Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

talkhead420 t1_j3g0nhv wrote

Cool visualization but I’d recommend changing the text color for decades

309

pigman1402 t1_j3g5m4j wrote

the grey background needs to be a shade or 2 darker maybe - i quite like the white text from an aesthetic viewpoint tbh

black or darker grey text would throw it off

38

Mason11987 t1_j3h8cdu wrote

I don’t get how anyone can share this and not see how obviously bad that is.

12

funnyman4000 t1_j3g23s5 wrote

Who sits there after doing all this work and says white text is a good idea here?

249

orincoro t1_j3h8kfb wrote

Someone with an HDR display. Same problem when you’re mixing music using your expensive studio headphones.

27

Black_Bird00500 t1_j3hfvmd wrote

Actually many expensive music production headphones are specifically designed in a way to give authentic sound and sort of reduce "mean deviation" from intended sound. This is why it's a bad idea to produce music on regular headphones even if they cost a lot, because these headphones are generally designed to optimize the quality of the sound.

12

unseemly_turbidity t1_j3gbzd6 wrote

I think showing an average per year for each decade would have made more sense than a total, otherwise you can't really compare 3 years of the 2020s against 10 years for all the others.

204

debunk_this_12 t1_j3i049k wrote

Non-Robust statistics are very misleading.

25

theplushpairing t1_j3jl9si wrote

Also can we have it adjusted for inflation?

2

Caboose127 t1_j3kjorz wrote

Considering Gone With the Wind is listed as highest grossing, I'm assuming this is already adjusted for inflation.

5

MaiIb0x t1_j3ikvde wrote

While I agree in general, it wouldn’t work so well with this one, since every movie in the year is actually the representive size. That would make the 2020s movies bloated

3

unseemly_turbidity t1_j3inh2v wrote

Yeah, that's true. Really, any kind of area graph just isn't the way to go for this. It just looks prettier than anything sensible like a bar graph or box plot.

3

wimpycarebear t1_j3hke7t wrote

You sure can, it's called data manipulation. Example, if you exclude the attacks on America done 9/11, then localized violence becomes the greatest threat to FBI. Second example, if you exclude the data from energy sectors then inflation is only peeking in single digits not the almost 20% everyone is actually feeling. Data sucks when people don't use it to reflect reality

1

minnesotaris t1_j3ihoz0 wrote

Somehow you deserve downvotes because the same jerks who don’t understand causal inference are those who say you shouldn’t mention any statistic that distracts from 9/11 being NINE…..ELEVEN. I am significant because I say I am.

2

BenUFOs_Mum t1_j3gpho4 wrote

Very confused by the lack of films from the golden era of Hollywood on there. Something must have gone wrong in terms of missing data particularly as we can see many of the highest grossing films of all time are from that era. I can only assume reliable box office data is hard to come by for the regular films of the 30-40s which haven't stood the test of time but certainly grossed over a million in today's money.

The average american was watch more than a film in the cinema a week, and the studio system was pumping out a ridiculous number of films. Gone with the wind alone grossed significantly more than the entire US box office this year.

Edit: looking closely at the database used as a source shows clearly the lack of films from that era. 1930 only has like 6 films for the whole year out of the hundreds that would have been pumped out by the studios at that time. Checking Wikipedia the top ten grossing films from that year all grossed over a million dollars in 1930 money

24

imhereforthevotes t1_j3h0sq6 wrote

>in 1930 money

Interesting. And this chart doesn't even seem to incorporate inflation, right?

31

PapaChoff t1_j3h2uin wrote

Probably the top issue with this. Followed by the 2020s with only 3 years of data and the white text.

16

Cause0 t1_j3h4704 wrote

Yes it does look in the bottom right

3

CrackBingeIdea t1_j3he4kx wrote

That bit does but the rest doesn’t I don’t think. Bit weird to mix adjusted and non adjusted data in one image

3

will_ww t1_j3i3odw wrote

What they mean is other movies adjust for inflation that didn't break the standard $1mil mark in the diagrams. But then it's adjusted in the top 10 numbering.

2

cbarrick t1_j3icizu wrote

> doesn't even seem to incorporate inflation, right?

It measures "adjusted box office gross." I assume "adjusted" means "adjusted for inflation."

2

karma_the_sequel t1_j3l9pb8 wrote

It purports to - see the URL for U.S. inflation in the bottom right corner of the graphic.

Not sure how you would accurately apply U.S. inflation data to worldwide box office numbers...

1

Cmcgregor0928 t1_j3h41fa wrote

My dumbass thought this was a color blind test

16

dranaei t1_j3g45a0 wrote

Why are there white letters on white background????? Why? Why? Why?

