lot more tickets in an age with a smaller population? It all boils down to to the price of the ticket and how many tickets are sold. Selling fewer tickets for a higher price does not mean more popularity. That´s why we are not comparing apple to apples but apples to oranges. That´s the reason why new movies climb the boxoffice list each year and the old blockbusters fade away down that list. This is plain simple and to me mind-bobbling that there are people who try to disagree with this.

I agree 100% that it isn't black and white. I mean, I'm sure Gone With the Wind would not have sold that many tickets if it was released today. Alternatively, The Dark Knight would sell more if it was released in the 40s. I know of many people who were just waiting for TDK to come out on DVD so they wouldn't have to pay $10 for a ticket. If I could have seen TDK for $.23, I don't know how many times I would have seen it. It definitively would have been more than twice.

I agree that people shouldn't be fooled to believe that "adjusted for inflation" is a perfect method, but it's certainly much better than acting as if inflation doesn't exist, which media outlets do every time they compare the performance of a current movie with that of any movie more than several years old (talk about widespread poor reporting).

If you want to look beyond dollar amounts, though, and try to approximate popularity in a better way, then I agree that you should determine the percentage of the population that saw the movie. No, it doesn't take into account things like changing perceptions, film release strategies, or availability of movies, but—as with the "adjusted for inflation" tool—treat it as a general guide, not as exact science, and you'll get closer to the truth than you were before.

I, being one of the biggest Batman fans, am also one of those people who bitch about the "adjusted for inflation" argument. It may be because I am completely biased towards Batman and the masterpiece that is The Dark Knight, but honestly people…get real. Movies aren't the only form of entertainment nowadays. They were definitely a big thing in the '30s because movies were the main attraction. People didn't have the luxury of unlimited entertainment possibilities back then because it was all about home life and the big thing to do was go see a movie with the family. Let me reiterate, we live in a different age and a movie selling 70 million tickets (Dark Knight box office divided by average ticket price) is uncommon in recent years whereas that would've been average 60 something years ago. But hey, it's only the way I see it. Call me biased.

Currently, there seems to be 3 main parameters that the film industry/critics/movie-going public use when describing a movie's box office & how popular it is:
-Domestic box office
-Adjusted Domestic box office &
-Worldwide box office.
I think if a 4th parameter were added – Domestic DVD Sales – then it would be easier to see how popular a movie actually is. To keep things simpler, I'm just going to concentrate on Domestic & Adjusted Domestic BO.

For example, The Dark Knight has made $532M domestically, which is #2 behind Titanic's $601M. If you add in $260M of domestic DVD sales, then DK has a total of $792M, which is much higher than Titanic. Therefore, it would seem that DK is a much more popular movie than Titanic. (I'm assuming that Titanic did not make that much in DVD sales in comparison, but maybe it did. I couldn't find a figure.)

For Adjusted Domestic box office, Titanic is at #6 with $924M. DK is at #27, but would move up to #10 if domestic DVD sales were included. (Of course I'm assuming the other movies' DVD sales are negligible which probably isn't true in all cases, but I'm trying to keep my argument as simple as possible.)

Now that I'm looking at this, another parameter that should be included is Domestic DVD Rentals. And of course Domestic VHS Sales & Rentals should also be included. Things sure start to get complicated!! :(

Do you think Box Office Mojo would ever start a chart to include Adjusted Domestic BO + DVD & VHS Sales & Rentals? My head is just spinning thinking about all the detective work that's needed to find/estimate all the missing data!! :(

Of course if you add in all these parameters, then you should have a better way of telling how popular a movie really is rather than just using box office data.

Hi Brad! I enjoyed reading your article. You made some excellent points. You (and other posters) mentioned that it isn't black and white. I agree. There are so many factors to consider.

CM: Million Dollar Baby's gross that you quoted was worldwide. The Gran Torino figures being discussed are for US/Canada gross. It will be interesting to see how Gran Torino does in Europe and Asia.

Up until the 1990s it was difficult to get accurate box office numbers for films overseas. We know some stars were big in Europe and/or Asia, but we don't know exactly how well their films did at the overseas box office.

One thing not being considered here, and I'm in the column of believing inflation adjustment is important, is the way movies are released nowadays. Movies like The Dark Knight are opened in maximum saturation because the studios are frightening they won't get their money back and want as much of it as possible right up front before any positive negative word of mouth spreads and kills it. That's the opposite way movies used to be released. I remember Star Wars still playing in theaters a year after it was released where The Dark Knight was on Wal-Mart shelves five months later.

I have always felt tickets sold rather than money grossed should be the true indicator, but I understand changes in culture, society, population and even finance completely alter being able to accurate compare Gone With the Wind's numbers and Star Wars' numbers. Maybe it's time to do what many sports do when it comes to records; Baseball and football always referring to records as "never before in the modern era…" With more than 100 years of moviegoing, it's time to stop comparing apples to oranges and time to break out the "modern era" clause.

It's too bad Gran Torino didn't get a few Oscar nominations (Clint for best actor, the title song for best original song). The nominations would probably have resulted in an extra $10,000,000 – $20,000,000 at the North American box office, and millions morer overseas.

