The Hot Blog

His numbers may be adjusted for inflation, as the paragraph previous to line you quoted suggests. I would be more gracious in my error-correcting in the future, if I were you.

That should read, "error-correcting", in quotes, suggesting sarcasm. :p

It's an oft told story. He/they probably didn't even check the numbers. I wrote last year about a review of Lakeview Terrace in Variety that basically said that the film would have 'so so box office like Changing Lanes, instead of boffo numbers like Crash'. Both films had nearly identical domestic and international grosses.

They just don't check the numbers because it wouldn't fit into their narrative of choice. Like how somehow Indiana Jones 4 was an underperformer while Iron Man was a smash... even though they made almost identical domestic numbers while Indy crushed Iron Man overseas.

Oh, and Mystery... the bit about inflation is a completely new sentence after the box office numbers. At purely face value, the article reads that the numbers were the worst ever AND inflation made those numbers look bigger than they are.

His numbers may be adjusted for inflation, as the paragraph previous to line you quoted suggests.

Adjusting via the CPI shows that Ratatouille and WALL-E are Pixar's third- and sixth-highest grossers, respectively. Toy Story, Cars and A Bug's Life are well behind both.

Scott- You're making the same mistake that DP made. In the second half of THE SAME SENTENCE that DP quoted, Brooks sets Ratatouille's domestic take at $216 million. But its unadjusted take is $206 million. Brooks is still using inflation-adjusted numbers in the paragraph in question.

The mistake is still David's.

Bob- Brooks was using Box Office Mojo. I don't have access to that site's full inflation-adjusted list, but I can tell you that Ratatouille is NOT in the top 3 of Pixar's inflation-adjusted domestic grossers.

Finding Nemo: $404
Toy Story 2: $343
Monsters Inc: $323

They didn't mention Cars because Cars is just the sort of conventional, paint by numbers cartoon that the article implies that Pixar should make more of. It's (completely relative) box office under performance kills that theory.

I agree with mysteryperfecta. And I'll also note that it's nice to see SOMEONE in the press using inflation-adjusted numbers, even if they are just doing it to prove a point.

Including merchandise, still selling to this day, Cars may be Pixar's most profitable single film. That may argue for more films like Cars from a purely financial perspective but Pixar does what it wants creatively and has made Disney enough money to have earned that right.

Glad Poland noted the concern trolling was similar to last year with Wall-E. That was my first reaction when I saw the article.

Who knows how well Up will do but they got a real weekend to launch compared to the last couple of films.

Simply anecdotal evidence based on the families I know with kids, but the Incredibles and Cars are by far the favorites with the younger sets.

I understand the urge to adjust for ticket price inflation and I am certainly not an economics expert but wouldn't certain rules of supply and demand cancel out the use of adjusted numbers. If more people bought tickets for Toy Story at a price of $6 than bought tickets for Wall-E at a price of $9, couldn't you make the case that demand was suppresed against Wall-e due to the higher ticket price. If Pizza Place A sells a large for $10 bucks and Place B sells it for $15 isn't Place B more successful if they make more money even if they don't sell as many pizzas?

As long as ticket-price inflation is on par with general inflation in the rest of the economy, it's a wash. If ticket-price inflation was steeper, then you'd have a case to make (I have no idea which is correct).

Adjusting for inflation when it comes to box office is so problematic that it's probably best to just avoid it.

Srsly, movies cost more and make less all the time, it's an always changing marketplace.

Bob- Brooks was using Box Office Mojo. I don't have access to that site's full inflation-adjusted list, but I can tell you that Ratatouille is NOT in the top 3 of Pixar's inflation-adjusted domestic grossers.

I'm using worldwide grosses. As was David. Who gives a shit about domestic?

I'm curious if there have ever been any figures released that talk about the merchandising for various Pixar films. I have a feeling that Ratatouille would be near or at the bottom of such a list. Not that it matters; I would just be curious.

I'm using worldwide grosses. As was David. Who gives a shit about domestic?

Brooks was focusing on domestic (not all that unusual). He was also using inflation-adjusted numbers. In that context, Brooks may very well be correct in stating that Wall-E and Ratatouille are the studio's two worst performers. If you believe that focusing on domestic only is tenuous, then make that argument. But if we're just looking at "the facts", then make sure you're making an apples-to-apples comparison. DP's list, if adjusted for inflation, would look very different.

