Jump to content

LinksterAC

The Force Awakens, Avatar, and Exchange Rates

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, hw64 said:

 

I'm all for comparing in native currencies; from what I've seen, Avatar is still significantly ahead in almost every overseas market. Better yet, take out ticket price inflation and look directly at admissions; that way you only need to account for market growth.

 

Speaking of market growth, Brazil's box office revenue for 2015 was 2.3b BRL, up from 1.23b in 2010.

 

Agree wholeheartedly.  TFA would have the lead in some of the biggest, Western markets, but come up short badly almost everywhere else.  

 

I wish we could get our hands on admissions numbers, but the best we have to work with are grosses and exchange rates.

 

Another quirk of exchange rates:  Brazil's market has expanded in BRL, but CONTRACTED in USD.  

Edited by LinksterAC
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



25 minutes ago, LinksterAC said:

 

Agree wholeheartedly.  TFA would have the lead in some of the biggest, Western markets, but come up short badly almost everywhere else.  

 

I wish we could get our hands on admissions numbers, but the best we have to work with are grosses and exchange rates.

 

Another quirk of exchange rates:  Brazil's market has expanded in BRL, but CONTRACTED in USD.  

 

You've inspired me, at least, to do a proper, well-researched analysis of TFA's box office run when it's out of cinemas. It'll be very interesting to see what I'll be able to come up with.

 

Thank-you for the thread.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Dec 2009 0.686811 – 31 days
     
  • Jan2010  0.701391 – 31 days

Euro to USD is 0.9185 in Dec2015/Jan2016

 

$96M in Dec2015/Jan2016 would be $127M in Dec2009/Jan2010 since Euro was 33% bigger during that period.

 

BTW, excellent work, LinksterAC. :):)

Edited by jb007
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Great work, Linkster :)

 

I have some experience doing this kind of exercises. I prefer to bring to present the last grosses instead looking at what would had done a film with x year ERs. With that premise, I share with my data about the figures of Avatar with today ERs (calculated at Christmas). I give markets where Avatar reached $10m:

 

MKT: Avatar original vs Avatar today ER vs TFA

Argentina: 13.5 vs 3.96 vs 7.3

Australia: 105.8 vs 84.9 vs 57.9

Austria: 14.1 vs 10.9 vs 8.1

Belgium: 13.6 vs 10.5 vs 8.36

Brazil: 58.2 vs 26.2 vs 24.79

Chile: 10.5 vs 7.6 vs 7.04

China: 204.1 vs 215.0 vs 95

Colombia: 13.6 vs 8.2 vs 4.09

Czech Rep.: 12.5 vs 9.2 vs 3.6

Denmark: 22.9 vs 17.6 vs 10.57

France: 175.6 vs 135.2 vs 77.1

Germany: 162.3 vs 124.9 vs 95.5

Greece: 10.6 vs 7.9 vs 3.02

Hong Kong: 22.9 vs 22.95 vs 10.47

India: 24.2 vs 16.93 vs 4.1

Israel: 13.1 vs 12.62 vs 2.7

Italy: 83.5 vs 65.84 vs 27.96

Japan: 172.0 vs 128.7 vs 69.4

Mexico: 44.2 vs 33.1 vs 26.31

Netherlands: 23.7 vs 18.23 vs 13.28

New Zealand: 12.6 vs 12.96 vs 8.55

Norway: 14.2 vs 9.46 vs 8.22

Poland: 28.3 vs 20.92 vs 13.7

Russia: 117.1 vs 49.69 vs 24.3

South Korea: 105.5 vs 103.37 vs 23.19

Spain: 110.0 vs 84.69 vs 33.04

Sweden: 22.2 vs 18.89 vs 16.6

Switzerland: 15.7 vs 16.61 vs 10.9

Taiwan: 13.6 vs 13.33 vs 6.0

Turkey: 17.7 vs 8.98 vs 5.4

UK: 150.0 vs 139.63 vs 164.03

 

Total: 1.794b vs 1.437b vs 871m

 

(every figure comes from BOM excepting TFA in China, which is the one I remember from this weekend)

 

According my calculations, Avatar would had done about 2.35b WW applying current ERs, and not applying any kind of inflation. And TFA seems to be headed to 2.05-2.1b. Even with the ER factor, the difference is still quite big, huge if we just look at OS figures. After this, we can debate if Avatar was EXTREMELY bloated because 3D, something that is undeniable, or what would had happened if TFA had got the 3D ratio of Avatar. That is another debate and BO-fiction.

