"Why journalists don't account for inflation when they report box office records.":

http://www.slate.com/id/2222096/pagenum/all/

I guess all the bitchin about torrent and bootlegs losing them money is a crock of BS!!! They are making the S*it out of money!!!

What critics say and what audiences pay to watch rarely correlate. Transformers 2 was the most panned movie with teh critics yet the numbers speak for themselves (I for one HATED the first one and didn't watch the second). YET audiences paid big $$$ for it. What does that say about critics, what a culture watches and are movie critics the most overpaid worthless jobs ever?

Uh, it just says there's no connection between movie reviews/criticism and box office popularity. So what? That in itself doesn't mean movie critics are overpaid or worthless.

Believe it or not, there is a world outside of the US...

The figures in this article are just "domestic" and make up only about 1-third of their total worldwide takings.

HP6 (not even made in the US) comes in first place with $896m and Transformers2 has only a mere $828m.

If you want to report “facts” then can I at least suggest you present the whole picture, not just the narrow US-centric view on things…

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/

All this stuff about record box office takings is absolutely meaningless unless inflation is taken into account. It doesn't mean 2009 has had the most cinema goers or anything so who the hell cares? Tickets go up in price every year, so box office takings will look more on paper but actually aren't more in real terms. Only a child wouldn't know the difference. This year's films have mostly been absolute crud, and there's only more crud to come.

No, it's not meaningless, because at the same time, average movie budgets are hitting all-time highs. This is all a question of sheer money, not attendance. And note that nowhere does the above news story suggest that more people went to movies this summer than in past summers.

I would say the fact that box office numbers and critics reviews have nothing in common ABSOLUTELY makes critics overpaid and worthless.

I'm convinced that critics reviewing movies in a manner in contrast to popular culture is a marketing tactic of it's own. Who doesn't love discussing villains (stupid critics)? Who doesn't say 'I've heard the critics hated this movie so I'm sure it's quite good'? It's reverse psychology. We want to talk about how bad the critics are, we want to see a movie that was panned to see if it's as bad as they say. It's a slick trick.

This also brings me to this point... why aren't there more critics raised to celebrity level that lean towards popular opinion. I'd love to see a review for a scifi or superhero movie that says "New York Times Ricky Santanio says Star Apes is a wild ride that will leave you going bananas!" For once I'd like to see a critic that like similar movies. That way I can avoid ever seeing crap like Babylon A.D. just because I tend to see every scifi/action movie released. I know Ebert will hate these movies. His opinion doesn't tell me whether it's bad even for people who like these types of moives. BAH! I hate critics... and meteorologists, they're paid to be wrong on a daily basis too!

It IS meaningless, Vok, because the whole purpose of doing this is so that studios and news publications can simply generate headlines with tags like "Hollywood's Best Summer Ever!" and other similar crap. It may not directly say it, but the story above certainly strongly implies that this year's films have collectively been the most successful in history, and to the average reader who is not well versed with the workings of the Hollywood BS machine or film business principles, it will come across as exactly that. Of course they dare not say "not accounting for inflation" because that well and truly lets the air out of their tyres (no pun intended). And though you were quick to note that the above article makes no mention of attendance, it also makes no mention of budgets. It's just all bull.

"Summer movie grosses of 2009 are the highest of all time"

That's because the summer movie ticket prices of 2009 are the highest of all time.

Pretty simple math.

There is only one number I am interested in to tell me how successful a movie was, and they never report it.

Ticket Sales.

I want to know how many people went to see a particular movie. Gross $$ will continue to go up based on ticket prices, but the true measure of a movie can only be measured by how many people actually went to see it, not how much they paid for the privelidge.

It costs $12.50 to see a movie in NYC this summer! Of course the movie grosses were the highest ever. And btw, the critics were RIGHT about "The Ugly Truth". OMG, what a hideously unpleasant movie, poorly written, badly directed, and just relentlessly stupid. Forget the money, I want my time back!

"the story above certainly strongly implies that this year's films have collectively been the most successful in history"

... but in terms of sheer dollars, in terms of box office take, yes, indeed they were!

The movie industry is a business whose goal is to make money. Its goal isn't to increase attendance, it's to increase the box office, whatever the means.

One way it's done that on top of sheer attendance is not just through more expensive regular tickets, but through even more expensive premium tickets for Imax and/or 3-D presentations.

And it's working because that allows Hollywood to sell an experience that you can't just download at home on a typical computer.

And while box office has NEVER had any direct relationship with quality, let's be a bit fair to critics and admit where their tastes may intersect with popularity. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince got strong reviews. So did Up (some of the best of the year, in fact). So did The Hangover. So did Star Trek.

And as for some of the others on the list in the article above, let's face it, a lot of them made money simply because they were well-marketed sequels to popular movies. Did audiences truly LOVE the likes of Transformers 2, Ice Age 3, X-Men 4, Night at the Museum 2 and The DaVinci Code 2? Or did they just show up because they trusted in the product, then maybe were a tad disappointed with the results?

@TheVok

But that's just it, box office grosses are NOT an indication of profit. Especially when then cost of making the pictures are inflating right along with the ticket prices.

For example, Nicholas Meyer asserts that the most profitable STAR TREK picture of all time was his TWOK because it was the least expensive to make of all of them.

Abrams' ST is not the most profitable ST of all time even going only by the grosses. It has not and will not best the planetary-wide grosses adjusted for inflation of TMP which launched the film franchise.

If profitability is to be the ultimate arbiter then THE HANGOVER is the best picture of 2009 with its fantastic ROI.

I agree with the majority of posts....

This is an attempt to put a positive spin on the Movie Business, and yet, having not even seen a one of these movies, or any this summer, if I would have chosen to see any in the theater, instead of waiting for DVD and less expensive viewing (Yeah, by the time one factors popcorn, a drink, and the ticket, the DVD is cheaper! - even the deluxe eds), I probably would have only hit 2 of these 10 for the big screen, otherwise I will watch with my large screen, and surround sound later.

What amazes me really is that so many people have $$ to waste on some of these movies in the theater, instead of being patient. - KH

I don't think it's a case of being impatient. It's a case of wanting to go out.

It IS a case of wanting to go out. In the heat & humidity of an east coast summer, sometimes it's a case of spending somebody else's electricity $ on AC instead of mine. In NYC we walk a lot. If there are no lines or if it's so hideously hot you shrug at each other and stop to see what's playing. That's how I got roped in to "The Ugly Truth". And let me tell you everything else was sold out except that one. In spite of being bad that movie has still made money. Here's why: they kept the production costs down, so it only had to make apprx $40mil to recoup. It'll make that much before word gets out how bad it is. The movie looked like crap. They paid 2 actors a lot & nobody else, 1 was Heigl & it was her prod co, so I'm sure she took a lower salary & got points. This is what they do w/a lot of romcoms, comedies, & horror flicks in Hollywood now. They are LOW budget & audiences are used to it. If they don't make money domestically, & many do not, then they know they'll make it up overseas. If they're action or horror & have nudity they'll especially make it up overseas/3rd world market b/c they don't need subtitles to 'translate.' That's why we keep seeing these same bad movies over & over.

TheVok, I think you're struggling to understand the true effect of inflation and its impact on the movie industry. As you said "The movie industry is a business whose goal is to make money. Its goal isn't to increase attendance, it's to increase the box office, whatever the means."

The industry's aim (like any business) is actually to make PROFIT, and this will initially be through box office takings (DVD and television sales factor in later). But the fact is they aren't making more money at the box office in REAL TERMS from other years because the value of a dollar in 2009 is far less than it was 10 years ago, or 20 years ago. It isn't just about the number of tickets sold (although that is part of the equation). You are confusing the numerical amount of a dollar with the real value amount of a dollar.

As an example, "Jaws" (1975) made $260m at the domestic box office. "Star Trek" (2009) made pretty much the same amount. In numerical terms, it would appear that the two films did as well as each other at the domestic box office. But the fact is that Jaws was a far bigger success because $260m in the 1970s would be the equivalent value of around $950m in 2009 dollars. Jaws made more box office money in real terms, had a far higher attendance, and also made a much bigger profit for its studio because it was made for only $7 million (where as Star Trek 2009 cost around $150m and that doesnt take the apparently massive marketing and distribution costs into account). Therefore, Jaws is infinitely more successful in real terms.

Furthermore, as the Jaws example illustrates, profit margins at the box office will be less due to the massive production and marketing budgets spent on films in modern times. So in reality, 2009 has not been Hollywood's most successful year at all. DVD sales will add to profits, but this article isn't about DVD sales, its just about box office takings. The claim that 2009 was Hollywood's most successful year ever is just hype, pure and simple.