Good article, the point being none of it really matters. It's like comparing sports figures from different eras: you can't definitively do it. Theatrical releases not only have DVD and cable and TV to compete against, but also more theatrical releases, gyms, game consoles, more athletics and athletic entertainment, the world wide web to go along with lots and lots of porn. Lots more to be entertained and distracted by these days. That's why ticket sales go down all the time.

1) find me a theatre with $7.20 ticket prices! today your LUCKY if you can get one under $10 (not to mention the $15.75 for IMAX)

2) one point you left out, Brad, is that in 1940 when GWTW would come to your town it might play in your local theatre for…say a month. as you pointed out, no TV. and in the absence of multiplex theatres, that one movie was your only option for the period of time until the theatre got another film. in small towns that period would have been significantly longer.
also (although likely having a smaller impact) at that time people would go (buy a ticket to the movie) to see the news reels, especially during the war ('39-45).

You've forgotten two more points (unless I missed them):

When a film like Gone With the Wind played back then, it was the ONLY movie you could see. Each city probably had 1 movie theater (more in major major cities only) and only 1 screen. So if you wanted to see something, you saw that one film. Now days, you have 15-30 films to choose from fighting for your $$.

2) Back then, movies were far cheaper. So yeah, you'd plunk down your 10 CENTS and see a movie. But now, at 10 DOLLARS, you may be less likely to choose that as your entertainment. You have to be far more motivated to see a film now, as opposed to back then when it cost you next to nothing. (And NO, the cost is not consistent with inflation. 10 cents then does NOT equal 10 dollars today!)

I really liked this article, Brad; I had never really considered all of the facts which you brought up. Still I think we have to award the Title "#1 Box Office Film of All-Time" to the film which made the most money. Its not about which film made the most in its initial run (I'm sure there are lists which demonstrate this) or which film made a killing on DVD or if there was 300 million citizens in the U.S. or 50 million, the results must be based on which film "ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION" made the MOST MONEY.

Since the mid-1940s, that film has been Gone Wind the Wind. So, I think it unfair for people to say "Titanic would have made more money if it were rereleased or if there wasn't such a thing as VHS/DVD six months after its theatrical run." The simple fact is, Titanic is the sixth highest grossing film of all time (adjusted for inflation).

ok, so why dont they just count the total number of tickets sold or accounted for and have that off to the side in brackets along with the total gross???

You're missing one very important fact Brad: Ok, let's throw out all of the complicated formulas and all of the other variables, and put it in simple terms. "Every Which Way But Loose" was the 4th biggest Box-office draw of 1978 ("Grease", "Superman" and "Animal House" were higher). How high will "Gran Torino" rank in its year? So, which film was more popular in "its day"? It's an apples to apples comparison you can't really ignore or dispute.

I really enjoyed your article "Why I Don’t Like the ‘Adjusted for Inflation’ Box-Office Argument". I did a Google search and your article came up on the first results page. The arguments about movies being an event, the lack of TV and the number of years it took before the movie was fully released were very interesting. It made me wonder how many screens actually played 'Gone with the Wind' before it was all over with compared to today when over 2,000 screens will show a Blockbuster on opening weekend. And did they not make hundreds (thousands?) of copies of the movie to be sent to theaters so certain markets had to wait until one of the copies was available? How many movies were made in a year compared to today- that would certainly mean there is more competition for the same dollars.

I always like to think about tickets sold vs dollars made. I was thirteen when Star Wars came out and I have never seen anything like that summer. People lined up at theaters for weeks and weeks which I have not seen with any other movie in my lifetime.

@JM:

I agree. Show a movie for free and that is the best indicator of a movies popularity. They show movies for free at my old folks home too. They showed Dark Knight and I was one of 2 in the movie room that night. But when they showed 'Gone with the Wind' the place was packed and we had to tell the folks from Shady Acres Rest Home we couldn't accommodate them this time. Now that's how you tell how popular a movie is.

"Gone with the Wind (1939)
1939 – $189,523,031 (824,013,178 tickets)
1989 – $2,403,316 (605,369 tickets)
1998 – $6,750,112 (1,439,256 tickets)
TOTAL: 826,057,803 tickets"

this was a simplistic count. between 1941 and 1974, GWtW was release 7 times. dont count too?

Adjusting box office grosses for inflation makes sense if you limit it to a particular decade. Then It would be fair to say the Lord of the rings in 2001 and the dark knight in 2008 had to face pretty much similar "outside influences" like people's mindset, technological advances, competition and outlook towards cinema.
Keep separate lists for each decade, and you'll notice that its a much better and fairer way to figure out which was the most popular film of each decade. It might not be perfect, but it'll come close to determining the best movie from each age and decade. Pooling all of them together does not and will not make any sense as you have pointed out in the article above. Splitting it by decade does the job…almost.

There is another MAJOR important factor missing here that makes a HUGE difference.
Overall population growth.

The population has more than doubled since 1939!

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762181.html

The adjusted-for-inflation measure is still the best way to determine overall sales.
Sure we have technology today that may stifle sales, but they had half the people back then!