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

[kowhite]

12 minutes ago, tribefan695 said:

 

No one "asked" for the original Avatar either. 

 

In Cameron we trust.

[The Futurist]

11 minutes ago, kowhite said:

 

In Cameron we trust.

 

Cameron never wakes in the morning to just make  another movie.

 

 

[peludo]

3 hours ago, IronJimbo said:

 

You played yoursefl!

 

Inflation adjusted Avatar makes $3.3bil today, 2 years time? It's close. 7 years time. It prob will have made $3.6-$3.8b adjusted for inflation.

 

2016	Est.$8.70
2015	$8.43
2014	$8.17
2013	$8.13
2012	$7.96
2011	$7.93
2010	$7.89
2009	$7.50

First of all, I have no idea where are you obtaining that 3.3b figure. Maybe you are asuming the US inflation for the whole world, something that is absurd. I will give you an example I know well to show it: 

 

Avatar sold 9.5 million admissions in Spain and grossed €77m, what in 2009-2010 was equal to $110m, so the ER average for this film was 110/77=1.429$/€. Today the ER is 1.126$/€, so those €77m would mean today $86.7m, so a 21% drop just because ER in the whole Eurozone (Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, ...). And you can apply the same to many other countries with different currencies like UK, Japan, Brazil, Russia...

 

When you have finally adjusted to ER is when you can apply inflation, but not with US figures, but with each country's. In 2009 and 2010, Spain had an average ticket of €6.1 and €6.52. Today, it barely crosses €6. There have not been inflation here. Of course, in other countries the behaviour has maybe been more usual. But even applying the US increase (8.70/7.50=16%), the drop in ER is still bigger (Russia has dropped a 50%, for example), so the WW could be lower than the original figure, not higher.

 

And in the final moment, you can play to guess how much would had done the film today in China or other expanding markets to know how much can we expect from Avatar sequels. But in the same way, you should take into account that sequels can drop in attendance in developed markets because a probable loss of interest (a phenomenon like Avatar is not easy to repeat). I sincerely do not see these sequels selling the amount of tickets the original did in European or North American countries, for example.

 

It is VERY difficult to adjust by inflation WW figures, close to impossible.

[IronJimbo]

5 hours ago, peludo said:

First of all, I have no idea where are you obtaining that 3.3b figure. Maybe you are asuming the US inflation for the whole world, something that is absurd. I will give you an example I know well to show it: 

 

Avatar sold 9.5 million admissions in Spain and grossed €77m, what in 2009-2010 was equal to $110m, so the ER average for this film was 110/77=1.429$/€. Today the ER is 1.126$/€, so those €77m would mean today $86.7m, so a 21% drop just because ER in the whole Eurozone (Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, ...). And you can apply the same to many other countries with different currencies like UK, Japan, Brazil, Russia...

 

When you have finally adjusted to ER is when you can apply inflation, but not with US figures, but with each country's. In 2009 and 2010, Spain had an average ticket of €6.1 and €6.52. Today, it barely crosses €6. There have not been inflation here. Of course, in other countries the behaviour has maybe been more usual. But even applying the US increase (8.70/7.50=16%), the drop in ER is still bigger (Russia has dropped a 50%, for example), so the WW could be lower than the original figure, not higher.

 

And in the final moment, you can play to guess how much would had done the film today in China or other expanding markets to know how much can we expect from Avatar sequels. But in the same way, you should take into account that sequels can drop in attendance in developed markets because a probable loss of interest (a phenomenon like Avatar is not easy to repeat). I sincerely do not see these sequels selling the amount of tickets the original did in European or North American countries, for example.

 

It is VERY difficult to adjust by inflation WW figures, close to impossible.

 

20% extra admissions on the way.

 

Edited April 15, 2016 by IronJimbo

[IronJimbo]

People are saying that sequels normally go down in gross each film, however there is nothing normal about Jim.

 

If the Lotr trilogy can do it, Avatar will do it better.

 

An Avatar movie will be the first to break $1 billion domestic.

[TommyA10]

3 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

People are saying that sequels normally go down in gross each film, however there is nothing normal about Jim.

 

If the Lotr trilogy can do it, Avatar will do it better.

 

An Avatar movie will be the first to break $1 billion domestic.

Lol

 

There's quite a difference between increasing from $310 to $370 million and increasing from $770 million to 1 billion. You're basically predicting a 50% increase for a sequel to the movie that has grossed $770 million.... Sure

 

 

E9 will break $1.5 billion domestic easily.

