Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Recalculations place it at 0.4999.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                             

Box office record?

Data should always be an a level playing field.
  (+1)
(+1)
  [vote for,
against]

I suggest box office sales need to be recalculated with respect to media saturation including all the sly prompts.

Here in NZ, free to air television has played an unnamed super hero group's movies pry to the their new block busters episode at the theatre.

So it got me thinking, is it fare to have the record of box office takings if your advertising budget dwarfs past competitors? Paying for seeds in the chatter and discounting media's viewings. It all seems a bit underhand.

So maybe, the true record is with that small independent film, with the name that can't be remembered, but the word truly went round.

wjt, May 03 2019


Please log in.
If you're not logged in, you can see what this page looks like, but you will not be able to add anything.



Annotation:







       The real measure of success has always been the ratio of gross earnings compared to budget. And by that metric there are lots of small indie films which are massively more successful than the Holywood blockbusters. Napoleon Dynamite, for instance, earned over 100 times its budget.
mitxela, May 03 2019
  

       It depends on your definition of success. How much it made, what percentage profit it made, how many people saw it, meta review score, awards, number of boobs.
marklar, May 03 2019
  

       That last one usually only appeals to a specific, mostly masculine, audience segment; altho sometimes quality can outweigh quantity, so simple numbers aren't always the best predictor of popularity.
8th of 7, May 03 2019
  

       I know they play with this metric in Hollywood. Believe me, they keep close track of how much it cost to advertise vs how much it made, they just don't share that info with the public.   

       I'd bet you could do something like this without the inside scoop just by assuming an advertising budget commensurate with the production budget. Safe to say a million dollar film isn't going to have a 30 million dollar advertising budget. Likewise, a 200 million dollar film isn't going to have a million dollar advertising budget. I know at boxofficemojo.com they don't give the budget if it's not doing super well. That's usually only released once everybody has made a profit. Bombs can destroy movie studios so they tend not to advertise them if at all possible.   

       Bun for the concept. I'd like to see those ad budget dollar to ticket sales dollar ratios.
doctorremulac3, May 03 2019
  

       Here we go:   

       1. Paranormal Activity (Budget: $15,000; Revenue: $193 million): 645,801.51%   

       2. Tarnation (Budget: $218; Revenue: $1.1 million): 266,416.97%   

       3. Mad Max (Budget: $200,000; Revenue $99.7 million): 24,837.50%   

       4. Super Size Me (Budget: $65,000; Revenue: $29,529,368): 22,614.90%   

       5. The Blair Witch Project (Budget: $600,000; Revenue: $248 million): 20,591.67%   

       6. Night of the Living Dead (Budget:$114,000; Revenue: $30 million): 13,057.89%   

       7. Rocky (Budget: $1 million; Revenue: $225 million): 11,150.00%   

       8. Halloween (Budget: $325,000; Revenue: $70 million): 10,669.23%   

       9. American Graffiti: (Budget: $777,000; Revenue: $140 million): 8,909.01%   

       10. Once (Budget: $150,000; Revenue: $18 million): 6,232.39%   

       11. The Stewardesses (Budget: $200,000; Revenue: $25 million): 6,150.00%   

       12. Napoleon Dynamite (Budget: $400,000; Revenue: $46 million): 5,667.62%   

       13. Friday the 13th (Budget: $550,000; Revenue: $59,7 million): 5,332.24%   

       14. Open Water (Budget: $500,000; Revenue: $52,100,882): 5,110.09%   

       15. Gone with the Wind (Budget: $3.9 million; Revenue: $390 million): 4,906.73%   

       16. The Birth of a Nation (Budget: $110,000; Revenue: $11,000,000): 4,900.00%   

       17. The Big Parade (Budget: $245,000; Revenue: $22 million): 4,389.80%   

       18. Saw (Budget: $1.2 million; Revenue: $103 million): 4,195.68%   

       19. Primer (Budget: $7,000; Revenue: $565,846): 3,941.76%   

       20. The Evil Dead (Budget: $375,000; Revenue: $29,400,000): 3,820.00%   

       Wow, fifteen thousand dollar budget turning in a 5th of a billion dollars for Paranormal Activity.
doctorremulac3, May 03 2019
  