 

Anyway, I love to see this kind of debates :)

Edited by peludo
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites



6 hours ago, hw64 said:

... this comparison is completely meaningless.

As you yourself were the reason he did the work of creating this thread, out of a discussion elsewhere (and he pointed correctly out there the OT for that thread), and this clearly only adds to points made in that discussion, I think your wording is a bit not nice for that situation.

 

6 hours ago, LinksterAC said:

...Because BO grosses are generally an independent variable from international exchange rates.  The XR doesn't affect the market conditions of the movie within each given country. 

.... So which road is more valid?  The gross in native dollars or US dollars?  I don't know!  Do you?  If you're an advocate for OS markets, wouldn't you want equal consideration for the native currencies?

Whatever the case, I think it's fair to look at it both ways.

Wholeheartedly agree to that, thank you very much for all the work, a very interesting read (even for me) :wub:

 

6 hours ago, NCsoft said:

If you want to do this, you need to consider ...

No, he doesn't need to 'consider' / write about that too (especially in his early posts) in his thread, as the thread's theme/title is about the exchange rate comparison for a defined situation (and seemingly started as an answer for a 'challenge' of another user, who for whatever reasons didn't do it himself), all other (also valid) points can be researched and calculated / listed (preferable also for ALL markets or at least regions (instead of cherry picking only a few) too e.g. by yourself to add to the way more complex International 'picture' in general, but there is not a 'must' to provide those by The Person, who already did a lot of work to contribute a part of the whole, IMHO his work is quite rather worth getting a lot of praising (and likes!) instead IMHO, as it provides a rather in-depth impression for a certain detail.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



7 hours ago, LinksterAC said:

 

Find me 3D shares international markets for both countries, and we can talk.  I suspect the favored Avatar, not TFA, and inflated Avatar's gross.

 

And the comparison based on XR is not completely meaningless.  Why?  Because BO grosses are generally an independent variable from international exchange rates.  The XR doesn't affect the market conditions of the movie within each given country. 

 

The only time the rates affect the gross of a movie is when you convert a gross from one currency to another.  

 

If you reported grosses in native currencies only, it would paint a much, much rosier picture for TFA in the TFA to Avatar comparison.  So which road is more valid?  The gross in native dollars or US dollars?  I don't know!  Do you?  If you're an advocate for OS markets, wouldn't you want equal consideration for the native currencies?

 

Whatever the case, I think it's fair to look at it both ways.

This is the key post. We can speculate about how many admissions would had sold a film today. We will never know if Avatar would had sold today the same amount of admissions or if it would had had the same 3D ratio. And we will never know if people would had been so much impacted by TFA around the world in 2010, just 5 years after ROTS and if it would had had a biggest 3D ratio. And we can speculate too about how much would had done today Avatar in China or another expanding markets, probably quite more than it really did. But those questions can not be asked with just one answer. There are multiple factors that can affect it.

 

But the ER factor has no subjective arguments. ER factors are just numbers that people do not care when they buy a ticket with their local currency. When I buy a ticket to see a film I am thinking in if the ticket is expensive in euros. But I am not thinking if it gives to the box office of the film $8 or $10. I give a shit about it (well, maybe I think about it remembering this kind of conversations :), but 99.999% of the population do not care).

