Box office performance / viewing figures: why do we (the audience) care?

Nitefly

Nitefly

Nitefly

Man of Honour
Joined
24 Sep 2005
Posts
36,044
Good morning fellow forumites.

Something that is coming up all the time in threads, more so than ever before, are comments re: the box office performance or viewership of various films / shows.

I think these things do indicate the face value appeal of the media as a ‘sellable product’ compared to other such products made available at the same time… but, that’s about it? From my perspective:

- box office ratings / viewership has little baring on how enjoyable I find a film. I don’t find a film more enjoyable because someone else liked it and vice-versa.

- whether I find a film enjoyable or not is THE most important thing about a film.

- a lot of face value appeal (sales) doesn’t mean the product is ‘good / great’ either.

So I just don’t really care how well a film does or doesn’t do… nor do I feel that box office performance indicates anything other than face value appeal.

As an aside, the amount of box office takings that are being banded around (on this forum) as the point of a film being profitable are so high that only a tiny sliver of the total number films would ever make a profit. I doubt that these massive investments are quite so speculative… but at the same time it’s clear that some studios HAVE made poor investment decisions and will need to recalibrate their spending towards the appeal of their films.

I suppose observing this info is interesting for speculating on the direction of the industry, but that’s about it from my perspective.

What’s your view on it? Do you care about viewership / performance?
 
Last edited:
With regard to box office performance, no. In fact probably the opposite. Films that tend to "do well" are often appealing to the masses to bring in profit. These types of films can be made with compromises to appeal to said masses. I.e. more inclusive/diverse casting just as one example.

I couldn't care less how well a film does at box office because it's such an old measure largely irrelevant in 2024. People prefer to consume content when it becomes available on stream services and not at "box office" with hooded teens kicking you in the back, chatting, on phones and throwing pop corn.
 
Last edited:
I've never looked at the numbers before for any film. Unless it's hit headlines (like say Avatar breaking records) I wouldn't have a clue. Ask me how much classics like Alien or Die Hard made and I wouldn't even be able to make an educated guess. It's become a big discussion point on here because people use it to try and spread their agenda, simple.
 
The way I see it:

The audience is now sometimes told that if they do not like something, then they are the problem (this has happened in Marvel and Disney stuff IIRC). Certain people do not agree, and find pleasure in then seeing that project fail and flounder.

It's just a confirmation bias thing.
 
Largely because certain franchises have taken a massive **** on the fanbases of said franchises, so when they fail (and fail they do 99% of the time) its amusing to highlight how they arent as remotely profitable as previous iterations.
 
Ostensibly because if a movie has made money at the box office, that is an indicater than it's been successful with audiences and if it's a director you think has potential, that means they are more likely to get other films made or if it's a film you particularly enjoyed, perhaps a sequel is also likely.

But people also like to use it to bash films or series that they hate on of course.

An example: Dune 2 is about to hit $600 million at the global box office, most people would probably say that's quite a big success as it's 3x it's budget.

In other threads for movies that are hated on, those same people might argue it's a box office bomb.
 
Last edited:
I tend to avoid films that win awards. As they are usually not my thing.

What I go for is reviews by real people.

These tend to be people who want to see that film. They aren't a critic who loves romance films reviewing a sci-fi or animation.

Someone who goes to see event horizon lives sci-fi horror. If they like it. Their opinion carries merit
 
VincentHanna said:
Ostensibly because if a movie has made money at the box office, that is an indicater than it's been successful with audiences
Click to expand...

I know what you mean but success here just means ‘people have bought tickets’… it has no real bearing on quality.

The Minions films and the Secret Life of Pets, for example, both did very well at the box office yet are really quite average at best (if you’re being generous).

… then again, Rise of Gru has a frankly insane rotten tomatos audience score of 89%! I think there was a social media thing to do with this film that might have escalated enjoyment? I thought it was shockingly bad. I generally fail to resonate with anything that studio puts out… it’s always so ‘empty’, even if entertaining in the moment. But perhaps I’m in the minority.
 
Last edited:
Why do we track numbers on anything?

It's an obvious data point for companies to determine how successful or well something is selling.
 
Semple said:
Why do we track numbers on anything?

It's an obvious data point for companies to determine how successful or well something is selling.
Click to expand...

Yes - the commercial reasons are obvious. The thread is asking why we, the audience (specifically OcUK members) care.
 
I tend to ignore those figures, they are usually out of context. There are often headlines such as X film has broken box office records, ignoring inflation etc.

One exception would be when a film like Dredd doesn't do well at the box office, still pains me that it didn't get a sequel.
 
Stumble Bum said:
Do we care? Sounds like you're overemphasising something as though it's a fact when I imagine most people couldn't care less.
Click to expand...
I think there's enough evidence in many threads that posters do care, though predominantly when it's a movie they have hated-on for ages and it's underperforming.

I've certainly mentioned box office a few times.
 
Last edited:
It only really matters if you enjoy a movie that's been created and you actually want a sequel or trilogy to happen, if the movie bombs that might be it for the franchise.

I loved Tron Legacy for example (the cgi effects and soundtrack more than the actual story itself) but because it barely broke even at the box office. A sequel wasn't green lit and it's taken 15-16 years for a follow up movie to reach the pre production stages.
 
Last edited:
Personality+ said:
It only really matters if you enjoy a movie that's been created and you actually want a sequel or trilogy to happen, if the movie bombs that might be it for the franchise.

I loved Tron Legacy for example (the cgi effects and soundtrack more than the actual story itself) but because it barely broke even at the box office. A sequel wasn't green lit and it's taken 15-16 years for a follow up movie go reach the pre production stages.
Click to expand...
It also took 28 years to get that sequel :D
 
Nitefly said:
It comes up a lot on the forums hence the thread title and the OP ending on a question.
Click to expand...

I think its the increased ease of getting the info, mixed with an increased popularity of using the BO results as a way to confirm the audience success/failure of a film, which is a move away from review sites as some like RT have been shown to change audience results they felt were overly negative (review bombing - everything is 1/5) yet never when something is overly positive (review building - everything is 5/5) etc which leads to a kind of "gatekeeping", which is kind of understandable for a website which needs positive interaction for advertisers to be happy.

In the end however, BO takings don't make a film "good or bad" to an individual, we all have different tastes, but as a measuring tool for overall audience enjoyment its a very good yard stick which removes gatekeeping bias.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom