web
counter
 

Think of the Children? I Blame the Bastards.

By Steven Lloyd Wilson | Posted Under Think Pieces | Comments (7)



children-at-play.jpg

Last week we had a gay old time looking at a graph showing some interesting trends in the quality of movies versus their box office take. Now there was some disagreement as to whether the rankings from Box Office Mojo were really all that accurate to what we in these parts would call good, bad or ugly. Some folks suggested that an aggregate should be compiled of different ranking sites, or that Rotten Tomatoes might provide a more true to quality measure. These are both good ideas limited by the simple and tragic expedient that Box Office Mojo was the data I had to work with, and so by induction therefore must be the most accurate. I kid. Mostly.

In any case, I thought it might be fun to take a look at a few other graphs generated from box office figures, movie grades, and adding in the factors of release month and MPAA rating.

First up, we’ve got a lovely bar chart showing the average box office take of films released in each month of the year. Now technically this can be a bit misleading, because films often last longer than a month in the box office (especially if they make any money at all) and in the most extreme case, a film released on the last day of a month will see most of its box office earned in the next month despite counting towards the last month. So the best way to do this would be to compile box office per day, but that kind of data isn’t nearly as accessible as the simple date of release. I think this by and large averages out in the grand scheme of things, especially since most films get the vast majority of their box office take on opening weekend, dropping off quickly at the ten day mark. The exception is probably the December/January cut since a lot of films get the late December release to sneak into Oscar contention and then earn most of their actual box office in January.

graph_month_bo.png

And that is exactly what we see here, with the big box office months (unsurprisingly) being the summer blockbusters and the November and December films. The next graph shows that we might be on to something with the Oscar assumption. We’ve got the month of release against average user grade (on a 4.0 scale) and December definitely has a distinctly higher calibre of release. Of course, the spread here is really small. I didn’t notice until after this was done and uploaded that the y-axis was shrunk down to make the difference look bigger than it was. Lying with graphs is fun for the whole family!

graph_month_grade.png

The worst month (January) is at 1.98 which isn’t all that much less than the best (December) at 2.36. In grade terms, that’s the difference between C and C+. If you likey the statistics terms, the standard errors on this one are ludicrously big, so they should be taken with a tablespoon of salt. But it’s still fun to look at.

Next up, we’ll turn to what we can learn from the MPAA ratings. Basically, all of those little kids movies that parents dump entire minivans at and no one else would be caught dead near? Yeah, they’re making all the money.

graph_rating_bo.png

Some of this is just the big giant outliers of Shrek, etc. driving up the kid’s scores, but you should see the same sort of outliers up in the R range also. I think it’s more indicative of the market though. Make a shitty kids movie, and parents will still shovel the kids in. Make a shitty R movie and the consenting adults can find something more fun to consent to. The NC-17 and unrated takes aren’t all that surprising but overall it’s pretty abysmal just how disappointing the average box office take is for R-rated films.

So does this mean that the more kid-friendly rated movies are better overall?

graph_rating_grade.png

All right, fine. Box Office Mojo’s film grades are being spiked by six year olds drunk on the Koolaid of power. That’s the only explanation I’ve got for this.

* Note: I do not claim that these findings even remotely hold up to statistical or scientific rigor. Any attempt to hold them up to such standards will be roundly ridiculed.

Steven Lloyd Wilson is a hopeless romantic and the last scion of Norse warriors and the forbidden elder gods. His novel, ramblings, and assorted fictions coalesce at www.burningviolin.com. You can email him here.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



Empathy For The Devil | Pajiba Sports | The Virginity Hit Review | Ch-Ch-Ch-Cherry Bomb









Comments

I'm no math genius, but is it possible that Pixar has something to do with this last bit?

Posted by: replica at September 29, 2010 3:13 PM

I just noticed that I haven't paid attention to a film rating in a long time. When I went to look at listings for currently movies, I was shocked to find WS: Money Never Sleeps was rated PG13. I guess they'll edit a movie down to shoe-horn in a demo in on ya (Does Shia L. draw the under 17 crowd?). I'd be more likely to see it, if it was a hard R.

Now, Machete may as well have tried for an NC17. I wish it would've and just be done with it.

Posted by: gunnertec at September 29, 2010 3:48 PM

i think the kids movies get higher ratings and bucks partly because everyone likes a decent kids movie wheras adult films, the audience breaks down a lot more(aside from losing the kid dollar and vote). Like most everyone likes icecream but maybe not so many people like curry, doesn't really mean one is better than the other.

I like the cinemaclock website, they have a review page, where you can rate a film out of ten, and you can only record your rating if you also write a review(so you get quantitative and qualitative data). at the top of the page is a chart breaking the votes down by age group and gender. the chart alone can be really fascinating to speculate from.

if i spent as much time on my studies as i do on box office mojo, rotten tomatoes and cinemaclock, not to mention here, i could probably raise my marks by a whole letter grade. i've turned into the geek version of the sports nuts who memorizes stats and team history. When "adjusted for inflation" is a common phrase in your movie conversations, you are no longer a casual viewer. hats off to you for taking it to the next level and building graphs.

Posted by: idleprimate at September 29, 2010 4:34 PM

If you're concerned about outliers driving up the average, then take a look at the median box office.

Posted by: Nate at September 29, 2010 4:41 PM

Don't forget the multiplying factor. Adults can (and do) see kid movies, kids can't really see adult movies. When my kid was small, I saw a lot of shitty kid movies. Double the ticket price because a parent is there, too. But I wasn't about to haul her in to see a violent gorefest or anything that required a lot of thought because it just wasn't appropriate for a little kid.

Posted by: Wednesday at September 29, 2010 4:56 PM

Kid movies do better because people will pay for a movie they think kinda sucks if it's a kid movie, as opposed to a "grownup" movie that they're not paying for a kid to see.

Also, I'm guessing 3-D has driven up prices for a lot of kid movies this year. Aren't those ticket prices higher (than for non 3-D)?

Posted by: Slash at September 29, 2010 5:06 PM

This blog is pretty good! How was it made !?

Posted by: handyman at November 15, 2010 8:08 PM