The Force Awakens, Avatar, and Exchange Rates

[terrestrial]

17 minutes ago, Tower said:

Your list is just the anglophone countries (we don't really know about Canada numbers, and it doesn't look to match Avatar in Australia), and Germany. The thing is, we actually get admissions numbers for Germany, so we know for a fact that TFA won't make Avatar admissions, even if adjusting only for exchange rates might show otherwise.

This. Thread. Is. About. Exchange. Rates.

peludo's thread (and the charts there) is too about ERs

Please respect that before jumping blindly on ppl.

[LinksterAC]

28 minutes ago, Tower said:

 

Your list is just the anglophone countries (we don't really know about Canada numbers, and it doesn't look to match Avatar in Australia), and Germany. The thing is, we actually get admissions numbers for Germany, so we know for a fact that TFA won't make Avatar admissions, even if adjusting only for exchange rates might show otherwise.

 

No question on the admissions in Germany.  Avatar wins hands down!

 

But, again, this is a discussion of BO gross and the effect of exchange rates.

 

Peludo's inverse exercise of adjusting Avatar's 2010 gross to 2016 XR demonstrates the same thing: don't discount TFA as a WW juggernaut.  (Propos to you @peludo)

 

Avatar is the WW champ by a clear shot ($200M to $300M, adjusted for XR), but the only movie that even comes close is TFA.  Everything else is in a different strata.  Even if you were to XR-adjust recent movies like F7 and JW, they wouldn't benefit the way TFA does.  The back end of 2015 has seen the US dollar shoot upwards pretty dramatically.

 

I've always been more interested in domestic totals, personally.  The USA is a mature, saturated film market that's easier to get data for and to analyze.  

 

The rest of the world gives you results that leave you scratching your head sometimes (Transformers in China).

[hw64]

In regards to the previous two posts, Tower is making the point that simply adjusting just for exchange rates is fallacious in and of itself: if adjusting purely by exchange rates suggests that TFA would have made more money despite significantly fewer admissions, then we shouldn't be comparing TFA's "adjusted" total to Avatar's worldwide gross at all. You can continue on all you want about how this thread is only for exchange rate discussion, but it's a fact that the discussion of the validity of adjusting only for exchange rates is entirely at place here.

 

Linkster, there are many things wrong with your original research: The exchange rate differences that you've posted only add up to about $350m when you claim it's $400m; you claim TFA adjusted would be at $2.3b now even though that's a $430m difference, which is nowhere near what the added total is; you've only used one website to check exchange rate data; the country data you've used is dated different for each country, and many are a week or two out of date. We should not be taking this post as definitive research even if we were to accept the premise of "adjusting for exchange rates and nothing else" being valid. Let's at least wait until the movie has finished its run before even beginning the discussion on exchange rates, market expansion, inflation, etc.

 

On another note, you're still persistently adamant about the fact that TFA's worldwide gross is at least comparable to Avatar's; it isn't. If you want to just adjust for exchange rates and leave it there, then sure, TFA will only be around $350-$400m short of Avatar WW at the end of its run. It's a running theme around here that people generally only want to consider the factors that support their argument, though. If we were to adjust for market expansion alone (on top of XR) then it wouldn't even be close, and that's without getting into the myriad of other factors that TFA had to its advantage during its run.

[Cynosure]

TFA is well behind Avatar in terms of run, and even further behind Titanic. TFA is a huge blockbuster, no doubt, but Avatar and Titanic are juggernauts of an entire different category (especially Titanic).

[LinksterAC]

51 minutes ago, hw64 said:

In regards to the previous two posts, Tower is making the point that simply adjusting just for exchange rates is fallacious in and of itself: if adjusting purely by exchange rates suggests that TFA would have made more money despite significantly fewer admissions, then we shouldn't be comparing TFA's "adjusted" total to Avatar's worldwide gross at all. You can continue on all you want about how this thread is only for exchange rate discussion, but it's a fact that the discussion of the validity of adjusting only for exchange rates is entirely at place here.

 

Linkster, there are many things wrong with your original research: The exchange rate differences that you've posted only add up to about $350m when you claim it's $400m; you claim TFA adjusted would be at $2.3b now even though that's a $430m difference, which is nowhere near what the added total is; you've only used one website to check exchange rate data; the country data you've used is dated different for each country, and many are a week or two out of date. We should not be taking this post as definitive research even if we were to accept the premise of "adjusting for exchange rates and nothing else" being valid. Let's at least wait until the movie has finished its run before even beginning the discussion on exchange rates, market expansion, inflation, etc.

 

On another note, you're still persistently adamant about the fact that TFA's worldwide gross is at least comparable to Avatar's; it isn't. If you want to just adjust for exchange rates and leave it there, then sure, TFA will only be around $350-$400m short of Avatar WW at the end of its run. It's a running theme around here that people generally only want to consider the factors that support their argument, though. If we were to adjust for market expansion alone (on top of XR) then it wouldn't even be close, and that's without getting into the myriad of other factors that TFA had to its advantage during its run.

 

My research is by no means the end all.  I also said it would be close to $2.3B, not at $2.3B.  My totals add up to $352M in XR losses on the chart.

 

That said, if you add up the total 2016 grosses in my chart, and subtract out Canada, you'll come up well short of the 1.013B total that is shown at BOM.  You get $925M, (that is responsible for $328M in XR losses, or a 36% rate).  That leaves $90M of the $1.013B unaccounted for.  Why?  Because I don't have information available for every market.  

 

Since I don't have that data, I have to make some assumptions based on the large body of data I DID research.  In this case, I assumed that the $90M exchanges at the Euro 2010 to 2016 multiplier of 1.33 (33%, not the 36% I calculated above).  You get $120M.  There's a difference of roughly $30M there.  Beyond that, you have my already corrected error on the Canada estimated gross, which introduced another $20M surplus.  And voila!  Now you know where $400M came from on my original post.  Not a perfect guesstimation, I know, but certainly reasonable given the total XR rate for the $925M.

 

So the total loss is more like $380M (and growing).  The cumulative total would be $2.25B, and not $2.3B (a $50M difference).  There is still about $200M to collect WW (non-adjusted for XR), so the $2.5B number definitely stands.

 

The final difference is about $200M to $300M (not $350 to $400) when adjusted for XR, or about a 9% difference.  That's roughly the domestic difference between JW and The Avengers, two movies these boards constantly treat as comparable.  

 

In the end, I can't tell you for certain how the global market would have received Avatar today, or TFA in 2010.  How would we absorb Titanic in 2010 or 2016?  We don't take that account when comparing its grosses to Avatar.  What I can tell you FOR CERTAIN, is how the exchange rates affect the final number in USD you see when you look at the grosses.

 

Finally, I think your posts would benefit tremendously from a contemplative, questioning phraseology, rather than an accusatory one.  I do have answers to your questions, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't come at me like I was trying to deceive your or push an agenda.  I'm not.  As I said earlier, I love both of these movies, and am a big fan of the BO runs of both.

Edited January 18, 2016 by LinksterAC

[LinksterAC]

1 hour ago, hw64 said:

 

Linkster, there are many things wrong with your original research: The exchange rate differences that you've posted only add up to about $350m when you claim it's $400m; you claim TFA adjusted would be at $2.3b now even though that's a $430m difference, which is nowhere near what the added total is; you've only used one website to check exchange rate data; the country data you've used is dated different for each country, and many are a week or two out of date. We should not be taking this post as definitive research even if we were to accept the premise of "adjusting for exchange rates and nothing else" being valid. Let's at least wait until the movie has finished its run before even beginning the discussion on exchange rates, market expansion, inflation, etc.

 

 

 

XR rates are also not "different for each country."

 

They are a comparison of the most recent XR available, and the XR reported on Jan. 16 2010.

 

Edit: This is by no means a perfect methodology, and I make no such claim.  The rates can change quite a bit over the three months a movie is in the theaters.  Venezuela is a great example.  Do you use the rate before Jan. 9 2010, which would have helped TFA by a factor of nearly 1.5 more than I have shown?  

Edited January 18, 2016 by LinksterAC

[druv10]

Great thread. It really shows how much money SW7 is leaving on the table WW. Scary thing is dollar is only getting stronger so movies like BvS, CA3 or Rogue One are going to be severely hampered, unless dollar weakens.

[IronJimbo]

On 18/01/2016 at 4:10 PM, terrestrial said:

This. Thread. Is. About. Exchange. Rates.

peludo's thread (and the charts there) is too about ERs

Please respect that before jumping blindly on ppl.

 

Weird, you would jump blindly on me on every graph I post saying I wasn't taking 1000 factors into account. When my graphs never pretended too.

 

[jb007]

It is obvious with late 2009/early 2010 Exchange rates, TFA would have grossed $1.5+ Billion overseas. As @druv10 has pointed it, TFA is leaving a lot of money on the table due to terrible exchange rates.

[peludo]

4 minutes ago, jb007 said:

It is obvious with late 2009/early 2010 Exchange rates, TFA would have grossed $1.5+ Billion overseas. As @druv10 has pointed it, TFA is leaving a lot of money on the table due to terrible exchange rates.

Not so high, but 1.35-1.4b for sure. We would be talking about 2.3-2.35b WW.

[jb007]

8 minutes ago, peludo said:

Not so high, but 1.35-1.4b for sure. We would be talking about 2.3-2.35b WW.

 

 

If you check LinksterAC's list, the loss due to ER is over $350M+. The loss due to ER would be well over $400M accounting for all markets and the balance of the run. So that would put it over $1.5 B overseas.

[peludo]

13 minutes ago, jb007 said:

 

 

If you check LinksterAC's list, the loss due to ER is over $350M+. The loss due to ER would be well over $400M accounting for all markets and the balance of the run. So that would put it over $1.5 B overseas.

My bad. I applied a wrong percentage. It is right. We would be talking about 2.425b WW, asuming $925m DOM.

