STAR WARS: THE FORCE AWAKENS | 1131.6 M overseas | 2068.2 M worldwide

[Cynosure]

6 minutes ago, KP1025 said:

I don't think beating Avatar was ever seriously considered once the OS numbers started coming in. We could see that it was definitely not coming even close to Avatar's gross in many European countries and Asia. The low exchange rates are just too big a hurdle right now unless a film truly breaks out in China to overcome it. Avatar adjusts to about $2.3 billion in today's exchange rates, so I think $2.1 billion for TFA is very impressive all things considered. 

 

You can't just adjust the ER for Avatar to lower the gross but not take into account market growth in China.

[Elessar]

10 minutes ago, KP1025 said:

Avatar adjusts to about $2.3 billion in today's exchange rates

 

Yes but that doesn't account for market expansions and inflation.

 

Plus that figure is a very rough estimate to begin with.

Edited January 11, 2016 by Elessar

[KP1025]

4 minutes ago, jornacio said:

 

Where do u get that estimate?

 

Another poster calculated it a few pages ago. I think it was @peludo unless I'm mistaken. 

[KP1025]

1 minute ago, Elessar said:

 

Yes but that doesn't account for market expansions and inflation.

 

True. Although I have to wonder even with market expansion and inflation, can Avatar 2 match or surpass the original's gross. China alone hopefully should overcome that deficit in exchange rates.

[Elessar]

8 minutes ago, KP1025 said:

 

True. Although I have to wonder even with market expansion and inflation, can Avatar 2 match or surpass the original's gross. China alone hopefully should overcome that deficit in exchange rates.

 

I don't think so. And that has less to do with market conditions and more with the simple fact that Avatar was just so damn huge everywhere. If it does Titanic numbers it would be a big win imho.

[vc2002]

Wrong thread.

Edited January 11, 2016 by vc2002

[James]

9 hours ago, Cynosure said:

Titanic wins again.

 

Well, totally worth it. I don't think anyone can say that movie doesn't deserve it's earnings.

[peludo]

31 minutes ago, James said:

Well, totally worth it. I don't think anyone can say that movie doesn't deserve it's earnings.

I do not think it deserved so much earnings. IMO, it is a good film, but not THAT good film.

Edited January 11, 2016 by peludo

[James]

3 minutes ago, peludo said:

I do not think it deserved so much earnings. It is a good film, but not THAT good film.

Well, it's among the very very very few movies everyone I know likes, guys and girls. And it's better than 95% of the movies that made over 1B.

[peludo]

21 minutes ago, James said:

Well, it's among the very very very few movies everyone I know likes, guys and girls. And it's better than 95% of the movies that made over 1B.

Well, I know people who detest it. Many people became really tired of it. And many still do not understand why Jack was not able to climb to the piece of wood 

 

Do not get me wrong. I like the film. I give it a B, maybe a B+, but I think that there are more than 1 billionaire film better than Titanic: Jurassic Park, The Dark Knight, Toy Story 3 or ROTK say hello. And I have Frozen, Skyfall, TDKR and SW7 at a similar level to Titanic. Of course, this is just my opinion and tastes...

Edited January 11, 2016 by peludo

[Agafin]

Talking about Titanic, I didn't even think it was possible but TFA has made me even  MORE impressed by its OS gross than I previously was. I always had the impression that TFA would "easily" top its original OS take ($1.24B). It's truly something, that it won't do so despite benefitting from better exchange rates, 18 years of inflation, 18 years of market expansion around the globe, more territories (57 for Titanic vs 100+ for TFA), out-of-this world marketting, far more screens (6000 for Titanic vs 30000 for TFA) and decades upon decades of nostalgia from an already existing fanbase.

 

I think if we put our personal tastes and biases aside and try to be perfectly objective, the logical conclusion would be that Titanic deserves its spot up there  far more than anything else.

[peludo]

2 hours ago, Agafin said:

Talking about Titanic, I didn't even think it was possible but TFA has made me even  MORE impressed by its OS gross than I previously was. I always had the impression that TFA would "easily" top its original OS take ($1.24B). It's truly something, that it won't do so despite benefitting from better exchange rates, 18 years of inflation, 18 years of market expansion around the globe, more territories (57 for Titanic vs 100+ for TFA), out-of-this world marketting, far more screens (6000 for Titanic vs 30000 for TFA) and decades upon decades of nostalgia from an already existing fanbase.

 

I think if we put our personal tastes and biases aside and try to be perfectly objective, the logical conclusion would be that Titanic deserves its spot up there  far more than anything else.

One thing is to think that Titanic did not deserve to make so much money and another one is to deny that Titanic's run is the most astonishing ever. We can separate concepts of box office and quality/tastes. In that sense, we could debate too if the boost in box office because 11 Oscars wins was deserved since many people do not think it should had won the BP Oscar facing (in my opinion) better films like As good as it gets, L.A. Confidential or Good Will Hunting. What would had happened with the box office if a better film had won the best picture Oscar instead Titanic?