       Hang on, [doc], something's screwey with your numbers. For Gone With The Wind, you have 3.9M > 390M = 4,906.73%. By my maths, 3.9M > 390M = 10,000%
MaxwellBuchanan, May 03 2019
  

       There could also be kudos for a studio that can carry the biggest bomb. Experience, feeling, life, the un-moneyed stuff and the such like.
wjt, May 04 2019
  

       For some high-end films the cast and crew have to sign NDAs, which would mean that literally the only way a film would gain *any* public image would be through advertising.   

       "And the Oscar for the film with an advertising budget of less than $10,000 goes to ...".   

       For the most part, anything after the 3rd of a franchise starts to get a bit tiresome.
bigsleep, May 04 2019
  

       Huh? Math? Whu?   

       If it has to do with math that's me cutting and pasting.   

       But yea, I think they multiplied the thingy by the dohicky when they should have divided the whatchamacallet by the thingamajig.
doctorremulac3, May 04 2019
  

       You people don't actually believe Hollywood accounting do you?
Voice, May 04 2019
  

       Good point.   

       By the way, if you've ever seen "Super Size Me" please look at the antidote to that horrible piece of propaganda "Fat Head".   

       It follows a guy who looses weight and increases his health markers by eating exclusively at McDonalds, he just picks healthier meals and doesn't gorge himself on 5,000 calories a day.   

       Not a defense of McDonalds, it's an attack on diet hysteria and bad science that's led to a lot of disease and obesity in our country. The main fallacy being that a low fat diet is good for you. Great book on the subject called "Big Fat Lie" which, even if you're not interested in dietary stuff, is a great exploration about how misinformation becomes mainstream by virtue of crooked scientists, politicians, industry and educators. Yup, they sometimes all climb on the same corrupt misinformation bandwagon for acclaim and profit.
doctorremulac3, May 04 2019
  

       Diet problems, in my mind, is down to a stupid accessibility which nature never supplied. Metabolism pathways can't deal with the excess causing problems with lipids, mono-saccharides and carbohydrate storage and their companion use mechanisms.   

       All those natural hunger metabolic pathways don't get a look in. Cleaning and reset is always needed.
wjt, May 04 2019
  

       Food industries want to sell more food. That's where ideas like "Breakfast is the most important meal of the day." come from. Cavemen didn't wake up and have a massive bowl of sugar and carbs consisting of piles of wheat waiting for them. If they wanted to have the juice of 8 oranges they'd eat 8 oranges and have the sugar released into their system gradually as the pulp was broken down rather than having a big glass of the juice with an off the charts glycemic index that causes an insulin spike that eventually destroys the pancreas.   

       Then we got into politicians deciding what we would eat. Yikes. That's one place we got this "low fat" diet craze that caused food industries to replace fat with sugar (which turns to fat) and to crank up the carbs. Once you're eating because you're craving these drug addiction style carbs, you're screwed. Ghrelin and leptin hormones (that tell you when your hungry and when you're full) get out of wack and you can't even keep track of when you're actually hungry and when you're just feeding your body's addiction to this junk.   

       We're designed to wake up, not have food because refrigeration was spotty back then, go out and kill something and eat it while snacking along the way. Bugs, berries during certain times of year perhaps. We didn't go out and get a big bowl of wheat or rice. Like I've said before, if that's what we ate, dogs would never have had anything to do with us. You don't see dogs loyally following deer around as their inseparable companions. There's a reason for that.   

       That being said, without wheat or rice there'd be no civilization, it allowed us to get out of the hunter gatherer stage, but we're civilized now. We can eat stuff that's good for us again.
doctorremulac3, May 04 2019
  

       //Ghrelin and leptin hormones//   

       We've obviously been watching the same channels.   

       Sadly, most sheep are just buying the watery varieties of genetically engineered veggies, so most of what is on the shelves is practically flavourless. You could say that there is no accounting for taste.
bigsleep, May 05 2019
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle