Yeah, and the whole system is archaic anyway. Hollywood still uses the yardstick of theatrical sales as a determination of whether a movie is a success or not. That worked in the 1930s through the 1970s but now that movie rentals, pretty cheap DVDs for sale, and streaming provide alternate means of seeing the movie, the old Hollywood system is just outdated. There’s plenty of great movies that appeared to be a bit of a dud opening weekend, theater attendance was just alright, and the movie really took off and made its money on video.
“There’s plenty of great movies that appeared to be a bit of a dud opening weekend, theater attendance was just alright, and the movie really took off and made its money on video.”
The film only cost $45 million to make. They are well on their way to make a profit.
There is much more more money to be made in streaming, video rentals, overseas release and merchandising.
It’s ironic, or at least a stilted “box office standard” when music “sales” are now tracked by free streams (for artists who don’t even have digital downloads or physical albums for sale).
The numbers of “sales” are inflated because those who listen to an album again and again online count as continued sales but if you buy the album that only counts once no matter how often you listen to the album. Additionally all used LPs and CDs you listen to do not count towards those “repeated listenings” as well.
So Drake and Ed Sheeran are considered to be far bigger “sellers” than the Beatles or Elvis ever were. Not buying it.
If “box office” for movies were ticking up those online streams (from all services, not just itunes, hulu, and amazon prime) numbers would grow (and not just for current release movies).
Back in the day top vhs rentals were tracked but I don’t think those numbers are tabulated anymore and they certainly never counted as “sales”.
So all charts are weird.