Timeline for How much do 3D ticket prices affect gross revenue?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Oct 6, 2015 at 18:20 | history | suggested | Thunderforge | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Effect is a noun, affect is a verb. Fixing this typo.
|
| Oct 6, 2015 at 16:53 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Oct 6, 2015 at 18:20 | |||||
| Aug 7, 2015 at 14:12 | answer | added | John Smith Optional | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jun 30, 2015 at 0:57 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackMovies/status/615685634347433984 | ||
| Jun 29, 2015 at 23:05 | comment | added | his | @Paulster2 Depends on what goal you have we the metric. Counting heads in relation to the population can be an indicator for the impact of a movie (but the number is less useful today with quick video or tv releases). Screens, seats, money are just economical measurements. Interesting for the economics if one is interested in such - but, honestly, not a metric that I find terribly helpful except when to decide which shares to buy (and I don't decide on budgets for the next movie so that number has no other significance for me). | |
| Jun 29, 2015 at 22:55 | history | edited | Catija |
edited tags
|
|
| Jun 29, 2015 at 21:20 | comment | added | Pᴀᴜʟsᴛᴇʀ2 | @Catija - To me it's just the great equalizer. It's the easiest way to differentiate one movie from the next. Money is something we can all wrap our heads around, even as flawed as the overall scheme may be. Something to think about though, do you think the makers/distributors don't do all of this analysis? I'll guarantee you the do. They want to know what is making them money and how. That way they can apply the knowledge to the next film and hopefully formulate better plans to make even more money. Vicious cycle. | |
| Jun 29, 2015 at 21:13 | comment | added | Catija | @Paulster2 Why is counting money better than counting seats sold? | |
| Jun 29, 2015 at 21:12 | comment | added | Pᴀᴜʟsᴛᴇʀ2 | @Catija - Exactly my point. There are so many factors about the only thing which makes sense is to count the money and adjust for inflation. You could start looking at: IMAX v. normal; IMAX 3D v. normal 3D; etc. My head is spinning thinking of all the variances. | |
| Jun 29, 2015 at 21:04 | comment | added | Catija | @Paulster2 Screens showing the film isn't adjusted for with dollars, though... although they do note the number of screens on most sites. In fact, with dollar values, movie-goers in big cities count more than those in rural areas, as the ticket prices are generally higher in big cities than in smaller communities. Plus, number of screens doesn't tell you if the theaters were 300 seat or 20, just that there were 3000 of them. | |
| Jun 29, 2015 at 21:02 | comment | added | Catija | Honestly, this has been an issue for much longer than just 3D films. Films designed for children have always complained that their opening box-office numbers look worse than they are because they don't account for the fact that tickets for kids are usually less expensive than for adults. The only way they could make it truly even is to go by admission numbers rather than dollars. | |
| Jun 29, 2015 at 20:55 | comment | added | Pᴀᴜʟsᴛᴇʀ2 | @his - If doing that, you'd also need to factor in the number of screens which showed said movie. There are other factors which would create more chaos in your scheme as well. | |
| Jun 29, 2015 at 20:53 | comment | added | his | When the money is not the relevant number why not look at the number of visitors? You should adjust to the possible audience (population size) when comparing figures from different times. | |
| Jun 29, 2015 at 20:11 | history | edited | Napoleon Wilson | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 character in body; edited tags
|
| Jun 29, 2015 at 18:33 | comment | added | Catija | Old but interesting article about Avatar: ropeofsilicon.com/… | |
| Jun 29, 2015 at 18:15 | history | asked | Ty Herrell | CC BY-SA 3.0 |