This is all ego-boosting PR crap - of course it's gonna have made more money against a 10-year old movie, because, you know, prices have gone up since then!
Call this news when it beats "Gone with the Wind" if revenue, properly adjusted for inflation!.
Yeah, it is not adjusted for inflation, but that is still a meaningful benchmark. No movies has passed that bar in the last 10 years. So your "of course it's gonna have made more money against a 10-year old movie, because, you know, prices have gone up since then!" fall completely flat.
There were a bunch of other movies that were very popular in the last 10 years, and they haven't passed it either. Black Panther was very popular and it did not come close to Avatar despite the 9 year gap.
Gone with the wind sold 60M tickets in its initial 4 year run. The world population in 1939 was about 2.5B.
Endgame sold over 200M ticket in 2 months. The world population is about 7.5B.
So yeah, Endgame is actually a big deal.
The number of people with access to a movie theater (i.e. could see the movie if they wanted) in 1939 was only a few hundred million, while today it's probably around 4-5 billion.. So Endgame is still small potatoes compared to Gone with the Wind. Probably nothing will ever dethrone Gone with the Wind. There's much more variety and selection these days, so people are more likely to see a movie more suited to their individual tastes than a single blockbuster.
That said, a large portion of Gone with the Wind's sales were repeat viewings. Yeah, that isn't a modern phenomenon. There were newspaper stories about women who'd walk out in tears after seeing it, and get right back in line to buy another ticket to see it again. So if you're trying to compare movie popularity, you also need to consider breadth of appeal (what percentage of the population with the opportunity to see it, saw it?) versus strength of appeal (repeat viewers). There are a lot of different ways to gauge the "most popular" movie.
Means nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
This is all ego-boosting PR crap - of course it's gonna have made more money against a 10-year old movie, because, you know, prices have gone up since then!
Call this news when it beats "Gone with the Wind" if revenue, properly adjusted for inflation!.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, it is not adjusted for inflation, but that is still a meaningful benchmark.
No movies has passed that bar in the last 10 years. So your "of course it's gonna have made more money against a 10-year old movie, because, you know, prices have gone up since then!" fall completely flat.
There were a bunch of other movies that were very popular in the last 10 years, and they haven't passed it either. Black Panther was very popular and it did not come close to Avatar despite the 9 year gap.
The price of the tick
Re:Means nothing (Score:3)
The number of people with access to a movie theater (i.e. could see the movie if they wanted) in 1939 was only a few hundred million, while today it's probably around 4-5 billion.. So Endgame is still small potatoes compared to Gone with the Wind. Probably nothing will ever dethrone Gone with the Wind. There's much more variety and selection these days, so people are more likely to see a movie more suited to their individual tastes than a single blockbuster.
That said, a large portion of Gone with the Wind's sales were repeat viewings. Yeah, that isn't a modern phenomenon. There were newspaper stories about women who'd walk out in tears after seeing it, and get right back in line to buy another ticket to see it again. So if you're trying to compare movie popularity, you also need to consider breadth of appeal (what percentage of the population with the opportunity to see it, saw it?) versus strength of appeal (repeat viewers). There are a lot of different ways to gauge the "most popular" movie.