digg

Join DiggAbout

Interactive Graph of Box Office Returns for the past 20 yrs

nytimes.com — The Ebb and Flow of Movies: Box Office Receipts 1986 - 2007

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Plughie, on 02/25/2008, -5/+147This has to be one of the most intuitive data visualizations I've seen in a long time.
    • ThrasherC, on 02/25/2008, -1/+25It would be a lot more intuitive if I could zoom out to see more than 8 months. I would love to see the larger trends to determine whether my opinion that movies suck much more than they used to is supported by this graph.
    • over900000, on 02/25/2008, -1/+21At first I thought it was intuitive as well. And then I realised that the height of the peak relative to a baseline was not the actual measure of box office sales. it's more the width of the thing at the particular point. A bit more tricky to compare.
      • JMSantos, on 02/25/2008, -3/+1Not entirely sure why you are being dugg up as you are wrong.

        The legend clearly states the height = weekly box office revenue.
        • jmpeagle, on 02/26/2008, -0/+3your interpretation is wrong....it is the height above the previous movie...notice how the lord of the rings movies are not as high as Cheaper by the Dozen for example
    • pinstripewizard, on 02/26/2008, -0/+8...that looks like a hundred vaginas.
      • YoctoYotta, on 02/26/2008, -0/+4I almost dug you down, that's clearly thousands of vaginas.
      • Denneval, on 02/26/2008, -0/+3Vaginae.
      • robotosaurus, on 02/26/2008, -0/+1And for some reason, it all reminds me of Tubgirl.
      • shadeOfGrey, on 02/26/2008, -0/+1it's... it's beautiful.
    • sitric, on 02/26/2008, -0/+3I disagree... it has a lot of usability issues.
    • cordellray, on 02/26/2008, -0/+1is there any rhyme or reason to whether a film is on top or bottom? and why isn't the graph centered so that it is always as high as it is low in any given point? (ie. look at Titanic, it goes off the bottom of the chart while there is plenty of room on the top half)
  • lukeydukey, on 02/25/2008, -4/+268Losing money to piracy my ass.
    • apc3161, on 02/25/2008, -24/+6I'm not saying anything. All I'm saying is that those numbers don't seem to be adjusted for inflation. $1 today is equal to roughly $0.54 1986 dollars. I would like to see the analysis with inflation taken into account.
      • exronin, on 02/25/2008, -12/+1That was my first thought as well.
      • shark72, on 02/25/2008, -0/+35The page states "Here's a look at how movies have fared at the box office, after adjusting for inflation."
        • apc3161, on 02/25/2008, -0/+11If I could digg myself down I would do so. Thanks.
        • XdigitalXdeathX, on 02/26/2008, -1/+4Don't forget about a population increase which would automatically seem to keep the sales going up.

      • deose, on 02/26/2008, -0/+1I wouldn't.
    • battletrax, on 02/25/2008, -10/+2Gamer's are smarter than movie goers.
    • Pritchard, on 02/25/2008, -2/+1Losing money due to movies sucking. Makes you wonder if Disney was a stronghold against corruption. Once they began to fall, did the rest of the industry follow?
      • withincontext, on 02/26/2008, -0/+1Haha, a stronghold against corruption? Short answer: no.
    • pe5t1lence, on 02/26/2008, -1/+6Loosing money to overpaid actors and CGI special effects artists.
    • MedHead, on 02/26/2008, -2/+1If a person watches a movie without paying for it, it's considered lost revenue.
      • Andyschism, on 02/26/2008, -0/+1I'm glad that makes sense . . . . .
    • david76, on 02/26/2008, -0/+1Unfortunately, this data is all about box office sales, i.e. gross income. It says nothing about the profitability of the industry or net revenue. That said, DVD sales and rentals are not reflected in the data, so there is a substantial amount of income missing.
  • kitaljevich, on 02/25/2008, -1/+72Wow, Titanic is off the chart.
    • EvanWindsor, on 02/25/2008, -1/+10*Titanic, aided by James Bond, Scream 2, and others. The total height is the sum of revenue for the week. Each individual movie's revenue is simply in it's little section. Titanic itself doesn't begin until halfway down. That's a lot, but not off-the-chart-all-on-it's-own a lot.
    • SuperWinner, on 02/25/2008, -2/+21Am I the only non-gay male who thought titanic was actually pretty good? The one scene where all the people were running up the side of the sinking ship was worth the price of admission alone I thought. I've never seen a shot like that in any movie, ever, that was 100% not computer generated...
      • Railz, on 02/25/2008, -3/+5Thats like saying Pearl Harbor was a good movie for the 10 minutes of action it had. Good effects, bad movie.

