Captain America 4

[Disney Irish]

What the heck? Do you still pretend that Disneyland tickets are only $49 per day, and eggs are 89 cents per dozen?

Things change, and the past few years saw record inflation this country hasn't seen since the energy crises of the 1970's. If you are discussing box office, or any financials more than a few years apart really, you need to factor inflation into the equation or else you are getting a distorted picture.

New Mustang convertibles don't cost $8,500 any longer, gas is now 5 bucks a gallon in California, and a $400 Million global box office would lose money in 2025 because the production budget was $175 Million.



There's a reason why box office tracking firms provide an Inflation Adjustment tab clearly on their websites. Because it matters to the story of financial success or failure, or anything in between. Especially for movies more than a few years apart.

Here's how 2024's Barbie looks to 1997's Titanic, both of which were touted in their day as "Billion dollar successes!". Without adjusting for inflation, Barbie beat Titanic handily at the domestic box office. Right?

View attachment 846018
But click that Inflation Adjustment switch on the website, and here's how the domestic box office suddenly changes.

View attachment 846019
See how that flips the script when you show the financial reality of inflation adjustment?

Here are the hard numbers adjusted for inflation of the story of the famous doll versus the doomed boat.

View attachment 846020

Now ask yourself, which studio exec would you rather be in this scenario; the one who made $475 Million in profit off of Barbie or the one who made the inflation adjusted equivalent of just under $2 Billion in profit off of Titanic?

I know which profit I'd rather have; Titanic!. But if you didn't adjust for inflation, it would look like Barbie beat Titanic.

https://thenumbers.com/movies/custom-comparisons/Barbie-(2023)/Titanic-(1997)?mode=actuals#tab=day_by_day_comparison

Apples and Oranges, just because inflation has occurred doesn't mean its a 1-to-1 comparison. Its why I never liked using the adjusted numbers as it artificially inflates an older movie to today's box office landscape, where there is no guarantee it would perform the same.

Your Titanic example is perfect, the way it comes across is that Titanic would do $5B in today's numbers if released today. And that couldn't be further from the truth, I honestly doubt it would make $1B even today but that is another discussion. It should also be noted that no executive is making decisions based on inflation adjusted numbers. And no Titanic would not get $2B in profit, that is just silly.

Another example is the largest grossing movies of all time list, because everyone always uses the inflation numbers there is no way that any modern movie would catch up to inflation adjusted Gone with the Wind at $18B, that is 18 BILLION DOLLARS!?!?!?! I'm sorry but that is just ridiculous, and should show why you can't do an apples to apples comparison like that.

As shown compared to 2009s Avatar which is listed as the highest grossing movie of all time non-inflation adjusted -

 

[TP2000]

Apples and Oranges, just because inflation has occurred doesn't mean its a 1-to-1 comparison. Its why I never liked using the adjusted numbers as it artificially inflates an older movie to today's box office landscape, where there is no guarantee it would perform the same.

There's a reason why box office tracking firms, and any financial tracking advisor really, has an inflation adjustment tool. Because inflation is real, and over time it distorts the value and meaning of a dollar in profit or loss.

I didn't ask The Numbers website to put that inflation adjustment toggle switch on their box office tracking website just to upset someone. It was already there, because again, most financial tracking concepts use that ability to help tell the story of long-term financials.

Your Titanic example is perfect, the way it comes across is that Titanic would do $5B in today's numbers if released today. And that couldn't be further from the truth, I honestly doubt it would make $1B even today but that is another discussion.

I remember well the Titanic winter and spring of '98. It was huge, and unlike anything else really besides maybe Star Wars. It was a movie that EVERYONE saw, at least once. And everyone talked about it everywhere, and then went and saw it again. And I remember the cute date I took to see it. Twice. Now that I think about it, '98 was a good year for me.

Things have dramatically changed technologically and culturally since 1998, and we'll likely never see another Titanic type phenomenon ever again. I'd imagine that many film school students in recent years have written what they thought were insightful thesis papers on how Titanic was the last great Hollywood blockbuster, before the advent of the Internet and HD streaming and 100 inch 4K screens in middle class homes.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Hollywood execs know the best they could hope for now is a Barbie type pop culture response from last summer. But that doesn't erase the incredible box office business Titanic did in '98, and it explains why Hollywood executives have Inflation Adjustment buttons on their box office tracking websites.

The Numbers - Where Data and the Movie Business Meet

The Numbers provides detailed movie financial analysis, including box office, DVD and Blu-ray sales reports, and release schedules.

thenumbers.com

 

[Disney Irish]

There's a reason why box office tracking firms, and any financial tracking advisor really, has an inflation adjustment tool. Because inflation is real, and over time it distorts the value and meaning of a dollar in profit or loss.

