h a l f b a k e r yWhere life imitates science.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
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.
[link]
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
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% |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
You people don't actually believe Hollywood accounting do you? |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |