The OFFICIAL Unofficial Achewood Message Board

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Established 2003
TOUAMB: Wandering off topic since the early 21st Century

Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: This is an interesting chart  (Read 1462 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

AugustWest

  • Over Easy
  • Moderator
  • Dude since Knucklehead times
  • *
  • Tiny cans of Dr Pepper: 774
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 10549
  • Bulbous, also tapered.
    • View Profile
This is an interesting chart
« on: October 20, 2003, 03:11:26 am »
Top movies listed by admissions rather than $$$.  Usually you just see movies ranked by how much money they made, which can be kind of misleading, because today it costs like $48 to go see a movie while back in the 30's the studios would pay you a nickel to see their shows.  This guy attempts to calculate how many actual butts were in the seats.

Some things I noticed:  The original Star Wars series in a Nos 1, 12 and 13 (then Raiders at 14 and Phantom Menace at 18 -- George Lucas must have more money than God.)  Spiderman at #34 was the first movie of the new millineum to make the list.  Some favorite comedies made it:  Blazing Saddles at #50, Animal House at #57, Its a madmadmadmadmadmad World at #71 and Young Frankenstein at #96.

The Wizard of Oz is #74 which indicates to me that this list rates the number of paid admissions to movie theaters rather than the total number of people who've seen a film, because god knows everybody has seen TWOOZ.

Odd movies that made the list:  Castaway, Earthquake, Liar Liar,  and Every Which Way but Loose (how can EWWBL be on the list, but not Car Wash?)
Logged
Infinitely vast, infinitely detailed.

jay-ell

  • Den Mother
  • VIP
  • Philippe is standing on it.
  • *
  • Tiny cans of Dr Pepper: 407
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 7869
    • View Profile
This is an interesting chart
« Reply #1 on: October 20, 2003, 12:19:22 pm »
Actually, I don't think that this is an accurate measure of the popularity of a film, either.  It's closer than the money it made, but since the population increases over time (as the value of a dollar drops) I think it would be more telling to see what percentage of the total American population went to see a particular film.  

Just my $0.02.  This is pretty cool, though.
Logged
"I always hear 'punch me in the face' when you're speaking. But it's usually subtext." -- Martin Freeman as John Watson

AugustWest

  • Over Easy
  • Moderator
  • Dude since Knucklehead times
  • *
  • Tiny cans of Dr Pepper: 774
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 10549
  • Bulbous, also tapered.
    • View Profile
This is an interesting chart
« Reply #2 on: October 20, 2003, 06:06:52 pm »
Excellent point, JL, which makes GWTW's dominance at the top of the chart all the more amazing.
Logged
Infinitely vast, infinitely detailed.

AlohaDawg

  • Mod Squad
  • LAZARUS, Tasseled Loafer of the Powerful
  • Tiny cans of Dr Pepper: 79
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 4184
  • Crawlin' back to prosperity
    • View Profile
This is an interesting chart
« Reply #3 on: October 20, 2003, 06:17:18 pm »
What I thought was amazing was "The Four hossmen of the Apocalypse". I think it was 1921 - seems real early on in the development of the film industry. Maybe it was the novelty of the thing that got so many people in the seats.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »