http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/02/23/movies/20080223_REVENUE_GRAPHIC.html
The good:
- It adjusts for inflation (so old movies have an equally good chance)
- You can generally see the "ebb and flow" (IE summer is big for movies, so are the winter holidays)
- Have movie ticket prices kept pace with inflation? It might be the case that simple sales numbers are better. Then again, could everyone afford a movie as readily at the varying points in time?
- I would have liked to see something other than just a description of the move when you click for "details".
- While it looks cool to have zero in the center and an ebb and flow around it, it makes it hard to compare immediately adjacent time periods. I would have preferred to have zero at the bottom and/or equal expansion either side of the zero line.
- For movies which have not closed yet (the frame in which the graphic starts), it might have been good to see a "projected total box office revenue" for the color, or simply not to have gone quite all the way to the present.
- This seems fun, and shows the overall trend. While not perfect, I think it accomplishes its goal.
2 comments:
Did anyone notice that the chunks got bigger and bigger? Perhaps an increasing trend in people going to the movies?
I liked that when you clicked on a specific movie it displays a link to the NYT review of the movie.
I don't understand why the zero-line is set in the middle and whether there is a distinction between curves below the zero-line or not.
I agree that the lack of meaning in the +/- from "zero" is disturbing to those of us used to +/- having meaning... maybe we should get over that, or maybe not?
Post a Comment