I started ranking movies on the internet in February 2011. My first movie subjects were all current actors and actresses and finding box office information was very easy….thank you Box Office Mojo. As I grew an audience for my pages, I started getting requests for older actors. My mother-in-law requested a Clark Gable page. At first I quickly dismissed this request….as I thought nobody would be interested in reading about somebody that passed away over 50 years ago. That was mistake number one! Turns out lots of people are interested in actors and actresses of yesteryear. When I look at my Top 50 most popular pages….26 (or 52%) of them are classic performers!
So when I started researching Mr. Gable’s movie career I quickly discovered box office rentals. Box office rentals are what a movie studio gets back from theaters not the movie’s box office grosses. So since I think I am a pretty smart guy (mistake number two), I gathered up some of my old Variety magazines that listed box office rentals. I created a Excel spreadsheet (mistake number three…the wife says always use Access) that listed the box office rentals from Variety and the actual box office grosses from Box Office Mojo. Overall I found over 1,000 movies that had both rentals and grosses. I did some math and found that on average….box office rentals were 44.18% of box office grosses…or a multiplier of 2.2. The easy formula I came up with was: Box office rentals (times) 2.2 = actual box office gross. The next thing I realized was that with the exception of Gable’s Gone With The Wind, he did not have a movie with a domestic box office gross of over $11 million. So to solve that problem I found out average movie ticket prices from 1912 to 2011. Using ticket prices I was able to give each of Gable’s movies an adjusted box office gross. Calculating adjusted box office grosses turned out to be a great way to compare how an old movie would have performed today (I got that part right!).
So feeling pretty good about my logic…I went to work. Since 2011 I ranked almost 26,000 movies and have written over 300 movie pages on current and classic actors and actresses. My movie pages have been quoted in newspapers, won some awards (3 time Hubbie winner…thank you thank you) and have opened some memorable communication lines with some of the movie subjects I have written about and their families. My pages have been read all over the world with over 5 million views. Basically I have been running around singing Disney songs.
Recently I was researching the careers of Carole Lombard and Claudette Colbert. I almost feel like a treasure hunter…only instead of gold or money…I am searching for box office numbers from the 1930s and 1940s. My searches have taken me to some pretty cool places. During my Lombard and Colbert search…I ended up in Australia of all places….as I found Australia’s Jonathan Derek Silver’s 600 page thesis on the movie business. One of his tables of information showed film rentals as percentage of box office grosses with sources from Film Daily Yearbook and others. On my second viewing of the table I realized that the percentage CHANGED every year…..and that they were not even close to the percentage I used in ALL of my calculations of box office grosses.
So after hitting the iceberg, I sent Thomas Andrews (he built the Titanic) down to assess the damage. The good news is that almost 20,000 of the movies (movies from 1982 to 2016) in our database were shaken and scared but actually in pretty good shape. The bad news? All 5,619 classic adjusted box office grosses are WRONG! When I was getting my multiplier I only used movies from 1980 to 1988 (that was my critical mistake) as the following table shows….the film rentals as percentage of box office grosses was constantly changing….and I picked the time frame that had the highest percentage…which ultimately severely short changed all of the classic movie’s adjusted box office.
The Following Table Shows Just How Wrong I Was
- Column 1 is the amount of tickets a movie sold in that year
- Column 2 is the wrong film rentals as percentage of box office grosses that I used
- Column 3 is the amount of movies in my database for that year
- Column 4 is the old number of movies with an adjusted $100 million or higher gross
