If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mint.com)   Comparing 20 years of summer blockbusters with this interactive infographic   (mint.com) divider line 21
    More: Interesting, infographics, reels, Intuit  
•       •       •

6013 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 20 Sep 2012 at 2:35 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



21 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-09-20 02:40:15 PM
Batman Forever was '93? Why do I remember that being more mid-late 90s?
 
2012-09-20 02:41:06 PM
*sigh* Never Mind. Didn't realize the level of interaction in the graphic.
 
2012-09-20 02:56:18 PM
Okay... it's interesting and all.. but I noticed a GLARING flaw there.. or at least glaring to me..

On the chart, they list "Transformers 2" but up at the top, they call it "Transformers: Dark of the Moon"

NOT THE SAME THING!!!
 
2012-09-20 02:59:37 PM

SirTanon: Okay... it's interesting and all.. but I noticed a GLARING flaw there.. or at least glaring to me..

On the chart, they list "Transformers 2" but up at the top, they call it "Transformers: Dark of the Moon"

NOT THE SAME THING!!!


This is an outrage. Thank God it wasn't a MUSLIM OUTRAGE!!!
 
2012-09-20 03:00:15 PM
The list kinda fails without several blockbusters during the same listed time frames, including the two Cameron hits Titanic and Avatar.
 
2012-09-20 03:06:59 PM

Grand_Theft_Audio: The list kinda fails without several blockbusters during the same listed time frames, including the two Cameron hits Titanic and Avatar.


Both Titanic and Avatar were December releases. Chart is for summer releases.
 
2012-09-20 03:28:46 PM
Why only back to 1993? Summer blockbusters have existed since the 1970s - I'd like to see them compare Jaws, Star Wars, and Raiders with the rest of these films.
 
2012-09-20 03:44:51 PM
What this chart tells me is that it should be pretty obvious to Hollywood producers that higher budgets don't equal higher returns.
 
2012-09-20 03:56:42 PM
It would have been more interesting if they did the top grossing movie of the year and colour coded it to show the season. It would be fun to see what movies aren't released in summer that do really well.
 
2012-09-20 05:09:22 PM
The $ amount means absolutely nothing. Tell me how many tickets were sold if you want to impress me.
 
2012-09-20 05:15:01 PM

John Buck 41: The $ amount means absolutely nothing. Tell me how many tickets were sold handjobs were given in the back row if you want to impress me.

 
2012-09-20 05:17:38 PM

John Buck 41: The $ amount means absolutely nothing. Tell me how many tickets were sold if you want to impress me.


It's right over there in the Tickets Sold column...
 
2012-09-20 05:20:21 PM
Need inflation statements/adjustments!
 
2012-09-20 05:29:02 PM

dj_spanmaster: Need inflation statements/adjustments!


Covered by the asterisks.

What do we learn from this? That Jurassic Park had an excellent return on it's investment compared to everything else in the past 20 years.
 
2012-09-20 06:13:56 PM
The last movie on that list to cost less than $2/ticket sold was Episode 1. It sticks out to me as a meaningful statistic, but I can't figure out why.
 
2012-09-20 06:19:26 PM

VTGremlin: John Buck 41: The $ amount means absolutely nothing. Tell me how many tickets were sold if you want to impress me.

It's right over there in the Tickets Sold column...


So it is. As always, they focused on the money (non-adjusted for inflation(. Or so I assume.
 
2012-09-20 06:23:32 PM
Lots of errors? Not surprised, Mint was never able to do basic math correctly. The site's a joke.
 
2012-09-20 08:11:21 PM

KatjaMouse: Batman Forever was '93? Why do I remember that being more mid-late 90s?


'95
 
2012-09-20 09:30:08 PM
And yet, according to Hollywood accounting practices, none of those movies were profitable.
 
2012-09-20 09:34:23 PM
Kind of pointless since they ignore non-domestic sales. Avengers exceeded $1B in global ticket sales, which makes the $200M production cost much more profitable. I can see leaving out DVD/merchandising, but since international sales are a much bigger slice of the pie than they were in '93, this makes Jurassic Park seem relatively more successful than it should.
 
2012-09-21 12:11:23 AM

Grand_Theft_Audio: The list kinda fails without several blockbusters during the same listed time frames, including the two Cameron hits Titanic and Avatar.


Those weren't summer films.
 
Displayed 21 of 21 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report