        That said, I somewhat enjoyed Titanic. Its model is overused though today.
      • xlar54, on 02/26/2008, -0/+5I thought it was great. In fact, it brings a good point. Theres no way in hell Titanic became such a success without people buying tickets to see it. So often people shun things in public, but privately really like them. Titanic was a fantastic mixture of storytelling against a historical backdrop. I remember the first time I saw it, and when they hit the iceberg, I couldnt believe it - for a moment I *actually forgot this was a movie about a sinking ship*. The music was incredible and couldnt have been matched up better with the visuals. Nay sayers are just closet fans taking too much testosterone pills. Titanic was an incredibly well done film, and it will be quite awhile before anything outdoes it.
        • robocop1, on 02/26/2008, -0/+2"Titanic was an incredibly well done film, and it will be quite awhile before anything outdoes it."
          Ever seen an Uwe Boll movie?? Every single one is a masterpiece!
      • Nougat, on 02/26/2008, -0/+1It would have been twice as good without the schlocky treacle love story.
      • rurounikengyrl, on 02/26/2008, -0/+1although i'm sad it bumped Star Wars from the number 1 spot, i do consider Titanic a pretty good movie too.
    • battletrax, on 02/25/2008, -0/+11National treasure sold that well in box offices? Didn't see that one coming.
      • timothycrash01, on 02/26/2008, -1/+3Like EvanWindsor said above - that's decieving. The graph shows all films playing at once stacked on top of each other - combined (vertically). Opening weekends in particular look massive when stacked on top of each other. Eg: It looks like National Treasure is huge - but it's stacked on top of 8 other films - 1 of which is an also well performing I Am Legend.
  • redjuly, on 02/25/2008, -1/+24Beautiful work by the NYT. I must agree with Plughie...amazing visualization!
  • SHv2, on 02/25/2008, -14/+1Should easily prove that the moves as of late have pretty much sucked in comparison to older times. Piracy isn't the problem, sucky movies is.
  • YahtzeeG, on 02/25/2008, -1/+118the graph is cooler than the information it gives.
  • rudy23, on 02/25/2008, -4/+82wtf. national Treasure book of secrets was a top earner?
    • Jaliyl, on 02/25/2008, -22/+4Heres a good indication why.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0
    • impei, on 02/25/2008, -1/+4No, it just happened to be the top earner during the biggest box office month of the year.
    • studdenfadden, on 02/25/2008, -0/+3No, the height of the peaks shows the opening week or so's income for ALL films that week. The COLOUR shows the individual film's TOTAL gross. In the same month Alvin and the chipmunks, and Juno made similar amounts as NT and I am legend made more. I am legend started slower but had more staying power, hence the smaller but wider peak and the higher gross.
    • chilipeppers4u, on 02/26/2008, -0/+2Yeah, but it dropped off pretty quickly. Most of the better movies seem to have a second "bump" from what I'm guessing is word of mouth (e.g. I am Legend)
  • PocketWatch, on 02/25/2008, -13/+1Wow, I totally forgot there weren't any good movies in the 80's...

    *prepares to get dugg down*
  • caffiend, on 02/25/2008, -1/+32WTF? "Cheaper By The Dozen" sold that many tickets?
    • EvanWindsor, on 02/25/2008, -0/+2Yea I agree. although it may have been supplemented by other movies, because the height is actually determined by the weekly revenue; the total height is not just one movie.
    • tw0bit, on 02/26/2008, -0/+1I think people are reading this graph wrong...the height is the sum of all movies at that point, not that movie
    • yunus, on 02/26/2008, -0/+2This chart while some say it looks cool is not useful to view an individual movies sales. It is only useful at viewing the Aggregate (total) movie sales for a given time period then explaining what was selling during that time period.
  • elliotys, on 02/25/2008, -0/+26Y'arrgh!! Raise the sails, and load the cannons, theres plenty of treasure for all!!!
  • lukemandese, on 02/25/2008, -0/+6It hurts my eyes
  • guywhodoesstuff, on 02/25/2008, -1/+23I never thought I'd say this but...

    This is an awesome chart.
    • EvanWindsor, on 02/25/2008, -2/+6At what point did you "never think you'd say that?" The chart was awesome from the beginning....
      • pe5t1lence, on 02/26/2008, -0/+2I think he meant he never thought he would say This is an awesome chart" (diagram, dataset, etc.) in his life, not just after first glancing at the chart.
  • diggerphelps, on 02/25/2008, -3/+9Godfather III made more money than Goodfellas?
    • SwedishNinja, on 02/25/2008, -1/+4That's what I noticed. No one saw Goodfellas but it's excellent :)
    • SuperWinner, on 02/25/2008, -0/+5I think 'Departed' was Scorsese's first movie to actually break $100million at the box office. Astounding if you consider that he created about 7 out the 8 greatest movies made in the last 20 years, in my opinion.
  • ThePerkins, on 02/25/2008, -6/+11I made one of those graphs once after a night of heavy drinking.
    • pe5t1lence, on 02/26/2008, -2/+2Ewww
    • robotosaurus, on 02/26/2008, -0/+1I made one of those graphs, took a photo, titled it Tubgirl.
  • EvanWindsor, on 02/25/2008, -0/+5Wow just watch it expand vertically as you go from the mid 80s to now
  • burgerboy06, on 02/25/2008, -9/+51NATIONAL TREASURE WTF?
    Anyone else think that's ***** CRAZY!?
  • protodon, on 02/25/2008, -8/+9Ugh...National Treasure...
  • hollywoodphony, on 02/25/2008, -3/+7Ooh, pretty colors! What is that? A chart or something?
    • theHM, on 02/26/2008, -0/+1No. It's a small off-duty Czechoslovakian traffic warden.
  • loopist, on 02/25/2008, -4/+7It really looks recent movies go off the chart quiker...Rush to DVD?

    I have to say this is an amazing piece of graphing, but let me be a 10year old for a second....doesn't it also look like a really marbley turd? Hehehe.
    • matt.rubin, on 02/26/2008, -0/+2No stadium Seating in theaters is my guess. They can put more people in a theater allowing more people to see a showing faster.
  • digg4rob, on 02/25/2008, -1/+3Who wouldn't want to get paid to come up with charts like this!
  • postalblowfish7, on 02/25/2008, -0/+7oOOOOoooo it's... INTERACTIVE!!!
  • sevenora, on 02/25/2008, -0/+5check out "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" one of the more interesting entries
  • wedges, on 02/25/2008, -2/+17two questions. 1) is there a name for this type of graph? 2) how the hell did National Treasure 2 make that much money?!
  • mrmulan, on 02/25/2008, -1/+6Crocodile Dundee has the longest tail. (Even longer than Titanic).
    MBFGW has a huge build in the middle. It might be even longer than Crocodile Dundee.
    I would have thought Pulp Fiction would have started of skinny then gotten fatter. I remember it playing at the Angelika Film Center in NY a while before it hit the major theaters.
    Why would Top Gun have such a long tail?
    • SuperHyperKid, on 02/25/2008, -1/+7Because Top Gun was amazing?
    • marktastic, on 02/25/2008, -0/+1Mysteries of Egypt looks like it is WAY longer than anything on there.
    • dnachoh, on 02/26/2008, -0/+2Check out Jurassic Park. Not as long as Egypt but for a traditional release, ricockulous.
  • devereaux, on 02/25/2008, -0/+6Home Alone, Forrest Gump, and Titanic probably had the longest successful runs of all the movies on this graph. I remember Home Alone being in the theatres for like eight months because it was so successful.