 

I think that the "deserve" concept is attached irremediably to quality/tastes. I will always recognize that Titanic did an incredible run that no movie will be able to match EVER. Even although I think it did not deserve to do it. IMHO, it is perfectly compatible to have both feelings.

 

Edit: Just to point that ER during Titanic release and Star Wars are pretty similar.

Edited January 11, 2016 by peludo

[peludo]

12 hours ago, Elessar said:

 

Yes but that doesn't account for market expansions and inflation.

 

Plus that figure is a very rough estimate to begin with.

According my estimations and just taking into account the ER factor, Avatar would had done today 2.368b WW (the estimation can go maybe 20 million up or down, but basically that is the figure). Another thing is that we can speculate about how much it would had done today in China. Probably enough to compensate the ER drop and reach again the 2.788b figure. We will never know either what would had happened if Star Wars had been released in 2010, during the 3D boost. At the end, it is BO-fiction.

 

The fact is that ER benefited a lot to certain films or it is hurting a lot to others.

Edited January 11, 2016 by peludo

[IronJimbo]

2 hours ago, peludo said:

And many still do not understand why Jack was not able to climb to the piece of wood 

 

 

What is buoyancy?

[IronJimbo]

15 minutes ago, peludo said:

According my estimations and just taking into account the ER factor, Avatar would had done today 2.368b WW (the estimation can go maybe 20 million up or down, but basically that is the figure). Another thing is that we can speculate about how much it would had done today in China. Probably enough to compensate the ER drop and reach again the 2.788b figure. We will never know either what would had happened if Star Wars had been released in 2010, during the 3D boost. At the end, it is BO-fiction.

 

The fact is that ER benefited a lot to certain films or it is hurting a lot to others.

Wait are you actually suggesting that Jan 2010 sws would do better than Jan 2010 Avatar or even that jan 2016 Avatar would do worse than jan 2016 sws? (ALL CHINA)

[peludo]

2 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

What is buoyancy?

Ok, let's give them it. He could have looked for another piece of wood 

[IronJimbo]

4 minutes ago, peludo said:

Ok, let's give them it. He could have looked for another piece of wood 

 

It's pitch black at night! Also below freezing temp.

 

 

 

[peludo]

5 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

Wait are you actually suggesting that Jan 2010 sws would do better than Jan 2010 Avatar or even that jan 2016 Avatar would do worse than jan 2016 sws? (ALL CHINA)

I am suggesting anything. Just giving some data.

 

- Avatar would had done today 400 million less than it really did with today ER.

- Star Wars would had sold more 3D tickets in 2010 than now because the 3D boost (something that is Avatar merit since its 3D remains to be one of the best ever, if not the best).

- Star Wars has 6 years of inflation and expansion.

- Avatar would had done more today in China or Star Wars would had done less in China in 2010.

 

Many factors. But at the end the only one we can measure exactly (even more than inflation) is the ER factor, and that factor plays in favor of Avatar (and 2008-2012 released films) and against today films. That is undeniable. Said this, I do not think Star Wars would had beaten Avatar with similar conditions. But maybe the gap would had not been so big.

[peludo]

11 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

 

It's pitch black at night! Also below freezing temp.

 

 

 

Bigger reason to not be stopped. Move and look for a warmer "refuge".

[Agafin]

20 minutes ago, peludo said:

One thing is to think that Titanic did not deserve to make so much money and another one is to deny that Titanic's run is the most astonishing ever. We can separate concepts of box office and quality/tastes. In that sense, we could debate too if the boost in box office because 11 Oscars wins was deserved since many people do not think it should had won the BP Oscar facing (in my opinion) better films like As good as it gets, L.A. Confidential or Good Will Hunting. What would had happened with the box office if a better film had won the best picture Oscar instead Titanic?

 

I think that the "deserve" concept is attached irremediably to quality/tastes. I will always recognize that Titanic did an incredible run that no movie will be able to match EVER. Even although I think it did not deserve to do it. IMHO, it is perfectly compatible to have both feelings

Fair enough. I guess what you mean is that Titanic is overrated and didn't its success, but you do acknowledge the impressiveness of its accomplishment.

 

About the 11 wins, I don't really think they had much of an impact. Titanic had already made so much money by then that they probably added  2% at best to its final gross. According to Box Office guru, Titanic actually had one of its steepest drop that week:

http://www.boxofficeguru.com/033098.htm

 I mean, LOTR also swept 11 oscars but that wasn't enough for it to have the monstruous legs of Titanic. I think those oscars can only make a significant difference to medium sized hits.

 

Anyway, I see your point. But then, that leads to the question, what do you think deserved to have a run like Titanic?