Tony the Tigger
Well-Known Member
I’ve never seen one!That is not saying much…. I would sit through almost anything over any Minions film… I was annoyed before they were played out
I’ve never seen one!That is not saying much…. I would sit through almost anything over any Minions film… I was annoyed before they were played out
Consider yourself lucky.I’ve never seen one!
Don’t start now…I’ve never seen one!
Or…discerning?Consider yourself lucky.
Well I saw most of them when I was younger or I was dragged to the theater with my family.Or…discerning?![]()
You should give it a try. Very funny, very entertaining, even for a Disney fanI’ve never seen one!
If you go in expecting nothing more than a kids popcorn movie they are fine, if you expect "CINEMA!", you'll be disappointed. They are what they are, nothing more.That is not saying much…. I would sit through almost anything over any Minions film… I was annoyed before they were played out
I’ve never even seen the Despicables.Well I saw most of them when I was younger or I was dragged to the theater with my family.
Again consider yourself luckyI’ve never even seen the Despicables.![]()
Exactly, it’s why I hate when people use the adjusted numbers. As it always comes across as trying to cut down a movie that earned fairly well relatively just because another movie appeared to earn more because of inflation.
And that’s what Disney+ is for.It is entirely reasonable to argue that tastes have shifted and the way we consume media has evolved. Theaters are clearly losing their cultural clout. Individuals may visit once or twice a year for a blockbuster tentpole (like Barbie, Deadpool 3, Inside Out 2) instead of more frequent monthly visits. That shift in theater going behavior has made it more difficult to ensure box office success. It is also reasonable to argue that some of the decline in Disney's offerings is directly attributable to this shift in consumer behavior and preferences.
With that said, adjusting for inflation to compare movies is absolutely a necessary tool. While in some sense you're right that success in Hollywood is relative to what else is being released (market share consideration), that is not the complete picture. When Apple began to retire the iPod business it was the best selling music player platform. Even though this sounds like a great thing, Apple would make the decision to wind down this beloved product. Apple realized that the future of the music business was not in the shrinking standalone music player market. Market share vs. competitors is not the only consideration.
The Walt Disney Company and its shareholders have many different ways they can invest their money. Making an investment in a new Marvel film might result in the number one grossing film for a weekend or two, but it still might not make sense to make the film. One of the tools to judge the real financial impact of a film property is inflation adjusted grosses. Why? Because inflation adjusted numbers allow us to see broad trends over time. Yes, the market might be contracting. Still, investors and Disney need to know in real terms how the money they are investing is being used. What does $X million invested in film production gross a studio today? Are the trends getting better or worse? Those longterm trends are just as important as current box office market share that can be analyzed with unadjusted numbers.
Likewise, production costs also need to be inflation adjusted. With Captain America 4, Marvel Studios has somehow made a film with a smaller inflation-adjusted production budget than the first Captain America film. Assuming the leaked number is accurate, this is a legitimately impressive feat. This accomplishment would be completely obscured if we did not adjust for inflation. Without inflation adjustment we could be sitting here and shaking our fist at Disney for their ballooning production costs instead of patting them on the back for efficiency.
If Captain America 4 outgrosses the original Captain America I fully expect press releases and the trades to issue triumphant messages. Something like, "in Mackie's big screen debut as the 'star spangled man with a plan' the film outgrossed the original Captain America from 2011." If that does occur, inflation adjustment will provide a clearer picture of the relative financial success of both films. Not in terms of total Hollywood market share in a given year, but in terms of actual money recouped at the box office from the investment.
Unfortunately for Disney, Marvel will remain in the shadow of the 2010s. The big drivers of Marvel's box office slump including a shift to streaming, spottier quality, the retirement of beloved characters, and superhero fatigue are too big to ignore. I'm happy to congratulate them on a fine opening weekend for CA 4, but inflation adjustment makes it clear just how much weaker Marvel is in 2025 than in 2018. Without inflation-adjusted numbers there would literally be no way to track performance overtime except market share of box office receipts.
Still, there's an argument that this Captain America film doesn't matter. Both CA 4 and the Thunderbolts represent the final films to emerge from a turbulent time of overproduction. If they can both do fine and not humiliate Disney, then Marvel's grand relaunch plan can gain traction. It's Fantastic Four where Marvel's future is really on the line. If they could get a $1 Billion gross for that film it would be fantastic. Overall, I think CA 4 has escaped the total humiliation zone. Partially, that's because Marvel has been humiliated so much that a gross like this actually pretty good.
Anyway, that's my two cents on all of this.
Cheers!
I appreciate the response overall. However as we've seen and discussed in this thread its not a straight apples-to-apples comparison when using inflation adjusted numbers, they have to be put into context. Unfortunately the way they are used here in this forum is to try to simply say X is better than Y because the adjusted numbers show that X earned more because of inflation where there is WAY more context to that number. As you pointed out, and has been said here by myself and others, the market changes, tickets sold change, many others things change over time. Movie Y earned just as much as movie X in unadjusted numbers on less tickets sold, so by that measure movie Y did better overall. This is why the use of the adjusted numbers are just silly for our purposes, its just used to bash one studios movies because they didn't perform in todays market as another movie did in a completely different landscape and time.It is entirely reasonable to argue that tastes have shifted and the way we consume media has evolved. Theaters are clearly losing their cultural clout. Individuals may visit once or twice a year for a blockbuster tentpole (like Barbie, Deadpool 3, Inside Out 2) instead of more frequent monthly visits. That shift in theater going behavior has made it more difficult to ensure box office success. It is also reasonable to argue that some of the decline in Disney's offerings is directly attributable to this shift in consumer behavior and preferences.
With that said, adjusting for inflation to compare movies is absolutely a necessary tool. While in some sense you're right that success in Hollywood is relative to what else is being released (market share consideration), that is not the complete picture. When Apple began to retire the iPod business it was the best selling music player platform. Even though this sounds like a great thing, Apple would make the decision to wind down this beloved product. Apple realized that the future of the music business was not in the shrinking standalone music player market. Market share vs. competitors is not the only consideration.
The Walt Disney Company and its shareholders have many different ways they can invest their money. Making an investment in a new Marvel film might result in the number one grossing film for a weekend or two, but it still might not make sense to make the film. One of the tools to judge the real financial impact of a film property is inflation adjusted grosses. Why? Because inflation adjusted numbers allow us to see broad trends over time. Yes, the market might be contracting. Still, investors and Disney need to know in real terms how the money they are investing is being used. What does $X million invested in film production gross a studio today? Are the trends getting better or worse? Those longterm trends are just as important as current box office market share that can be analyzed with unadjusted numbers.
Likewise, production costs also need to be inflation adjusted. With Captain America 4, Marvel Studios has somehow made a film with a smaller inflation-adjusted production budget than the first Captain America film. Assuming the leaked number is accurate, this is a legitimately impressive feat. This accomplishment would be completely obscured if we did not adjust for inflation. Without inflation adjustment we could be sitting here and shaking our fist at Disney for their ballooning production costs instead of patting them on the back for efficiency.
If Captain America 4 outgrosses the original Captain America I fully expect press releases and the trades to issue triumphant messages. Something like, "in Mackie's big screen debut as the 'star spangled man with a plan' the film outgrossed the original Captain America from 2011." If that does occur, inflation adjustment will provide a clearer picture of the relative financial success of both films. Not in terms of total Hollywood market share in a given year, but in terms of actual money recouped at the box office from the investment.
Unfortunately for Disney, Marvel will remain in the shadow of the 2010s. The big drivers of Marvel's box office slump including a shift to streaming, spottier quality, the retirement of beloved characters, and superhero fatigue are too big to ignore. I'm happy to congratulate them on a fine opening weekend for CA 4, but inflation adjustment makes it clear just how much weaker Marvel is in 2025 than in 2018. Without inflation-adjusted numbers there would literally be no way to track performance overtime except market share of box office receipts.
Still, there's an argument that this Captain America film doesn't matter. Both CA 4 and the Thunderbolts represent the final films to emerge from a turbulent time of overproduction. If they can both do fine and not humiliate Disney, then Marvel's grand relaunch plan can gain traction. It's Fantastic Four where Marvel's future is really on the line. If they could get a $1 Billion gross for that film it would be fantastic. Overall, I think CA 4 has escaped the total humiliation zone. Partially, that's because Marvel has been humiliated so much that a gross like this actually pretty good.
Anyway, that's my two cents on all of this.
Cheers!
Tickets near me are $11.
I almost never go to a movie unless it's the Tuesday/Wednesday deals
If I weren't on a subscription program (I generally pay as little as $2-$3 a movie because of how much I see in a month), I could go to matinees in my market for $9 or $10 at first-run theaters.
Heck, I could apparently see a movie at the Megaplex in St. George, Utah for $6 today, if I wanted to.
I sssume you went at night…. I don’t think I have ever seen a matinee price at 20.00..,, even at your most luxurious theater…
Although theaters around me don’t even charge 20 for the ultra screen at night…. And I am in the Milwaukee market…. Not exactly small town Maine
Sure you got to get out of that summertime heat.
Most movie theater chains have discount Tuesday prices… my local chain has $6.00 all day Tuesday no matter the time or theater of any first run movie…you must have noticed the increased business on Tuesdays verse other weekdays in your box office analysisI just checked. I'm assuming you're talking about the Pineview Megaplex, which apparently has a showing on Thursday at 12:35pm of Shrek 2 (from 2004) for only $6 per seat?
I just saw Captain America for that matinee price I mentionedI get it, matinee movies of 20 year old movies can offer really cheap seats. But I'm not sure that's a helpful analogy here discussing Captain America 4 which was released two weeks ago with a production budget of $180 Million in 2024 dollars.
Most theaters have reserved reclining leather seats…at least all the movie theaters around me doesWell, yes. We went to see Barbie in the evening. After a fabulous dinner at a family fave seafood place in Del Mar, if my increasingly hazy memory serves correctly. It wasn't a matinee
It was at a theater chain called Cinepolis, a popular luxury theater chain in Orange and San Diego counties. All reserved seats, leather powered recliners, waitress service to your seat with light meals, swanky desserts, champagne and wine and cocktails.
It's the only way to fly!
You're absolutely right about Phase 5 of the MCU being largely... Low excitement. Deadpool 3 was a huge success, but as you say they can only play the Deadpool card once. I got the distinct sense there is finality to that project. Same with GotG. Of course, we could have said the same thing about RDJ.Whether or not this film turns a profit is not fully knowable to us (though not looking good). What has to be more worrisome - and the tepid box office bears this out - is the general, growing malaise the viewing public seems to have towards these films. Guardians was great, though that franchise seems dead for the time being. Deadpool was great too, though that felt more like a swan song to the 20th Century Fox era than a film fully folded into the MCU.
Whether or not the full production budget for this film realy was $180M or not we’ll never know. We also will never know how much reshot filming and tinkering they did. But there’s enough credible evidence to suggest it was substantial. And yet, all that work and extra effort landed them with a B- Cinemascore and a possible break even point.
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.