- Column 5 is the old number of movies with an adjusted $200 million or higher gross
- Column 6 is the old average adjusted box office gross of all movies for that year
- Column 7 is the new film rentals as percentage of box office grosses that I will use
- Column 8 is the new number of movies with an adjusted $100 million or higher gross
- Column 9 is the new number of movies with an adjusted $200 million or higher gross
- Column 10 is the new average adjusted box office gross of all movies for that year
| Year | Tickets Sold | Old Rental % | Movies | Old $100 mil. Movies | Old AVG Gross | New Rental % | New $100 mil. Movies | New AVG Gross | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1928 | 3.38 billion | 44.18% | 29 | 4 | $53.13 | 30.00% | 5 | $80.65 | |
| 1929 | 4.94 billion | 44.18% | 28 | 5 | $60.00 | 31.30% | 8 | $86.96 | |
| 1930 | 4.68 billion | 44.18% | 28 | 3 | $84.93 | 32.50% | 17 | $118.74 | |
| 1931 | 3.90 billion | 44.18% | 56 | 7 | $69.12 | 33.80% | 21 | $92.55 | |
| 1932 | 3.12 billion | 44.18% | 77 | 12 | $55.31 | 35.00% | 15 | $71.11 | |
| 1933 | 3.12 billion | 44.18% | 87 | 10 | $59.62 | 35.00% | 12 | $76.76 | |
| 1934 | 3.64 billion | 44.18% | 83 | 7 | $60.95 | 35.00% | 15 | $77.46 | |
| 1935 | 3.90 billion | 44.18% | 96 | 10 | $64.98 | 35.00% | 27 | $83.43 | |
| 1936 | 4.57 billion | 44.18% | 96 | 22 | $81.54 | 35.00% | 50 | $122.57 | |
| 1937 | 4.42 billion | 44.18% | 108 | 13 | $67.83 | 25.00% | 56 | $117.37 | |
| 1938 | 4.42 billion | 44.18% | 98 | 16 | $58.44 | 25.00% | 46 | $105.30 | |
| 1939 | 4.42 billion | 44.18% | 120 | 17 | $61.66 | 25.00% | 49 | $104.34 | |
| 1940 | 4.16 billion | 44.18% | 106 | 27 | $77.10 | 35.00% | 39 | $103.55 | |
| 1941 | 4.42 billion | 44.18% | 100 | 31 | $84.00 | 31.00% | 56 | $118.16 | |
| 1942 | 4.42 billion | 44.18% | 163 | 58 | $87.94 | 35.00% | 79 | $113.46 | |
| 1943 | 4.42 billion | 44.18% | 87 | 48 | $115.68 | 35.00% | 61 | $149.97 | |
| 1944 | 4.42 billion | 44.18% | 83 | 40 | $103.21 | 31.00% | 51 | $147.32 | |
| 1945 | 4.68 billion | 44.18% | 75 | 39 | $116.52 | 35.00% | 44 | $149.50 | |
| 1946 | 4.68 billion | 44.18% | 106 | 67 | $141.10 | 35.00% | 74 | $181.15 | |
| 1947 | 4.68 billion | 44.18% | 95 | 46 | $106.11 | 35.00% | 55 | $137.35 | |
| 1948 | 4.68 billion | 44.18% | 96 | 42 | $92.28 | 35.00% | 58 | $119.84 | |
| 1949 | 4.55 billion | 44.18% | 101 | 23 | $72.28 | 36.00% | 41 | $91.02 | |
| 1950 | 3.12 billion | 44.18% | 113 | 18 | $72.73 | 22.50% | 36 | $94.15 | |
| 1951 | 2.80 billion | 44.18% | 108 | 15 | $59.62 | 35.00% | 30 | $77.44 | |
| 1952 | 2.65 billion | 44.18% | 117 | 18 | $58.75 | 36.00% | 30 | $74.05 | |
| 1953 | 2.39 billion | 44.18% | 125 | 17 | $59.97 | 33.00% | 33 | $79.08 | |
| 1954 | 2.54 billion | 44.18% | 95 | 45 | $105.42 | 35.00% | 51 | $136.67 | |
| 1955 | 2.39 billion | 44.18% | 110 | 34 | $90.39 | 35.00% | 45 | $115.71 | |
| 1956 | 2.44 billion | 44.18% | 106 | 24 | $97.73 | 31.00% | 33 | $125.57 | |
| 1957 | 2.34 billion | 44.18% | 108 | 18 | $61.75 | 29.00% | 39 | $94.06 | |
| 1958 | 2.08 billion | 44.18% | 95 | 13 | $59.91 | 27.00% | 36 | $98.82 | |
| 1959 | 2.18 billion | 44.18% | 89 | 22 | $83.08 | 25.00% | 41 | $146.07 | |
| 1960 | 2.08 billion | 44.18% | 82 | 18 | $72.51 | 23.00% | 41 | $137.36 | |
| 1961 | 2.18 billion | 44.18% | 79 | 17 | $76.84 | 24.00% | 33 | $142.46 | |
| 1962 | 2.23 billion | 44.18% | 89 | 13 | $60.49 | 22.00% | 33 | $121.56 | |
| 1963 | 2.28 billion | 44.18% | 87 | 22 | $75.12 | 26.00% | 34 | $119.94 | |
| 1964 | 2.25 billion | 44.18% | 85 | 10 | $63.68 | 25.00% | 28 | $100.82 | |
| 1965 | 2.28 billion | 44.18% | 99 | 15 | $80.69 | 32.00% | 16 | $92.04 | |
| 1966 | 1.97 billion | 44.18% | 87 | 22 | $62.82 | 32.00% | 23 | $69.71 | |
| 1967 | 0.92 billion | 44.18% | 80 | 13 | $75.18 | 32.00% | 15 | $83.46 | |
| 1968 | 0.97 billion | 44.18% | 101 | 13 | $50.91 | 32.00% | 20 | $64.65 | |
| 1969 | 0.91 billion | 44.18% | 93 | 11 | $46.73 | 32.00% | 17 | $65.25 | |
| 1970 | 0.92 billion | 44.18% | 100 | 13 | $51.32 | 27.00% | 20 | $74.89 | |
| 1971 | 0.82 billion | 44.18% | 84 | 6 | $34.70 | 25.00% | 13 | $53.86 | |
| 1972 | 0.93 billion | 44.18% | 84 | 8 | $49.07 | 27.00% | 15 | $74.59 | |
| 1973 | 0.86 billion | 44.18% | 82 | 12 | $66.85 | 26.00% | 16 | $99.42 | |
| 1974 | 1.00 billion | 44.18% | 70 | 17 | $71.05 | 29.00% | 23 | $95.07 | |
| 1975 | 1.03 blllion | 44.18% | 86 | 13 | $66.19 | 30.00% | 24 | $82.98 | |
| 1976 | 0.95 billion | 44.18% | 84 | 16 | $55.98 | 28.00% | 19 | $71.36 | |
| 1977 | 1.12 billion | 44.18% | 85 | 24 | $76.96 | 32.00% | 26 | $83.44 | |
| 2011 | 1.28 billion | 602 | 33 | ||||||
| 2012 | 1.36 billion | 667 | 31 | ||||||
| 2013 | 1.34 billion | 688 | 36 | ||||||
| 2014 | 1.27 billion | 702 | 32 | ||||||
| 2015 1.30 billion | 693 | 29 |
Hey Robert Roy.
1. You are 100% correct about the element of error…..one of our goals is to make our website “dynamic”…so when a stat changes in our database…it will automatically change the stat on all the pages that show that stat…..sadly it appears that is a long way from happening.
2. That means I have to remember all the places a stat is at our pages….which on the good side is almost 400 pages now….but becoming quite the job in keeping update.
3. When I did the John Williams page….he had so many movies on the Box Office Mojo’s Top 200 All-time Adjusted hits….that I decided to get my numbers closer to their numbers…they are still not 100% the same….but in the same neighborhood now…..that has caused many consistency errors throughout our websites.
4. When we decided to use the new formulas listed in this page….we have been slowly updating all the pages…..so some of those consistency errors are the results of looking at updated pages and non updated pages. When we get all the updates done….those errors should become few and far between.
5. The Towering Inferno is ranked in 6 subjects…Astaire, Holden, Williams, Newman, Jones and McQueen…..and they now all have the same exact adjusted box office figure.
6. When we did our Deborah Kerr page….we found a better source for box office….and we forgot to change the Brando page as well….but that has been fixed too.
7. As Superman….the same issue as #5……now Ford, DC vs Marvel, DC, Brando, Hackman and Williams have the same adjusted box office.
Seeing that somebody is actually comparing the numbers on different webpages….has me very motivated to get these updates completed.
Thanks for the visit and the comment.
Bruce, thanks for all of the information you have given. One further inconsistency you might glance at when you have the time. Brando’s Wild One is credited with a lower 1953 chart position than Caesar but with a higher gross.
I spoke to a fellow amateur buff who like me is heavily into grosses and he offered an interesting,albeit hypothetical,l explanation for Box Office Story’s very high figure for The Men.
That film was released in 1950 and as you say registered poorly at the box office. However it was Marlon’s first movie and he was then largely unknown to film audiences, although a stage sensation. However the following year he became an overnight star with Streetcar and it could be that The Men was given a second run on the strength of that. As you know that is often done for movies that pick up Oscars after they are initially released; and it has been mentioned by film historians that in the fifties producers often did not report second-run grosses ( which were in the form of rentals back then) so that in many cases it was possible to identify post release-year grosses via inspection of a film company’s actual ledgers. Within that context it is interesting to note that Box Office Story accredits The Men’s final US 7.1 gross to 1951.
I can’t recall whether I told you that I watched your ‘Rocky’ video with my daughter and she was in stitches! She can’t wait for reports on the gross to come out.
Hey Robert R.
1. I recently found a better source for Julius Caesar (MGM ledger)….that greatly reduced the box office I had originally….I failed to switch it’s yearly ranking….but it is now fixed. The Wild One was actually in theaters in 1954….and I switched it’s ranking from 1953 to 1954…..thanks for the catches.
2. That is possible about The Men being re-released to capitalize on Brando’s fame…however all my records do not show that….and Variety did report on re-release box office numbers when that movie reached at least $1 million in rentals….not seeing The Men show up in Variety or my database….other than it’s first release.
3. I agree it is possible that the producers did not report any second run numbers….but the 7.1 million rentals on the other site would represent one of the biggest hits of all-time….thinking if The Men starting breaking records like that….Variety, Brando’s biographies and history would mention it somewhere.
4. Glad you and your daughter enjoyed our Rocky video….it was a fun day….looking back on it….we should have filmed them running from the top of the stairs versus the bottom of the stairs….going to have to talk to the director about that mistake…lol.
Thanks for stopping by.
Thanks for the courtesy of your reply. It is nice to see someone taking the trouble that you do on behalf of your readers to regularise details about matters from a bygone era.
As whatever The Men’s actual gross it will not make much difference to the overall 5 billion plus accredited to Brando in Ultimate Box Office Rankings. So please do not waste any more of your scarce time considering the issue; and I agree that the balance of probability is the The Men was a low grosser.
Nonetheless perhaps you would allow ME to sign off by posting the following further caveats:
1 The 7.1 appears to be gross and not rental. Where a Box Office Story figure is a rental-only one that fact is denoted by an R. Obviously a 7.1 gross would translate to a much lower rental figure, which could have fallen under the radar.particularly if split over a number of years and not openly reported.
2. In my experience – and this is why Cogerson and Box Office Mojo are a breath of fresh air! – film book authors and journalists in general are among the most unreliable and inconsistent sources for box office information. Their stuff is full of hyperbole and facts are often played down or exaggerated to suit whatever particular slant their current article is taking. They might for example be trying to draw over-stark distinctions between the highs and lows of a star’s career; or they might not like a film ARTISTICALLY. Brando/Nicholson’s Missouri Breaks was disliked by most critics and historians and deemed a flop by them. Yet many of the same people have reported that for Breaks Brando received 16.5 million** from a 1.25 million fee and a 7.5% share of the profits in 1976 money – that’s just under 70 million in today’s dollars. If the film was a flop where did Marlon’s massive profit share come from? Clearly something’s wrong with the entirety of such assertions. “If the legend’s more exciting than the truth, print the legend!” [The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance-1962]
** David Thomson ‘MARLON BRANDO – A BIOGRAPHY’ -2003 DK Publishing
Hey Robert R. Thanks for the caveats. I agree with you about film books and their authors….most are a waste of time when doing research….though I will give a shout out to Scott Eyman….he provides detailed and accurate box office info in his many books.
Not thinking Brando got that much money for Missouri Breaks…..maybe that is what he was hoping to make….but sure his check was far far less than that.
Thanks for all the great comments.
Still amazing research.
This was very entertaining to read. I am sure you will fix your mistake! Keep your head up.
Thanks Nora….I will be sure to do that.
I think you’ve done an excellent job so far. We all stumble and make mistakes. There is so much box office info on your website you won’t find anywhere else on the web and you should be proud of that achievement. This was an interesting and entertaining ‘behind-the-scenes’ read now let me see how many of these films I’ve seen… 1, 2, hey whaaat? Noooo! 🙂
Hey Steve. Thanks for the kind words. In the long run I will be glad I found these new stats….as I think it will create an even better picture of how a movie performed so long ago….but man….facing all of those updates is pretty daunting. Looking at the long table….wow did people go and see movies in the 1940s….almost 4 times the amount of what happens today. Imagine how much money Star Wars 7 would have earned if that many people went to theaters.
Glad you liked my behind the scenes page….it some ways it was fun to write…..I of course had to include as many movie references as I could…..lol.
Don’t give up for sure. I love talking about dead and old movie stars and these pages give my brain a good workout. Don’t burn yourself out.
Hey Flora….I won’t be giving up. Something that I did not mention that was the fact that I was going to have to update the pages anyway with the new average movie ticket price. In the past I have not done that when the ticket price moved a penny or two….but over the last few years the average ticket price has gone from $7.93 to $8.43. That represents a significant increase for all the movies in the database when it comes to adjusted box office. The new numbers shown above….have my mistake and the increase from the ticket increase. So in some ways finding out this new information is perfect timing.
The revised calculations that you have produced certainly starkly affect the comparisons and contrasts between the grosses for classical stars and those for modern performers; and the clarification is to be welcomed. However unfortunately the figures still seem to be prone to an element of error. This is demonstrated by the fact that in a number of cases a range of conflicting totals (at times quite far apart) are quoted for the same updated gross. For Example:
(1) Julius Caesar (1953) 86.0 Deborah Kerr/119.2 Brando.
(2) The Towering Inferno 553.9 Astaire/ 555.3 John Williams/664.6 Jennifer Jones.
(3) Superman (1978) 529.6 John Williams/662.9 Brando & DC v Marvel.