Adjusting Dave's numbers for inflation by using the Box Office Mojo equation (which I had to do myself, so now my head it does hurt), the revised worldwide grosses organize the list (approximately) thusly:

1. Finding Nemo (1 billion)
2. The Incredibles (730 million)
3. Toy Story 2 (685.5 million)
4. Monsters Inc. (666.5 million)
5. Ratatouille (648.5 million)
6. Toy Story (597.5 million)
7. A Bug's Life (556.3 million)
8. Wall-E (534.8 million)
9. Cars (506.4 million)

Not quite sure if the Box Office Mojo indexing works with worldwide grosses or not, considering all of the variables in calculating the average ticket price in dozens of countries, then converting that to US dollars. But what the hey, there it is for what it's worth.

The domestic numbers adjusted for inflation by using Box Office Mojo's "science", creates an approimated list like this:

1. Finding Nemo (404.5 million)
2. Toy Story 2 (347.5 million)
3. Monsters Inc (324.6 million)
4. Toy Story (316.6 million)
5. The Incredibles (302.2 million)
6. Cars (267.6 million)
7. A Bug's Life (249.2 million)
8. Wall-E (223.8 million)
9. Ratatouille (215.4 million)

Could somebody please double check my math because I'll will be DAMNED if I'm going through that again...

I'm not sure what's dumber, using domestic-only to judge a movie's success, or venturing into the "inflation" box office territory, which is almost always a misleading stat. Worldwide numbers, not counting inflation, are the fairest estimate of a film's success in the last 2 decades. As someone said above, this article is using fictional stats to promote a false narrative.

"Worldwide numbers, not counting inflation, are the fairest estimate of a film's success in the last 2 decades."

I agree with the worldwide numbers part. Only looking at domestic numbers for something produced for using the entire global marketplace is like Nielsen only counting American TV viewers from Los Angeles and New York.

But how do you compare the numbers for films 20 years apart without any kind of adjustment whatsoever?

Hallick, this is also not a great way, but I would suggest that "hit" or "not a hit" could be somewhat fairly determined by "box office rank" as opposed to pure money. Take the actual $$, and balance it out with the film's rank that year. 5th biggest? 8th biggest? 20th biggest? I'd be curious to see all of Pixar's films listed by the rank in box office that year of release. That fits the film within the actual date context without getting into false data like inflation estimates.

Worldwide rankings:

Toy Story (1995): 2nd
A Bug's Life (1998): 5th
Toy Story 2 (1999): 3rd
Monsters Inc. (2001): 3rd
Finding Nemo (2003): 2nd
The Incredibles (2004): 4th
Cars (2006): 6th
Ratatouille (2007): 6th
Wall-E (2008): 9th

ok since i mentioned it, i'll offer up the list. These are based on Mojo's list of year of release and includes full final totals, so for example a December movie still has as fair a shot as a Jan 1st:

Domestic:

Toy Story - 1st
Nemo - 2nd
Toy Story 2 and Cars - 3rd
Monsters Inc and Bugs Life - 4th
Incredibles and Wall-E - 5th
Rata - 11th

Worldwide:

Nemo and TS1 - 2nd
Monsters Inc and TS2 - 3rd
Incredibles - 4th
Bugs Life - 5
Cars and Rata - 6
Wall-E - 9

Thanks Jeff, my list is a little easier to follow though. Basically what I take away from this list is that IF there's been a slide, it's been an incredibly MINOR one at best. A modest enough slide that it's an exaggeration to say their films are not performing as well. They're still performing great, all within the top 10 WW their year of release. Very impressive stat that is.

Why do any of you even know what these movies ARE????????????????????????

Fred Durst >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PIXAR.

I bet FRED DURST doesn't watch stupid family movies. Because he's too busy being fucking awesome and banging groupies.

DURST IS YOUR GOD. GET ON YOUR KNEEEEEEEEEES.

Yes worship the director of The Longshots, a PG-rated box office flop starring Ice Cube. He doesn't watch stupid family movies because he's too busy making them.

I find it hilarious that the same guy (when he's not piss-drunk and crying on the internet like a little bitch) who went to see Twilight five times on the opening weekend gets up in arms that "people" know the names of some of the best films of the last ten years.

Irony, thy name is LexG.

"Fred Durst >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PIXAR."

This is the lonliest position you will ever take. Dr. Manhattan went to Mars, but LexG did him one better and went to DURST.

Hallick, you are hilarious.

If you don't make allowances for inflation, you might believe Speed Racer was a bigger hit than Bonnie and Clyde. Or 21 was a bigger hit than Easy Rider.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: