Re: Biggest Grossers of all time : Adjusted

"Raghu Jetley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> V wrote:
> > "rkusenet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >> kamesh has already answered about aamir.
> >>
> >>> This list
> >>> obviously doesn't take into consideration the effect of
> >>> VCRs/DVDs/CableTV. which is why Shahrukh Khan is not there more
> >>> often.
> >>
> >> Oh really. This DVD/Cable myth needs to be busted once and for all.
> >> If Cable is affecting BO collections, then how did SRK manage to get
> >> 13 times in the list. How are his last two movies Devdas,
> >> ChalteChalte a hit. How come Devdas/ChalteChalte not affected by
> >> cable, but Asoka affected by cable.
> >>
> >
> > Hi rk,
> >
> > If you think about it, it is rather easy.  You see, Amitabh has like
> > 59 movies in there ( your number). Now for Amitabh, something like
> > Hera Pheri or Ganga ki Saugandh would have made it to the list,
> > simply because viewers had no option but to watch them in a theatre.
> > With Shahrukh's Asoka, people ended up watching it on cable.
>
>
> I was a big AB fan, but I didn't watch Hera Pheri or GKS in theatre,
> just I didn't watch Ashoka even on cable.
>
>


Yes, but there are other movies, which you might have watched on
video/cable, if you had a choice, thats my point.


> > Probably
> > people would have ended watching Bemisaal, Jurmana, Ganga ki Saugandh
> > on Cable/TV had they had the option. But they did not have the
> > option. So, although Shahrukh has 13 movies in there ( and Aamir has
> > 1 ), movies do not get their correct ranking, because the numbers
> > have been distorted by those who watched the movie on TV/Cable rather
> > than the theatre.
>
> You also have to take into account the amount of disposable income
> people had. Compare the amount of soda people drank during Amitabh's
> time as compared to amount they drink during Shahrukh Khan's time.
> Lifestyle has changed radically during the last 20-30 years.

Right, the disposable income has increased, but what about disposable time?
Don;t they end up watching "Kyonki Sas Bhi Kabhie Bahu thi?" and that extra
martial filled "Astitva ( oh whata  crap that serial is, every one loves
everyone else, but for his significant other )

>
> > I myself enjoyed Dil Chahata Hai but I saw it on
> > DVD. I would have definitely watched it on the big screen, if I did
> > not have the easy access to DVD. But my (and I am sure, your)
> > watching it on DVD brought down the ticket sales. The reason why
> > movies gross more is simply because the tickets are a lot more
> > expensive. If you take the total of people who watched it, I am
> > pretty sure, more people watched Asoka, than those who watched Hera
> > Pheri. But simply because, Asoka was shown on cable in Mumbai, no one
> > bothered to watch it in a theatre.
>
> Oh crap! Have you seen pirated movies shown on cable ??
> The print is so terrible that you if you really wanted to see the
> movie you would watch on the bigscreen.
>

Yes, I have, but I also remember watching an excellent print of Kishan
Kanhaiya, and Jindagi Ek Jua, even before it was released for Rs10, and they
were rented out for just 5 hours. I had to return them as soon as I finished
watching those.


> > Yet going to the movies has become an expensive thing. Our family of
> > 4 could easily enjoy a movie + 4 cold drinks for less than 100 bucks
> > 20 years ago. Now the same exercise costs about 500 Rs., not
> > something that everyone can afford. So whereas we went to an average
> > of two movies a month in 1982. We probably go once in 3 months now(
> > in India.)
>
> This is probably unique to you. I have gone to the movies 10 times as much
> as my parents did.


Yes, but do your parents go as often as they used to go?