[IronJimbo]

2 minutes ago, TommyA10 said:

Lol

 

There's quite a difference between increasing from $310 to $370 million and increasing from $770 million to 1 billion. You're basically predicting a 50% increase for a sequel to the movie that has grossed $770 million.... Sure

 

 

E9 will break $1.5 billion domestic easily.

 

Huh? Your numbers are off.

I'm basically predicting a 500% increase from $200 million to $1billion.

 

Afterall China is now Domestic in the year 2022

 

[Emirazza]

Way to go Jim, keep increasing that number of sequels you plan to make. How about a one more sequel Jim? Make it six. 

Edited April 15, 2016 by Emirazza

[Emirazza]

8 hours ago, Clef Ment said:

Nobody asked for four Avatar sequels.

Let alone four, nobody asked for a Avatar sequel 

[IronJimbo]

1 minute ago, Emirazza said:

Let alone four, nobody asked for a Avatar sequel 

 

God forbid making a sequel to the highest grossing film of all time which changed cinema as we know it.

 

Instead lets make sequels to crappy superhero films and films which pander to teenage girls.

[Emirazza]

3 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

 

God forbid making a sequel to the highest grossing film of all time which changed cinema as we know it.

 

Instead lets make sequels to crappy superhero films and films which pander to teenage girls.

 

What was changed?

[IronJimbo]

1 minute ago, Emirazza said:

 

What was changed?

 

All blockbusters started using 3D

[Clef Ment]

16 minutes ago, Emirazza said:

Let alone four, nobody asked for a Avatar sequel 

 

The drops will be crazy.

 

3 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

 

All blockbusters started using 3D

 

Nice gimmick.

[Emirazza]

2 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

 

All blockbusters started using 3D

Just the technological aspect. 

[IronJimbo]

16 minutes ago, Clef Ment said:

 

The drops will be crazy.

 

 

Nice gimmick.

 

Yeah I agree it's just gimmick, just like colour and sound. We should bring back the silent era.

 

6 minutes ago, Emirazza said:

Just the technological aspect. 

 

Which is a MASSIVE part of cinema, whats your point?

[Emirazza]

Just now, IronJimbo said:

 

Yeah I agree it's just gimmick, just like colour and sound. We should bring back the silent era.

 

 

Which is a MASSIVE part of cinema, whats your point?

Its a part of cinema, but that alone won't make a good film.

[IronJimbo]

1 minute ago, Emirazza said:

Its a part of cinema, but that alone won't make a good film.

 

Without technology you would have a flip book...

[Emirazza]

Just now, IronJimbo said:

 

Without technology you would have a flip book...

You're incredibly stupid.   I'm only talking about filming in 3D and CGI. 

[IronJimbo]

4 minutes ago, Emirazza said:

You're incredibly stupid.   I'm only talking about filming in 3D and CGI. 

 

Emirazza: Just the technological aspect. 

Jim: Which is a MASSIVE part of cinema, whats your point?

Emirazza: Its a part of cinema, but that alone won't make a good film.

Jim: Without technology you would have a flip book...

 

I think you need to apologuise mister.

 

 

[johnboy3434]

7 hours ago, peludo said:

First of all, I have no idea where are you obtaining that 3.3b figure. Maybe you are asuming the US inflation for the whole world, something that is absurd. I will give you an example I know well to show it: 

 

Avatar sold 9.5 million admissions in Spain and grossed €77m, what in 2009-2010 was equal to $110m, so the ER average for this film was 110/77=1.429$/€. Today the ER is 1.126$/€, so those €77m would mean today $86.7m, so a 21% drop just because ER in the whole Eurozone (Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, ...). And you can apply the same to many other countries with different currencies like UK, Japan, Brazil, Russia...

 

When you have finally adjusted to ER is when you can apply inflation, but not with US figures, but with each country's. In 2009 and 2010, Spain had an average ticket of €6.1 and €6.52. Today, it barely crosses €6. There have not been inflation here. Of course, in other countries the behaviour has maybe been more usual. But even applying the US increase (8.70/7.50=16%), the drop in ER is still bigger (Russia has dropped a 50%, for example), so the WW could be lower than the original figure, not higher.

 

And in the final moment, you can play to guess how much would had done the film today in China or other expanding markets to know how much can we expect from Avatar sequels. But in the same way, you should take into account that sequels can drop in attendance in developed markets because a probable loss of interest (a phenomenon like Avatar is not easy to repeat). I sincerely do not see these sequels selling the amount of tickets the original did in European or North American countries, for example.

 

It is VERY difficult to adjust by inflation WW figures, close to impossible.

 

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?

Edited April 15, 2016 by johnboy3434