15

OGempath t1_j3kndgb wrote

Some people are just psychopaths, they just wanna see the world burn.

1

Crystal_Bearer t1_j3g91sg wrote

I would recommend normalizing it for inflation. Hitting a million in 1950 would have meant a lot more than doing it today. EDIT: It apparently is.

Also, I would suggest changing the text color for the previous decades ;)

8

unseemly_turbidity t1_j3gc336 wrote

It think it is normalised for inflation. It says in tiny text in the corner that it's adjusted to 2023 USD. Could be clearer though.

11

writerightnow18 t1_j3h3763 wrote

Revenue or profit over time is misleading even with inflation adjustments. A $0.15 ticket to see a movie in 1920 is equivalent to $2.23 in 2022.

In 2022 numbers a 1920 film would have sold 6,666,667 tickets to reach $1M and a film in 2022 would need to sell only 90,909 tickets at $11 each (ticket price average www.indiewire.com) to reach $1M.

Do a chart based on tickets sold in order to show a film’s true popularity with the public.

… And don’t use white text on light grey.

8

OG-Pine t1_j3hifnr wrote

But then what about revenue generated through other means like streaming and such, or is that not included anyway?

1

pleasedontharassme t1_j3hjxnf wrote

I don’t think streaming was as big of a revenue generator before the 60s

2

OG-Pine t1_j3n3ult wrote

Yeah but if in the 60s you sold 1m tickets then that’s all your revenue basically, but today you might 500k tickets and also get 5m+ streaming views from people at home.

1

jradio610 t1_j3hswnc wrote

You’d have to normalize tickets sold with population and even then it wouldn’t be a fair comparison due to disparities in accessibility. Going to the theater to see Gone With the Wind was a much different and more prestigious experience than going to see Endgame.

1

a3rospacefanboi t1_j3h3pwo wrote

Don't forget to adjust for inflation! Because 1 million dollars nowadays is worth less than 50 years ago

5

Aromatic-Teach-4122 t1_j3ggdcm wrote

Is this inflation adjusted. If not, it doesn’t mean much

4

jakubkonecki t1_j3gj6uw wrote

It is, fortunately. There is a link to inflation data in the bottom, right-hand corner and a word "adjusted".

11

omarhm7777 t1_j3gi692 wrote

White Text is beautiful always has been, but you can't use it on top of a similar in-colour background, because it will make it harder to read and hard for the eyes. so at least use a stroke on it next time.

3

CroskeyCards t1_j3ik3l2 wrote

One of the best visual representations I’ve seen

3

zorionek0 t1_j3h7fp7 wrote

I hope you hid a Waldo in here.

2

calguy1955 t1_j3ha2b9 wrote

Even with the chart at the bottom showing box office gross adjusted for inflation the circles are misleading. It would be more interesting to see a chart comparing what the actual theater attendance was by decade. It could further be refined by showing the attendance ratio compared to total population.

2

will_ww t1_j3i5dz3 wrote

Don't they adjust for inflation with movies differently than they would an actual amount? I thought they used ticket sales vs price of today's average ticket price to calculate it?

2

Navyguy73 t1_j3ibmob wrote

Here's a fun game. Which movie do you notice first when you zoom-click the center of the 2000s circle? My first was 'Signs.'

2

MeanGreanHare t1_j3jjyja wrote

I predict that the 2020s circle will be bigger than the 90s by mid-2024 at the latest, but will ultimately end up smaller than either the 00s or 10s.

2

Single_Astronaut_198 t1_j3ktly1 wrote

Seems the critics hit this sub... Jesus, what's the point of anyone even posting if formatting criticism is all ppl pay attention to? Cmon give the OP some damn credit for putting this together.

2

NachosAndMayo t1_j3g68uv wrote

I didn't expect Exorcist to be in that list. Read upon it. A horror film that had gone over the budget, didn't have any major stars but went on to become highest grossing film for Warners even though they released only in 24 theatres at the beginning. Went to become the first horror film to be nominated for Academy awards for best picture. People flocked to the theatre in winter - many more than once. Some vomiting and fainting. Some supposedly had heart attacks and miscarriages too.

1

Albertsongman t1_j3gmkjs wrote

Adjusted for inflation list would be nice to see.

1

mudcrabperson t1_j3gw5va wrote

One of them really does not deserve the top 10 place.

Yeah, I said it! Fuck you, Bambi!

1

Scorpions99 t1_j3gxyuo wrote

How did you get all those posters!?

Would love to see this with video games. Maybe together with movies...

How difficult would it be to adjust per capita and global population in meaningful ways? I imagine they'd have to be weighted.

1

Cocopoppyhead t1_j3h3wxx wrote

It shows the currency is losing value at an alarming rate

1

cptnobveus t1_j3hhxm3 wrote

We are only 3 years into the 2020s, too many shitty remakes, comedians afraid to be funny, quantity over quality (shareholders are all that matters), everything is about social issues with a vague story wrapped around it, most of us are broke/going broke, inconsiderate people at the theater. The list could keep going. We just want to be entertained, but not at a high cost for low quality.

1

Ok_Expert3629 t1_j3hizx1 wrote

I mean this should be adjusted for inflation for a more accurate picture

1

duggee315 t1_j3hk8ty wrote

Nice visual, but does create so many questions.

1

misterturdcat t1_j3hn7ru wrote

In conclusion. We make a LOT of movies.

1

JerryConn t1_j3hp1lm wrote

I would think the target audiance for each niche in media is growing exponentually every few years. More people have acess to media now, which is a good thing.

1

gizmosticles t1_j3i9llr wrote

Is the adjusted leaderboard in the lower right.. rounded to the nearest Billion?

1

Justtryme90 t1_j3i9x1q wrote

Inflation adjusted values for the past decades? Or just raw box office #s?

Edit: NM I see it in the bottom right.

1

Dilapidated_Monk t1_j3iaidw wrote

I thought this was a color blindness test when I clicked lmao

1

IdealIdeas t1_j3iioal wrote

Always give black text a white outline, and always give white text a black outline.

Then no matter what color the text is on, it will always remain visible

1

NoFear6061 t1_j3j77un wrote

...I still refuse to believe that “Gone With The Wind” actually made that much goddamn money.

1

ForgottenLumix t1_j3pevt1 wrote

I'm tired of it being in these lists. No movies before the 60s should be in these lists, inflation is irrelevant, it's about the sheer aspect of how movies played in those times, it's widely different to the blockbuster film structure world. Movies stayed in theaters for ungodly amounts of time in those days and saw multiple re-releases as theaters were the only place to watch movies.

Gone with the Wind's initial theatrical run was 4 years longs, and that run made $504m adjusted for inflation, no where NEAR the top. The rest of its billions upon billions of "box office" came from 10 re-releases between 1947 and 1998.

2

OGempath t1_j3kmwz1 wrote

Dang that's a huge drop (Continues to watch Spider Man:into the spider verse on 123movies)

1

Single_Astronaut_198 t1_j3ksh8v wrote

I've been needing this. Going from 2020s back to the 90s and what an awesome illustration of how much effort producers now forgo to make a quick buck. This is why so many people loved "Maverick". Remember how at any given time back in the 90's there was almost always a 5 star movie in theaters? ...And even the second and third rates were good most of the time.

Great movies in all these groups but it does pain me to see the progression of quality into quantity. C'mon 2020s, let's get our act together.

1

jamine3 t1_j3lidxn wrote

gone with the wind stat is absolute fucking cap

1

CharcoalCharts OP t1_j3fzzp3 wrote

Data: https://www.boxofficemojo.com/ + https://www.officialdata.org/us/inflation/

Tools: R

0

[deleted] t1_j3hl4eg wrote

[deleted]

1

Series_G t1_j3gq71d wrote

A simple bar chart would've been more effective. Communicate the info effectively first and then try to make it arty.

0

DeTrotseTuinkabouter t1_j3h1ydk wrote

It would have been more effective, definitely, but sometimes it can be sacrificed a bit for beauty or playfulness. It's a fun visualisation, not a thesis.

1

Series_G t1_j3h4rm5 wrote

So which one is bigger, 2000's or 2010's? Can't tell.

2

nameorfeed t1_j3g6465 wrote

What a way to ruin all your research lmao

0

SamJamsy t1_j3h2sky wrote

Would this suggest that movies are loosing popularity post 2020?

0

-Kaldore- t1_j3h6dp9 wrote

No not really. Watch time is up across most streaming platforms so post 2020 people watch more movies. The drop in recent years is due largely to the fact that pirating has become easier and lots of movies aren’t built for theatres anymore. You see lots of movies built for streaming platforms and not so much theatres.

3

rubseb t1_j3hhd0p wrote

No it suggests that decades take about 10 years to be completed.

3

the_knowing1 t1_j3gcm1h wrote

So basically sometime recently is when they found out how to siphon all the money out. "Oops this blockbuster didn't turn a profit somehow" 🤷‍♂️

−2