I didn't ask The Numbers website to put that inflation adjustment toggle switch on their box office tracking website just to upset someone. It was already there, because again, most financial tracking concepts use that ability to help tell the story of long-term financials.

Again apples and oranges. Its really only Numbers that gives that option, no other tracking site really does that, hmm wonder why. Because it gives an artificial look at old movies that is not realistic. You can't say that movie x in 1988 would do y in today's dollars because its not made and releasing in today's dollars, it was made and released in 1988 in 1988 dollars.

I remember a time when people didn't compare movies like that. They said ok, lets look at how each performed in the time period they were released and compare respectively. Not this artificial "Hey Gone with the Wind in today's dollars would make 18 BILLION DOLLARS!?!?!? Barbie, Avatar, Avengers: End Game all suck compared to that, fun huh....."

I remember well the Titanic winter and spring of '98. It was huge, and unlike anything else really besides maybe Star Wars. It was a movie that EVERYONE saw, at least once. And everyone talked about it everywhere, and then went and saw it again. And I remember the cute date I took to see it. Twice. Now that I think about it, '98 was a good year for me.

Things have changed technologically and culturally since 1998, and we'll likely never see another Titanic type phenomenon ever again. I'd imagine that many film school students in recent years have written what they thought were insightful thesis papers on how Titanic was the last great Hollywood blockbuster, before the advent of the Internet and HD streaming and 100 inch 4K screens in middle class homes.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Hollywood execs know the best they could hope for now is a Barbie type pop culture response from last summer. But that doesn't erase the incredible box office business Titanic did in '98, and it explains why Hollywood executives have Inflation Adjustment buttons on their box office tracking websites.

The Numbers - Where Data and the Movie Business Meet

The Numbers provides detailed movie financial analysis, including box office, DVD and Blu-ray sales reports, and release schedules.

thenumbers.com

I remember that time too, and you cannot say it would perform the same today in 2025 dollars. Different landscape, different audience tastes. It would likely be seen as an arthouse film today, making less than $100M.

 

[Chi84]

Again apples and oranges. Its really only Numbers that gives that option, no other tracking site really does that, hmm wonder why. Because it gives an artificial look at old movies that is not realistic. You can't say that movie x in 1988 would do y in today's dollars because its not made and releasing in today's dollars, it was made and released in 1988 in 1988 dollars.

I remember a time when people didn't compare movies like that. They said ok, lets look at how each performed in the time period they were released and compare respectively. Not this artificial "Hey Gone with the Wind in today's dollars would make 18 BILLION DOLLARS!?!?!? Barbie, Avatar, Avengers: End Game all suck compared to that, fun huh....."


I remember that time too, and you cannot say it would perform the same today in 2025 dollars. Different landscape, different audience tastes. It would likely be seen as an arthouse film today, making less than $100M.

No one under the age of 60 would sit through the original Snow White today.

Actually, that's being terribly insulting to the elderly. No one would sit through the original Snow White today.

 

[brideck]

I remember that time too, and you cannot say it would perform the same today in 2025 dollars. Different landscape, different audience tastes. It would likely be seen as an arthouse film today, making less than $100M.

Not just that, but the market in general has just shrunk so dramatically through the rise of getting everything at home and the general shift away from scripted entertainment.

Using the ticket sales metric from a few pages back (all numbers US only):
Titanic - 130m tickets
Endgame - 90m tickets
Inside Out 2 - 60m tickets

Movies (in theaters) just don't have the cultural hegemony that they used to, and it's not because they're not as good as they used to make 'em. It's also not really due to the expense going up -- the average tickets in 1997 would be $9 today, which people would still find too expensive against the cost of a streaming service for a month.

ETA: And that's really why comparing inflation-adjusted numbers doesn't show anything. All you're proving is that more people used to go see movies in the past, which is obvious to anyone who's been paying attention to the industry over time. I suppose if you want to compare profit using inflation that would be marginally more interesting, but that's not the way any of those charts are ever used.

 

[Disney Irish]

Not just that, but the market in general has just shrunk so dramatically through the rise of getting everything at home and the general shift away from scripted entertainment.

Using the ticket sales metric from a few pages back (all numbers US only):
Titanic - 130m tickets
Endgame - 90m tickets
Inside Out 2 - 60m tickets

Movies (in theaters) just don't have the cultural hegemony that they used to, and it's not because they're not as good as they used to make 'em. It's also not really due to the expense going up -- the average tickets in 1997 would be $9 today, which people would still find too expensive against the cost of a streaming service for a month.