[Jessie]

I did a little calculation when I was bored a few weeks ago for Avatar, I worked out it would have made around 417m less with todays exchange rates. So about 2.35b.

 

Then again, imagine how much more it would have made in expanding markets today? Maybe enough to make up for that figure? who knows, either way its still an absolute monster and would have still outgrossed TFA worldwide.

[LinksterAC]

3 hours ago, peludo said:

My bad. I applied a wrong percentage. It is right. We would be talking about 2.425b WW, asuming $925m DOM.

 

I think total losses will get to around $450M WW when it's all said and done, and probably closer to $940M domestic.  About $2.5B WW adjusted to 2010 XR.  But that's really picking nits. 

 

Your insights are proving to be quite awesome Peludo. 

[peludo]

2 hours ago, Jessie said:

I did a little calculation when I was bored a few weeks ago for Avatar, I worked out it would have made around 417m less with todays exchange rates. So about 2.35b.

 

Then again, imagine how much more it would have made in expanding markets today? Maybe enough to make up for that figure? who knows, either way its still an absolute monster and would have still outgrossed TFA worldwide.

That calculation seems quite accurate. Said this, probably just China would had been enough to reach again the 2.78b original figure. Some days ago, I read in the Chinese thread that Avatar 2 is already quite high in one list of the most anticipated films.

[peludo]

12 minutes ago, LinksterAC said:

 

I think total losses will get to around $450M WW when it's all said and done, and probably closer to $940M domestic.  About $2.5B WW adjusted to 2010 XR.  But that's really picking nits. 

 

Your insights are proving to be quite awesome Peludo. 

Yes, that figure seems to be right.

 

Thank you for your words and for opening this specific thread  It is very interesting this kind of discussions and make more clear some kind of comparisons.

Edited January 20, 2016 by peludo

[LinksterAC]

2 hours ago, Jessie said:

I did a little calculation when I was bored a few weeks ago for Avatar, I worked out it would have made around 417m less with todays exchange rates. So about 2.35b.

 

Then again, imagine how much more it would have made in expanding markets today? Maybe enough to make up for that figure? who knows, either way its still an absolute monster and would have still outgrossed TFA worldwide.

 

The tricky part of this line of thinking is that you're talking about a variable (market size) that's dependent on time.  It's hard to say "Avatar would have grossed 1.5x as much as 2010 because market A has grown 1.5x" because as the market grows, it changes.  Is 3D the unique draw today that it was in 2010?  This is a speculative guess.

 

ER is not speculative.  It's an arbitrary rate applied to exchange a gross out of its native currency, and not dependent on BO market conditions at the time.  

 

For example, TFA has grossed $860M in USD domestically so far, Avatar $760M.  But if you reported their domestic grosses in Canadian dollars, Avatar would still be at about $760M CAD, whereas TFA would be around $1300M CAD, on its way to $1400M.  Is that a fair comparison for Avatar?  I don't think so!

 

That's the peril inherent to exchange rates.  They are arbitrary and can really distort your picture depending on what currency you exchange into. 

[Jessie]

1 hour ago, peludo said:

That calculation seems quite accurate. Said this, probably just China would had been enough to reach again the 2.78b original figure. Some days ago, I read in the Chinese thread that Avatar 2 is already quite high in one list of the most anticipated films.

 

I just calculated the exchange rates with all the big markets and added all the euro markets together. Ended up with about 500m worth of grosses from small markets but it would have taken hours to work that out so I just averaged the rest. Not the most accurate of way to work it out but it was just for me lol

[Purple Minion]

Just to point out that the UK gross includes the Republic of Ireland, lc = Euro (and Malta, but that's negligible). So the ER losses would be steeper.

[terrestrial]

On Montag, 18. Januar 2016 at 6:05 PM, hw64 said:

In regards to the previous two posts, ....

Again:

Do you really think we do not know that?

It still is ignoring the threads theme, as do you too in again 'telling' details not related to the threads theme, IMHO misusing the explanation of an OT post for the next OT post.

Off topic is off topic, when a thread has a defined theme (that YOU caused in trying to hijack another thread before LinksterAC offered you to follow you to the appropriate area, and you ~ demanding from him to write there about this very theme/detail, demanding also to get provided a link for you, so you then use it to change to the correct area instead you going yourself where the discussion should have been from the beginning, incl to find a thread that matches your wishes or start one yourself) than is 'preaching' about other themes (aka hijacking a thread) IMHO very rude, especially as ppl actually respecting the thread's theme get IMHO treated as if they would either not know the obvious / basic knowledge here at BOT or 'ignoring those points' for whatever agenda not based on respecting a thread's theme or why-ever you wrongly assume people 'do not understand' a fellow thread hijacker.

I wouldn't point that out that clearly, if you wouldn't have already tried to ignore thread themes at different areas, including you already gotten there too hints about being Off Topic... ignoring those hints too too often, and honestly said, your wording is partly not asking for answers or help, but ~ demanding it = also not o.K. IMHO.