 

So the debate about "adjusting" and what would had done today must be separated of the ER debate. Inflation, expanding markets or 3D has nothing to do with ER. The ER adjusting is undeniable and undebatable, and looking at the title of the thread it seems to be the target of this conversation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not everything can be directly converted. In countries like venezuela because of crazy inflation, ticket prices have increased like crazy. No way it would have grossed that much in USD had the economy be at 2010 level. back then XR was 2.1 and ticket prices were low.

 

That is why we are better off looking at admissions while look at gross. Most countries publish gross. SW7 has done great but outside few countries its no where near Avatar. But Avatar benefited being 1st major 3D spectacle and also some markets like spain/italy etc have contracted since Avatar days. But Avatar is definitely bigger than SW7 except domestic and UK.

 

On canada OW is only around 6%. only later the % goes up bcos canadian holds are much better than US. So no way SW7 would have grossed 85m in canada.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



2 minutes ago, keysersoze123 said:

Not everything can be directly converted. In countries like venezuela because of crazy inflation, ticket prices have increased like crazy. No way it would have grossed that much in USD had the economy be at 2010 level. back then XR was 2.1 and ticket prices were low.

 

That is why we are better off looking at admissions while look at gross. Most countries publish gross. SW7 has done great but outside few countries its no where near Avatar. But Avatar benefited being 1st major 3D spectacle and also some markets like spain/italy etc have contracted since Avatar days. But Avatar is definitely bigger than SW7 except domestic and UK.

 

On canada OW is only around 6%. only later the % goes up bcos canadian holds are much better than US. So no way SW7 would have grossed 85m in canada.

I agree. Admissions is the best way to compare. But, as you well say, we just have some countries figures (Spain, France, Germany, South Korea, Switzerland, Brazil or Argentina). With grosses we can just make an estimation, implying an error for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Agafin said:

I agree with everything you said except this. Avatar's run was more impressive, let's be honest.

What in his formulation did imply the need to add this?

I can not see any tiniest sand corn even trying to ~ put anything in a 'chart'.

To be 'honest':

it's still a POV, what is for whom for which reasons the most impressive whatever (me personally do not even think in such terms), please accept that not for all BO fans the same details are the most important / best /... whatever.

Like myself, I agree to @LinksterAC  POV:

Quote

Both equally impressive in their own ways

And only to be clear: I am an Avatar fan too, love it's reached numbers,...will watch Avatar 2... but am able to differ the details between the two movie's backgrounds, times, and other details.

And really do not understand this, this.... need to trump and in a way to clump any expression of something reached 'equal'

Link to comment
Share on other sites



47 minutes ago, peludo said:

Admissions is the best way to compare.

IMHO? It's only one way out of many to compare.

I think each movie and each market should be researched closely for itself, as to only count admissions is IMHO ignoring:

local record breakers, local or wider happening major events (like let's say what happened in Paris, or a war or a natural disaster or,...), or if local law restricts certain age groups or not, if there are holidays or not, if there was another, maybe too similar movie releases just recently, if the ticket prices went too high up for e.g. a repeat family trip to the cinema (in case it is about a family movie), bad advertising campaign or translation, the involvement of which local cities, crew/cast or not, if something in the story hinders an OS success like e.g. too 'murica or not... see e.g. American Sniper, or... how much 3D is important for the (repeat?) enjoyment, but in a country isn't that much of those kind of theatres to find in the year whichever, wrong for the country kind of humour, or,...

So many details that can play into a country's or regions ticket numbers too, hence the reason I think only a complex comparison of a lot of details can give an impression that is ~ showing a bit of a picture. Of that time. Now add changing general situations per decade, varying tastes for which genres/stories (like western, what would be today a major success for a western, is it even fair/making sense at all to compare ticket numbers with a time 50years back?), how many movies got released when as general competition... and tons of other details.

 

To give an example not directly related to SW7

= look up why Guardians of the Galaxy made only such a low revenue in SK.... (hint 1: Roaring Currents)

Should that low BO mean GotG was perceived as 'bad' in SK?

Nope, the majority of the audience didn't then even realise it got released too or was at that time too occupied with their then newest local record breaker (GotG ~ $10m, Roaring Currents, released 1 day before GotG, made ~ $131m+).

