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

[IronJimbo]

1 minute ago, tribefan695 said:

It's going to be the same circular argument for the next two years. People who don't like Avatar are going to say it will disappoint and people who love it will say it's going to keep pace. From an objective perspective I think you're setting yourself up to look like an idiot if you doubt anything Cameron does now that he's destroyed expectations twice.

Never bet against Cameron.

It's not going to keep pace anyway, it's going to sprint ahead.

[a2k]

The 3 Hobbit films averaged ~1b ww.

 

Worst-case scenario, I can still see the next 4 Avatars averaging 1.5b ww.

1.85b ww (-900m from A1)

1.55b ww (-300m from A2)

1.35b ww (-200m from A3)

1.25b ww (-100m from A4)

= 6b combined ww

 

Have given such drops just to show how likely it's going to be for the 4 films to average 1.5b+ ww.

 

Edited April 15, 2016 by a2knet

[peludo]

2 hours ago, johnboy3434 said:

 

Just a question, but (assuming the film was made by an American company) wouldn't it be more accurate to adjust the foreign gross by US inflation after the initial currency conversion? Yes, the value of the foreign currency may have fallen or risen since then, but the studio isn't getting money now, it got the money back when the movie was released, at which point the foreign currency was converted to dollars on the balance sheet. It seems to me that changes in the foreign currency after that point would be irrelevant in the context of that particular movie.

 

Basically, to arrive at a current figure, you need to choose whether to inflate based on the foreign currency or the domestic. Why is the foreign currency preferable?

Well, I am not trying to know how much Fox do have in the bank because inflation or interests, but how much would do a film TODAY with CURRENT market conditions. The exercise started since some people are projecting WW figures for sequels with the base of the numbers that the first film did. In that way you have to take into account the exact conditions of each country to make an accurate prediction.

 

In Spain (or wherever), people do not pay in dollars but in euros. I give a shit if in US a ticket cost a 16% more than in 2009 because that is not my issue. US inflation is not my problem, but Spanish's one. I care about how much does a ticket cost in Spain in euros, and it costs the same, more or less, than 6 years ago. So if we want to know what would had done a film selling the same amount of admissions in a certain country you have to take that certain market conditions, not the US conditions.

 

As an example, I can not take the $110m figure which Avatar grossed in Spain and simply apply a 16% of inflation increase that have been in US during these 6 years (7.50$ to 8.70$). It has no sense. That would mean today $127.6m, what with current ER would mean €113m, and what would imply nearly 14 million admissions, what is absurd, since Avatar sold 9.5 million admissions. It does not work in that way.

 

For this reason, there is not an official WW adjusted list. Because each country requires its own calculation and it is VERY hard to do.

[cannastop]

38 minutes ago, tribefan695 said:

It's going to be the same circular argument for the next two years. People who don't like Avatar are going to say it will disappoint and people who love it will say it's going to keep pace. From an objective perspective I think you're setting yourself up to look like an idiot if you doubt anything Cameron does now that he's destroyed expectations twice.

Eh, now that I've seen the error of my ways, I think that $2 billion for the next Avatar is reasonable.

Am I worshiping Cameron enough now?

Edited April 15, 2016 by cannastop

[IronJimbo]

2 minutes ago, cannastop said:

Eh, now that I've seen the error of my ways, I think that $2 billion for the next Avatar is reasonable.

And I worshiping Cameron enough now?

 

You don't even have a moderate Cameron fan view.

$3 bil is the lowest I'll go.

Edited April 15, 2016 by IronJimbo

[AniNate]

Eh, now that I've seen the error of my ways, I think that $2 billion for the next Avatar is reasonable.

And I worshiping Cameron enough now?

Yeah, good enough

[IronJimbo]

I'll like to dispell the myth that blockbuster sequels do bad even if they're good films.

[Dementeleus]

1 hour ago, tribefan695 said:

It's going to be the same circular argument for the next two years. People who don't like Avatar are going to say it will disappoint and people who love it will say it's going to keep pace. From an objective perspective I think you're setting yourself up to look like an idiot if you doubt anything Cameron does now that he's destroyed expectations twice.

 

Only twice?

[AniNate]

2 minutes ago, Telemachos said:

 

Only twice?

 

Well, I'm not sure what expectations were for his previous films. I guess Terminator 2 may have been underpredicted?

[IronJimbo]

3 minutes ago, Telemachos said:

 

Only twice?

I wonder what the producer of The Terminator was expecting? Pretty sure he struck gold.

[IronJimbo]

6 minutes ago, tribefan695 said:

 

Well, I'm not sure what expectations were for his previous films. I guess Terminator 2 may have been underpredicted?

 

Try the budget art house piece, The Terminator.

 

T2 did amazing aswell. Aliens too

 

Edited April 15, 2016 by IronJimbo

[AniNate]

I think Aliens was seen as mildly underwhelming given it dipped from the original's adjusted gross

[Kvikk Lunsj]

1 minute ago, tribefan695 said:

I think Aliens was seen as mildly underwhelming given it dipped from the original's adjusted gross

That is because it is not as good as a film.

 

I would love for Cameron to step from blockbuster CGI films and sci-fi films. Director a drama that only focus on character development and dialog. 

[cannastop]

5 minutes ago, Dexter of Suburbia said:

That is because it is not as good as a film.

 

I would love for Cameron to step from blockbuster CGI films and sci-fi films. Director a drama that only focus on character development and dialog. 

Uh, why? He's never done a movie like that, and he doesn't need to.

[IronJimbo]

5 minutes ago, Dexter of Suburbia said:

That is because it is not as good as a film.

 

I would love for Cameron to step from blockbuster CGI films and sci-fi films. Director a drama that only focus on character development and dialog. 

 

Lets get the best blockbuster epic creator to make arthouse pieces, no thanks.

 

[IronJimbo]

If we gave all the Hollywood production budgets to Television directors we would end up with more films like The Avengers and The Force Awakens, no thanks.

[Water Bottle]

1 minute ago, IronJimbo said:

If we gave all the Hollywood production budgets to Television directors we would end up with more films like The Avengers and The Force Awakens, no thanks.

 

Random? You know I pity you, only being able to enjoy the films of one man. Meanwhile, I really like The Avengers, The Force Awakens, and Avatar 2. Funny how me liking one franchise doesn't mean I have to dislike another franchise and if I don't like a franchise, I don't have to put it down to validate my own tastes.

[Dementeleus]

14 minutes ago, tribefan695 said:

I think Aliens was seen as mildly underwhelming given it dipped from the original's adjusted gross

 

No, not at all. (I mean, yes, you're right, but that's not how it was received.) People don't care about adjusted gross, and since ALIEN was seen as this classic movie, people thought any sort of sequel would suck. It was a huge smash.

[IronJimbo]

2 minutes ago, Water Bottle said:

 

Random? You know I pity you, only being able to enjoy the films of one man. Meanwhile, I really like The Avengers, The Force Awakens, and Avatar 2. Funny how me liking one franchise doesn't mean I have to dislike another franchise and if I don't like a franchise, I don't have to put it down to validate my own tastes.

 

I enjoyed the most the other star wars films, the worst was The Force Awakens. Perhaps because expectations, who cares, I didn't enjoy it and it had no good moments.

 

The Avengers was directed terribly! It looked like a telivision director was given a large sum of cash to try and make a blockbuster. Oh wait...

 

I can and do enjoy most big blockbusters.

Recently Jurassic World, Mad Max, Inside Out, Mission Impossible, The Martian and even Batman vs Supes.
 

[BadAtGender]

3 hours ago, johnboy3434 said:

 

Just a question, but (assuming the film was made by an American company) wouldn't it be more accurate to adjust the foreign gross by US inflation after the initial currency conversion? Yes, the value of the foreign currency may have fallen or risen since then, but the studio isn't getting money now, it got the money back when the movie was released, at which point the foreign currency was converted to dollars on the balance sheet. It seems to me that changes in the foreign currency after that point would be irrelevant in the context of that particular movie.

 

Basically, to arrive at a current figure, you need to choose whether to inflate based on the foreign currency or the domestic. Why is the foreign currency preferable?

 

This gets to a bit of an interesting philosophical question: why do we track the box office?

 

The answers could vary a lot. In many people, they might not be defined. But two possible answers are "To find out how much a movie made." or "To find out how many people saw a film."

 

For me, it's pretty much the latter. The box office gross of a film is a rough indication of popularity. We generally don't have accurate admission numbers, except in a few territories (S. Korea, for instance), but we can get estimates by doing some work. We don't always WANT to do that work, and sometimes there's contextual reasons to choose either adjusted or unadjusted numbers.

 

As Peludo says, on a worldwide basis, inflation adjusting is hard. It would be nice if we had a really accurate box office breakdown by country in a database that could look at inflation adjustments and exchange rates and then spit out numbers automatically. We don't have that, though, so we generally need to do all the math each time we want to figure it out. Few people have the time or inclination.

 

If, however, your interest is just in seeing how much a film made, then you probably don't want to use adjusted numbers lists at all. Those are based on ticket price inflation, which doesn't necessarily follow actual inflation. If that's your interest, then you should take the original number and apply ongoing US dollar inflation since it was released to get an idea of what it made in today's dollars. (It would still be nice to have a country-by-country breakdown, but it's possibly less necessary, here.)