Which is funny because if you actually calculate it out, if Titantic did actually sell the same amount of tickets today using today's average ticket price of $10.78 it would come out to $1.401B.... Slightly less than Barbie, not beating Barbie as the adjusted numbers suggest.

Again another reason why this adjusted numbers thing is silly, its not apples to apples and never will be.

 

[brideck]

No one under the age of 60 would sit through the original Snow White today.

Actually, that's being terribly insulting to the elderly. No one would sit through the original Snow White today.

I couldn't sit through it when I was 3 1/2. What was that? Was I taken to the lobby crying in fear? Why would you ask that?

 

[Agent H]

No one under the age of 60 would sit through the original Snow White today.

Actually, that's being terribly insulting to the elderly. No one would sit through the original Snow White today.

How is that?

 

[Chi84]

How is that?

Have you seen it?

 

[TalkingHead]

No one under the age of 60 would sit through the original Snow White today.

Actually, that's being terribly insulting to the elderly. No one would sit through the original Snow White today.

What? Disney’s animated features are one of the few film types that have maintained popularity in different generations. Certainly people in their mid 30s were exposed to early hand drawn titles.

 

[Agent H]

Yes of course I don’t see how it’s “boring”

Have you seen it?

 

[Chi84]

What? Disney’s animated features are one of the few film types that have maintained popularity in different generations. Certainly people in their mid 30s were exposed to early hand drawn titles.

I agree about Disney animated features, just not this one.

My kids are 40 and 36 and have seen plenty of Disney animated features, but not Snow White.

I think people forget just how old the original movie is. It’s 87 years old. I would bet that most people today are familiar with the story through books rather than watching the original film.

 

[Chi84]

Yes of course I don’t see how it’s “boring”

It’s interesting that I didn’t use the word boring, but yes, I found it incredibly boring.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

No one under the age of 60 would sit through the original Snow White today.

Actually, that's being terribly insulting to the elderly. No one would sit through the original Snow White today.

I couldn't sit through it when I was 3 1/2. What was that? Was I taken to the lobby crying in fear? Why would you ask that?

Disney should call the bluff of the haters and release both versions of Snow White! Either way, they win!

For a young child, the original is fine. For me, as an adult in this day and age, it’s reeeally slow. Fun moments, good songs, great villain.

I 100% respect and appreciate it as groundbreaking. If it were released as a never before seen film today…

 

[Chi84]

Disney should call the bluff of the haters and release both versions of Snow White! Either way, they win!

For a young child, the original is fine. For me, as an adult in this day and age, it’s reeeally slow. Fun moments, good songs, great villain.

I 100% respect and appreciate it as groundbreaking. If it were released as a never before seen film today…

I agree that it is an artistic masterpiece. But I doubt my grandkids would sit through it. They’re used to faster paced films.

 

[Chi84]

Disney should call the bluff of the haters and release both versions of Snow White! Either way, they win!

For a young child, the original is fine. For me, as an adult in this day and age, it’s reeeally slow. Fun moments, good songs, great villain.

I 100% respect and appreciate it as groundbreaking. If it were released as a never before seen film today…

Great villain but no love story. The prince is in the movie for 3 minutes - most of it singing a song.

 

[Agent H]

It’s interesting that I didn’t use the word boring, but yes, I found it incredibly boring.

Sorry It seemed like you were implying that.

 

[Disney Irish]

What? Disney’s animated features are one of the few film types that have maintained popularity in different generations. Certainly people in their mid 30s were exposed to early hand drawn titles.

I think you're missing the point, if Disney is releasing it new today in today's market with the likes of Minions, Sonic, and other animation features most of the public would find it boring and slow. Its a classic in the sense that it was the first of its kind back in 1937, that is not the case in 2025. So this is not to take anything away from it, it just shows how different the market is today compared to 1937.

 

[Chi84]

Sorry It seemed like you were implying that.

I was stating that it is not a movie made for current day audiences and would never be released as an original film today.

That doesn’t mean it’s a bad film; it’s a great one and exists in its original form for anyone interested in seeing a groundbreaking masterpiece of animation.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

I think you're missing the point, if Disney is releasing it new today in today's market with the likes of Minions, Sonic, and other animation features most of the public would find it boring and slow. Its a classic in the sense that it was the first of its kind back in 1937, that is not the case in 2025. So this is not to take anything away from it, it just shows how different the market is today compared to 1937.

Bingo.