 

I think sometimes ppl fall too much in love with a certain kind of numbers / theories, maybe it's too in to ask for admissions only nowadays?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



27 minutes ago, terrestrial said:

IMHO? It's only one way out of many to compare.

I think each movie and each market should be researched closely for itself, as to only count admissions is IMHO ignoring:

local record breakers, local or wider happening major events (like let's say what happened in Paris, or a war or a natural disaster or,...), or if local law restricts certain age groups or not, if there are holidays or not, if there was another, maybe too similar movie releases just recently, if the ticket prices went too high up for e.g. a repeat family trip to the cinema (in case it is about a family movie), bad advertising campaign or translation, the involvement of which local cities, crew/cast or not, if something in the story hinders an OS success like e.g. too 'murica or not... see e.g. American Sniper, or... how much 3D is important for the (repeat?) enjoyment, but in a country isn't that much of those kind of theatres to find in the year whichever, wrong for the country kind of humour, or,...

So many details that can play into a country's or regions ticket numbers too, hence the reason I think only a complex comparison of a lot of details can give an impression that is ~ showing a bit of a picture. Of that time. Now add changing general situations per decade, varying tastes for which genres/stories (like western, what would be today a major success for a western, is it even fair/making sense at all to compare ticket numbers with a time 50years back?), how many movies got released when as general competition... and tons of other details.

 

To give an example not directly related to SW7

= look up why Guardians of the Galaxy made only such a low revenue in SK.... (hint 1: Roaring Currents)

Should that low BO mean GotG was perceived as 'bad' in SK?

Nope, the majority of the audience didn't then even realise it got released too or was at that time too occupied with their then newest local record breaker (GotG ~ $10m, Roaring Currents, released 1 day before GotG, made ~ $131m+).

 

I think sometimes ppl fall too much in love with a certain kind of numbers / theories, maybe it's too in to ask for admissions only nowadays?

 

Well, I said (and that is just my opinion), the best way, not the only way. As you well say there are multiple factors to take into account, but if we consider all of them it would be impossible to make comparisons, and threads like this or the usual grosses lists would have no-sense. At the end you have to fix some standards and asume that there will never exist a completely fair and exact way of comparison. Some people can think the unadjusted gross list is the best way, other people can think in admissions, others can say that the best way is the percentage of admissions relative to current population... the list can be infinite.

 

This is just a game for me. I do not earn money making lists or calculations. I just enjoy doing it. But I will not spend tons of time taking into account hundreds of variables that maybe I would not know how to size or include. I would become mad. I think admissions is a good measurer, but I am open to look at other ways of measure.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Most of you consider what SW would have made in 2009. But it would be also very interesting what Avatar could make today, maybe even more interesting. It was overwhelming back in 2009, something you did not see before. And it had 3D and established the hype. Today 3D dies in many countries, ER are collapsing...

 

Of course I don't know, but maybe today it wouldn't even do $2B :ph34r: You could consider what it made that special in 2009. It isn't such a good film (it isn't bad either). Maybe it became an event-movie that you had to see. And maybe today it wouldn't become that. Who knows...

Link to comment
Share on other sites



2 minutes ago, Aristis said:

Most of you consider what SW would have made in 2009. But it would be also very interesting what Avatar could make today, maybe even more interesting. It was overwhelming back in 2009, something you did not see before. And it had 3D and established the hype. Today 3D dies in many countries, ER are collapsing...

 

Of course I don't know, but maybe today it wouldn't even do $2B :ph34r: You could consider what it made that special in 2009. It isn't such a good film (it isn't bad either). Maybe it became an event-movie that you had to see. And maybe today it wouldn't become that. Who knows...

Just for the ER factor, Avatar would drop to 2.35b.

