Avatar: The Way of Water | 16 DEC 2022 | Don't worry guys, critics like it

[WrathOfHan]

Just now, MovieMan89 said:

Hollywood Studios will be a construction war zone starting later this year until 2019-2021. Stay away from there. 

Yep, once Lights Motors Actions shuts down in April that park is going to be a clusterfuck to navigate. Capacity is terrible there, unless you go at opening there is zero reason to visit outside of Fantasmic and fireworks.

[LinksterAC]

1 hour ago, hw64 said:

 

If you want to continue pushing the "I'm only going to adjust for exchange rates and ignore everything else", then sure. Looking at admissions or local currency gross for all the major markets, it's not even close, and that's without taking into account market expansion, ticket price inflation, general inflation, etc. (the latter two only being relevant for countries where we don't have admission data).

 

Trying to adjust for exchange rates using a static multiplier from an exchange rate website on the dollar gross for a particular country is a poor and inaccurate substitute that should only be used when we don't have admission data (first priority) and when we don't have local currency data (second); nobody knows how studios calculate and adjust for changing exchange rates over the course of a movie's release. As it turns out, we DO have extensive admission/local currency data for both Avatar and TFA, so trying to replicate which rates the studios used is a pointless exercise. Here's some data I've gathered so far:

 

Avatar vs. TFA in admissions/local currency:

UK: £94.0m (16.51m admissions) vs. £113.9m through last week

Australia: $115.6m AUD, 7.69m admissions vs. $85m AUD through January 17 (will finish at around $93-95m)

Germany: 11.3m admissions vs. 8m current admissions (looking at 9m finish)

France: 14.7m admissions vs. 9.1m admissions through January 11 (will finish at just over 10m)

Italy: €65.67m (7.49m admissions) vs. €25M (3.27m admissions) through last Sunday

Spain: €77.03m, 9.5m admissions vs. 4.3m admissions through last Friday

South Korea: 13.62m admissions vs. 3.2m admissions through January 11

Japan: ¥15.6b vs. ¥9b through January 17 (looking at just over ¥10b total)

Russia: 3.6b RUB, 14.11m admissions vs. 1.8b RUB through January 11 (significant market expansion since 2009)

China: 1391m yuan vs. 700m yuan through Thursday (significant market expansion since 2009)

Brazil: 102.9m BRL vs. (will update)

 

As you can see, even in the territories that are closest (Australia, Germany), Avatar is 20-25% ahead of TFA. Everywhere else, it's a massive blowout. The only place where TFA scores a clear victory is in the UK, and even there it's unclear how it would fare in admissions: Skyfall (2012) is estimated to have made 400k less admissions than Avatar did in 2009 despite grossing £8m more. I'm still gathering data but what you see above is pretty conclusive, especially the admission data which bypasses having to account for inflation and ticket price inflation.

 

WW adjusted for ER, should paint a decent picture of total admissions between the two (even though that's not what we are talking about here).   

 

I agree that Avatar wins most OS markets, many by a landslide.  But TFA wins some too, and wins the domestic market by a landslide.   Hence the small actual gap (9%-ish) between them globally. 

 

We are talking BO gross here, after all.  We don't really make allowances for changing markets when we talk about the differences between Titanic and movies that have followed it, excepting ticket price inflation (which is still a bit dubious).  Why do you suddenly want to do it now?  

 

ER is different.  It is a specifically definable, arbitrary exchange rate.  It's independent of the cinema market conditions in each given country, even more so than ticket price inflation (which is actually influenced by the cinema market). That's why it makes sense to include it and exclude other modifiers.  

 

You keep bringing up expanding markets as if they're a guarantee Avatar would make more in 2016 than in 2010.  They are NOT a guarantee.  Avatar released in a specific set of market conditions and grossed what it did in that market.  The market in 2016 is a different one, both domestically and abroad, for a host of reasons.  Do you think Titanic would sell 128M tickets in the fast burn domestic BO world of today?  I don't know.  It might.  I personally doubt it, but all we can do is speculate.  

 

The exercise you propose (adjusting for changing market sizes, etc.) is a by its nature a speculative one.  There's nothing wrong with that, and I encourage you to do it.  But it is not a well defined exchange that's independent of the market.  In fact, what you're doing is trying to translate today's market into something it isn't.  

 

Again, the "real" difference between the two movies globally is about 9%.  If we measured grosses in Canadian dollars, the domestic total would stand at $760M for Avatar, $1.3B and growing for TFA, and you'd probably be sitting here agreeing with my effort to adjust for ER instead of constantly criticizing it.  

 

At the end of the day, in terms of BO gross, TFA wins domestically by a landslide, Avatar wins OS by a landslide, and Avatar wins WW by a significant but not overwhelming margin.  I've never tried to paint a different picture.  

 

I'm sorry for you that Avatar doesn't actually beat TFA by as wide a margin as is apparently appealing to you, but guess what?  It still wins!  Hooray for you!  Hooray for everybody.  

 

Finally, I admit that my methodology in the ER approach is an estimation of actual exchanges instead of an actual figure.  To get the actual figure, you'd have to track every unit of foreign currency earned and figure out exactly when it was exchanged and at what rate.  The fact that this exchange rate information is not as granular as we'd like does not make the approach any less valid.  It just means our measurement tools are not totally precise.  

[hw64]

13 minutes ago, LinksterAC said:

 

WW adjusted for ER, should paint a decent picture of total admissions between the two (even though that's not what we are talking about here).   

 

I agree that Avatar wins most OS markets, many by a landslide.  But TFA wins some too, and wins the domestic market by a landslide.   Hence the small actual gap (9%-ish) between them globally. 

 

It doesn't paint a "decent" picture; it doesn't take into consideration inflation or ticket price inflation for starters. Besides, there's simply no need for such estimates when we have accurate admission data for most major markets in the first place. Avatar wins all but one of the major overseas markets, and blows TFA out of the water by over 50-100+% in most others. Conversely, TFA's victory in the US will equate to around a 20-25% gain over Avatar's domestic total gross at the end of its run (even less if we speak in terms of admissions), hardly comparable to the landslide victory Avatar can claim in many overseas markets. The UK is the only significant market that TFA will take; I believe Hungary is the next largest.

 

41 minutes ago, LinksterAC said:

We are talking BO gross here, after all.  We don't really make allowances for changing markets when we talk about the differences between Titanic and movies that have followed it, excepting ticket price inflation (which is still a bit dubious).  Why do you suddenly want to do it now?  

 

Of course we do. We may not explicitly try and factor in for the huge expansion of markets since then; there's way too many variables involved, as you point out. However we don't blindly go directly comparing Titanic's gross to movies released in 2015, either. If, in an alternate universe, for example, TFA passed Titanic's inflation-adjusted gross by a small margin, we wouldn't go around saying it's a more successful film. Why? Because of the huge effects of ticket price inflation and the benefit of huge market expansion that TFA would have had to its run. We would need only look towards the admission data for both films to see that. Notice that we don't explicitly calculate for these factors directly, but we do take care to note the effects they had on the runs of each film.

 

48 minutes ago, LinksterAC said:

ER is different.  It is a specifically definable, arbitrary exchange rate.  It's independent of the cinema market conditions in each given country, even more so than ticket price inflation (which is actually influenced by the cinema market). That's why it makes sense to include it and exclude other modifiers.  

 

You keep bringing up expanding markets as if they're a guarantee Avatar would make more in 2016 than in 2010.  They are NOT a guarantee.  Avatar released in a specific set of market conditions and grossed what it did in that market.  The market in 2016 is a different one, both domestically and abroad, for a host of reasons.  Do you think Titanic would sell 128M tickets in the fast burn domestic BO world of today?  I don't know.  It might.  I personally doubt it, but all we can do is speculate.  

 

The exercise you propose (adjusting for changing market sizes, etc.) is a by its nature a speculative one.  There's nothing wrong with that, and I encourage you to do it.  But it is not a well defined exchange that's independent of the market.  In fact, what you're doing is trying to translate today's market into something it isn't.  

 

Inflation (general inflation, not ticket price inflation) is also independent of the cinema market conditions, but you don't take this into account (or even mention it) because it doesn't support your argument. Inflation alone puts Avatar at least 21% above your projected exchange-rated adjusted gross of $2.5b, and that's 2014-adjusted inflation, not 2015.

 

As to your points about the nature of the effects of market expansion, of course it's speculative. Nobody is suggesting that we somehow try and make direct calculations using a multiplier of market expansion gained from the year-on-year revenues. However, just because we can't calculate anything directly, doesn't mean we can't make some decent predictions. For example, Avatar made $204m in China in 2009, when the box office revenue in China for the entire year was $1.47b. In 2015, it was $6.87b. From this, we can make a pretty sound prediction that Avatar would have made significantly more in China if the market in 2009 was as big as it was in 2015.

 

Your approach, on the other hand, is to simply discard it. You're quite happy to directly compare the $2.5b figure that you've calculated to Avatar's $2.79b gross, without even so much as mentioning the significant positive effects ticket price inflation and market expansion has had on TFA's worldwide gross. You've chosen to completely ignore the existence of these factors under the justification that "we can't calculate anything directly, so we can brush them under the rug and pretend they don't exist".

 

1 hour ago, LinksterAC said:

Finally, I admit that my methodology in the ER approach is an estimation of actual exchanges instead of an actual figure.  To get the actual figure, you'd have to track every unit of foreign currency earned and figure out exactly when it was exchanged and at what rate.  The fact that this exchange rate information is not as granular as we'd like does not make the approach any less valid.  It just means our measurement tools are not totally precise.  

 

You barely put any effort in to your exchange rate calculations in the first place. You checked one website, used ONE exchange rate value for the entire run of both films (who knows what points you picked - I suspect it was arbitrary), and then published your results. I wouldn't put any stock in your $2.5b calculation, which itself is based on simplistic projections of what TFA is going to gross from here on; you'd think you'd at least wait until TFA ends its run. Even then, exchange rate calculations are completely unnecessary; we have accurate lc data for every major box office market. Given how much exchange rates can fluctuate in a matter of weeks, I find it worrying that you don't seem to want to acknowledge how inaccurate your "exchange rate-adjusted" values could be, seeing as you've only picked one static exchange rate for each country for the entire 6+ month run of Avatar, and one which you've deemed valid for the entire run of TFA.

[angeldelmito]

8 hours ago, arlo said:

 

Actually, despite some Star Wars fans suddenly converting to hyper-nationalism and acting as if only box office from one country matters, Avatar remains "king of the castle" by a vast margin at the box office of Planet Earth. Unless you want to adjust for things like inflation and market expansion, in which case Titanic is king. Either way Cameron is King.

 

While I think it's extremely likely that the Avatar sequels will decline a lot, your assertion that they will be "blown away" by SW sequels is at this point merely an assumption that lacks much evidence. Your gloating and chest-thumping over SW8's new release date is especially silly given that Fox had never even announced that date for Avatar 2, and the script for it still hasn't been completed. I said here weeks ago that it was extremely unlikely to meet that date.

 

I see no reason to believe that the sequels will flee December and "screw off to wherever else it can find a release window." As much satisfaction as that would evidently give you, Fox may never even have to give a moment's thought to avoiding Star Wars. December 2018 is currently wide open, and for months that's been the most realistic release date for Avatar 2. While Cameron hopes to release Avatar 3 & 4 over the subsequent two years, there's good reason to doubt they'll be ready that quickly. James Horner expressed such skepticism in an interview last spring, citing his knowledge of how Cameron works and how difficult the sequels will be to make, and saying that while the technology is ready for Avatar 2, it's not ready for Avatar 3. Maybe it is now or will be soon, but I think Avatar 3 probably won't be ready by December 2019, when SW9 will likely be released.

TELL HA SIS !

[angeldelmito]

5 hours ago, nilephelan said:

 

Star Wars is king not only because it is Star Wars, but because it has the biggest and toughest daddy on the block named Disney backing it up.  

 

Release dates and the exhibition business is all about politics and power, and if you want to get screens you better have that power.  If Disney wants to move in on a release date, then Disney is going to get that release date.  Why?  Because it owns Lucasfilm/Marvel/Pixar/Disney Animation/Buena Vista and nobody is going to stand against that for any other studio.  

big daddy star wars

 

lmfao

[Plain Old Tele]

Moderation:

 

Enough with the Star Wars/Avatar arguments. Please take it elsewhere.

[arlo]

-

Edited January 21, 2016 by arlo
removed as per mod's request

[Plain Old Tele]

Thanks @arlo.

[LinksterAC]

1 hour ago, Telemachos said:

Moderation:

 

Enough with the Star Wars/Avatar arguments. Please take it elsewhere.

 

Ack.  My apologies @Telemachos.  I literally thought I was posting in another thread.

[vc2002]

Seriously, why all the inflation/exchange rate blah blah blah talk, when we have the actual adimissions? Isn't that the ultimate goal of most of us to have the knowledge of how many tickets did a movie sell? Besides, it's not like Avatar and SW7 are from two completely different eras so that the admissions-talk doesnt really fit, right?

 

Anyway, I saw those Avatar-land blueprint photos, and holy shit if that doesn't blow people away then nothing will. I know some might find it a bit cartoon-ish on the big screen, but take a real ride in this is something else.

 

 

[Blankments]

The Wrap says it's delayed to 2018 at least

[Biph Shmata]

I guess asking GRRM to help with the script was a mistake. 

[BoxOfficeZ]

18 minutes ago, Blankments said:

The Wrap says it's delayed to 2018 at least

 

Shocking. I'm shocked I tell you.

[The Panda]

20 minutes ago, Biph Shmata said:

I guess asking GRRM to help with the script was a mistake. 

 

Hey now, let's be fair

 

Even GRRM isn't this slow. 

[DAR]

Well knock me over with a feather

[Belakor]

By 2018 nobody is going to care anymore. GG Cameron.

[IronJimbo]

2 minutes ago, BKB IS CAPTAIN AMERICA said:

 

Or perhaps SW8 is more of a threat to an AVATAR sequel to a movie 8 years ago that no one really cares about now??? Face it: You wait 8 years or more in this case, to make a sequel and in that time range, people move on..

 

Every year Avatar 2 gets pushed back is another 200m from China.

[vc2002]

3 minutes ago, Baumer said:

Or maybe studios aren't stupid and it has nothing to do with who flinched first.  Disney knew Avatar wasn't going to be ready so they took that spot.  Fox also knew they wouldn't be ready so they announce they don't know when it's coming out yet.  They're not nerds like us.....

 

This is I think the closest case.

 

But we're on the internet, where people like to see everything as rivalry between studios, franchises, film-makers, etc.

Edited January 22, 2016 by vc2002

[Water Bottle]

3 minutes ago, Cochofles said:

 I love how the mods continue warning people for certain things, while BKB, once again, is given free reign to create these battles. When I or anyone else does it (because we are sick and tired of his starting shit all the time), it's "Off with his head!"...when BKB does it, they look the other way.  Either that, or the real BKB has already been banned, and this is a clone... @grim22 @Water Bottle @Telemachos @CJohn

 

If you have a problem with how we are managing the site, please PM the staff rather than trying to stir up threads.

[Biph Shmata]

7 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

 

Every year Avatar 2 gets pushed back is another 200m from China.

It'll make eleventy trillion dollars in China when it finally comes out in 2085.