Why don't they count number of tickets sold?

I was just wondering why the standard for how well a movie is doing is how much money it's made? Why isn't it the number of tickets sold? That would show truly hwo many people went to see the movie and there wouldn't be any discussion like Gone With the Wind should be the top grossing film ever if inflation was accounted for. If it sold more tickets than any other film, there would be no question about it and it wouldn't matter if it was released a number of years before other movies. Also it wouldn't have the problem of varying prices between theaters and times like box office gross amount.

Because ticket rates vary by place and age. Besides, it's money that matters.

that's what I'm saying though, you wouldn't have the difference in amount of money made because of ticket prices, you would just have a standard thing that doesn't change place to place, the number of tickets sold.

No point in counting how many tickets are sold, because you can't determine how much a film actually makes, again, which is all that matters.

To the company yes, but it does not tell you how many people went to see the film. If you look at the box office grosses with out inflation for Gone with the wind and movies back then, it would lead you to believe that hardly anybody saw the film because. But if you saw the number of tickets sold compared to one today like Titanic you would know right away that it did very well in theaters.

To some extent, a movie's success IS measured by its ticket sale numbers. Roger Ebert's "Movie Answer Man" column addressed the issue several years ago. Someone wrote to tell him that they went to see "Dead Presidents", but the ticket they were issued, they later discovered, was for another movie playing in the same cineplex.

Ebert told them that movie theaters pay a percentage of a film's box office receipts to the studio (sometimes in addition to a flat fee). From what I can remember, his take on it was that it could have been a personal vendetta on the part of the ticket vendor and/or theater manager to ensure that "Dead Presidents" didn't get as much money as it should have.

Also remember that a film's success, especially these days, is also measured by how much is made through merchandising, video sales & rental, foreign gross, etc.; things that weren't nearly as prevalent when "Gone with the Wind" was on top.

When it comes to critical or lingering success, of course, money isn't always the bottom line. Movieland is rife with examples of low-budget indies and box office flops that have become classics (regular and cult). To the studios, though, the bottom line is ALWAYS the dough-re-mi.

I decide whether a movies good or not by hearsay from the target audience. Rarely are movie critics the taget audience of a film, and so there are problem with the reviews that say, Roger Ebert or Peter Travers give. I decided that Van Helsing was a good movie after finding that many of my friends like it as well. It isn't really the money or tickets sold: dates where the boy/girlfiend are coerced into seeing a movie they don't want to, plus boredom matinees and rainy days.

The real succes lies in whether the movie was liked or not. The worst movie in the world could make a lot of money and it still wouldn't be a good movie

I know how much money a movie makes or how many people see it doesn't make a movie good or not, but it does show how good a movie is doing in terms of how the public is receiving it.

yea but it says more if someones willing to go pay 10 for a movie when they could see something else for 5 thats why $$ counts.. becuase its all about making $$ its a business...