 

To consider another factors (beyond inflation) is just pure speculation. Concerning 3D factor, Avatar was precisely the film which started the 3D trend. So, if Avatar had been released today, maybe we would not have had 3D films during last 6 years and Avatar would be a novelty again :ph34r:. Very difficult to say.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



12 minutes ago, peludo said:

... but I am open to look at other ways of measure.

I understand I think, I mostly think too many see a 'best way' as 'The' way and I / personally disagree to any 'only one way' being a best way, as that's always ignores too many detail.
As I often do not have the time to follow worldwide the BO

Spoiler

 

and other details constantly neither I usually pick 2 movies per year to follow in depths (not SW7), and wander through the countries every time I have the chance in between, without looking into one movie in especial.

As in sometimes I stay for several days or even weeks in a countries actual situation (not only BO of a few movies, but also other details, what has changed since the last time...), seek out ppl there and so on, sometimes I only ~sweep through a continent / area, including the newest biggest or local titles and tendencies, look into reviews of those, which genres and so on, see my earlier post, as in only spending 20 hours or so.

And when I have time, I start really digging, but as I am sleeping only in average 2 hours I might have an advantage for that way.

The result is also not 'scientific', but I think it gives me, as a solo person, a general impression better than ignoring them altogether would do, but still not more than a general impression, not what it's 'really' to conclude.

Hence the reasons why I doubt the sense/reliability of a lot of charts in use here and elsewhere if used to proof anything in general.

 

What I do think helps is the work you do, or what LinksterAC did here, what people like The Good Olive,... do at China, like explaining why he thinks this or that will happen, a lot of the per country threads, what Talis... does (even of I disagree with some calculation models), the actuals we get by BOM, BO.com,.. even their sometimes faulty predictions and their reasons for giving them,... as long as ppl don't forget that each chart... is only one piece of the picture.

= it's the sum, that gives a picture IMHO, like many many mosaic stones. For that all those charts are perfectly adding IMHO, but none is IMHO really a better or bigger piece than the others.

Maybe the general counting 'chart position' measure idea isn't the best goal?


My dream would b

Spoiler

 

a kind of place/source/thread area, where only historical data can be provided, no discussions..., also as far as possible admissions, ticket/population per decade, TV-owning percentages per decade (not all the same as in the US),... inflation, exchange rates,...

Maybe an area for historical snippets too, like about what our grandparents (as far as still living, in my case not) have to tell how much of their allowance it took to go to the cinema, how they managed to get there, how often they could go in general, how often repeats and why,... were allowed to,...

And a place where actual global data per weekend/week and movie/country/sums... can be found

 

And have an own area where ppl can discuss those, quote out of the both data base/databank, can combine multi-quotes (shortened)... to discuss, find own impressions, to learn in their own speed and way

 

Never will happen, it's too big

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



3 hours ago, keysersoze123 said:

Not everything can be directly converted. In countries like venezuela because of crazy inflation, ticket prices have increased like crazy. No way it would have grossed that much in USD had the economy be at 2010 level. back then XR was 2.1 and ticket prices were low.

 

That is why we are better off looking at admissions while look at gross. Most countries publish gross. SW7 has done great but outside few countries its no where near Avatar. But Avatar benefited being 1st major 3D spectacle and also some markets like spain/italy etc have contracted since Avatar days. But Avatar is definitely bigger than SW7 except domestic and UK.

 

On canada OW is only around 6%. only later the % goes up bcos canadian holds are much better than US. So no way SW7 would have grossed 85m in canada.

 

Actually, looking at my chart, TFA will either match top, or come very close to Avatar in quite a few countries (when adjusted for ER):

 

USA

Canada

UK

Australia

Germany

 

There are others.  Generally, they are European.  Emerging markets were aaaaalll about that Avatar, particular China.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



45 minutes ago, LinksterAC said:

 

Actually, looking at my chart, TFA will either match top, or come very close to Avatar in quite a few countries (when adjusted for ER):

 

USA

Canada

UK

Australia

Germany

 

There are others.  Generally, they are European.  Emerging markets were aaaaalll about that Avatar, particular China.  

 

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.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.