    The success of "Cheaper by the Dozen" really surprised me.
    • xlar54, on 02/26/2008, -3/+1I didnt care for Forrest Gump at all. It was just fine until he started running and coming up with "***** happens" and stuff like that... then it went from semi interesting to ***** retarded. I have no clue why its considered a great film. Also, Independence Day.... that movie was dumb too. Yeah, the President is going to fly a jet plane to attack aliens...sure...
  • ashuttleworth, on 02/25/2008, -0/+3Wow. Can anyone say "Visual Display of Quantitative Information"? Great work, NYT.
  • lenzz, on 02/25/2008, -0/+2It is funny how since '86 movies have made significantly more money, yet the average crew member makes less now than in ’86 (adjusted for inflation). Oh and the benefits they get are worse now as well. Not to mention this lovely chart just shows box office receipts not DVD, TV, Cable and Web.
    • Gizza, on 02/26/2008, -0/+1Yeah, quite amazing especially considering how they lose 90% of their sales to piracy now days too, imagine how much money they could be making.
  • gmm4life, on 02/25/2008, -0/+6Meet The Spartans did as well as Rambo? WTF?!
  • Todash19, on 02/25/2008, -2/+17Dugg. Amazed by the graph, Disgusted by the data.
  • PxCxG, on 02/25/2008, -1/+5This should be done in terms of number of tickets to be more accurate, because movie tickets have risen at rates higher than inflation. Also, international sales are probably more significant in later years, so maybe only domestic should be included.
    • theHM, on 02/26/2008, -0/+1"The area of the shape (and its color) corresponds to the film's total domestic gross, through Feb. 21" - FTA
  • Wildog27, on 02/25/2008, -1/+4This is fine and all for receipts, but it doesn't show the # of tickets sold or the average price per ticket which would be much more informative. All this show is that movies later made more money on average than the ones before. No *****.
  • danbedford, on 02/25/2008, -0/+4anyone else find that chart either disgustingly gross or strangely delicious? it's either the trail left behind a big brown slug, or someone spilled a bucket of dulce de leche pudding. awesome chart none the less ; )
  • etx313, on 02/25/2008, -4/+3Looks like they are doing just fine. ***** the MPAA.
  • TeraRealm256, on 02/25/2008, -0/+2The rollovers are more fun than using the data it gives you! I just spent 5 minutes playing with it...what fun!
  • ieatsmurfs, on 02/25/2008, -0/+10The longevity of Jurassic Park is pretty crazy.
    • chris8535, on 02/26/2008, -0/+2I remember waiting forever for that to come out on video
      • MScrip, on 02/26/2008, -0/+2And even longer on DVD. I think I finally got JP on DVD in 2000. They waited very long for the DVD release... and I couldn't wait!
        • robotosaurus, on 02/26/2008, -0/+1I remember when the Internet was made of wood.
  • scitz0frenic, on 02/25/2008, -1/+5The hardest part of this graph to believe is that it came from the NY times
  • candafilm, on 02/25/2008, -1/+7Box office goes up while quality goes down.
  • dyreschlock, on 02/25/2008, -0/+5Forest Gump has a lot of legs too.. Same with Saving Private Ryan
  • exronin, on 02/25/2008, -0/+6wtf.. National Treasure 2 did 4 times better than American Gangster
    • tdogg241, on 02/25/2008, -0/+2National Treasure 2 was a family-friendly action movie (also a sequel). American Gangster was an R-rated crime drama. Not really fair to compare the two of them.
  • surian, on 02/25/2008, -1/+5This graph depresses me... Soooo many ***** movies doing so well and soooo many good movies that get no notice at all. I'm gonna go eat peanut butter until I feel whole again.
  • Catbus, on 02/25/2008, -1/+2The only gem: House Party 2
    • robotosaurus, on 02/26/2008, -0/+1The only gem: Blood Diamond

      /oh god what have I just done
  • imperial10, on 02/25/2008, -0/+2Either we have better movies now or we have nothing better to do..... Wow at Crocodile Dundee's longevity... We were really interested in if that was a "Knife"
  • HydrogenOxide, on 02/25/2008, -0/+3I'd be more impressed if someone did the same thing with pirated movies
  • footfwd, on 02/25/2008, -0/+3mmm pudding.
  • badave, on 02/25/2008, -0/+1You'd think they'd figure out to take advantage of the lull in March and April.
  • hokkos, on 02/25/2008, -0/+2Same king of graph for last.fm : http://www.lastfm.fr/group/Stats/journal?action=di ...
  • hoguech, on 02/25/2008, -0/+1Anyone else notice that people seem to go to the movies a lot more when the economy sucks?
    • z987k, on 02/26/2008, -0/+1Not really, the economy was in the ***** much more than it is now in the 80s.
  • Abominous, on 02/25/2008, -1/+2Looks like a coral reef.
  • adooga, on 02/25/2008, -1/+3Great graph, crappy movies.
  • aralls, on 02/25/2008, -0/+14Where's Aquaman?!? It had the biggest opening weekend ever - $116M.
    • wdfadude, on 02/26/2008, -0/+6Too bad Pirates 2 and then Spidey 3 beat it in '06 and '07, respectively.

      Vincent Chase rules!
      • aralls, on 02/26/2008, -0/+2Just wait until Aquaman Returns, starring Vinny (of course) and Johnny Drama as Fish Boy!

        Not sure Medellín will have quite the same box office draw.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 79 of 79 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.