Jump to content

kayumanggi

AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR | 1369.5 M overseas ● 2048.4 M worldwide

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, Juby said:

 

GwtW was released 7 times before even Jaws came out, and the film wasn't available anywhere till the TV premiere in 1976. :P Than it was re-release another 2 times, in 1989 and 1998. In term of the original run, GwtW probably wouldn't be even in Top5 of the biggest domestic movies of all time. Titanic would've been in Top3, maybe Top1. :D 

 

The argument about lack of competition in 1998 is an absurd. There was no competition, because Titanic destroyed all the movies, and nothing could break out. People talked only about Titanic! :) 

 

But end this off-topic. IW is a huge blockbuster. Comparing it to Titanic is just stupid. Different times, different event movies. It's great on its own. :) 

 

GWTW was released that much and was that successful because people still wanted to watch it and pay for it.  No other movie from that era was and frankly there were far greater films made in the 1920s - 1940s - 60s etc than GWTW but it was THE event movie. (like Titanic)

 

It was first released with about 1/3rd the current U.S. population during the tail end of the Great Depression and during a World  War. 

 

During it's original run there were a fraction of the amount of screens in the U.S. and limited prints so outside of major cities like NYC it had a lot of short engagements  of often a week or two until the print moved on even when there was still a lot of demand.  Many people had to wait until the next year or a couple of years or 5 years later to get to see it even the first time, let alone again.  Hence the very successful re-releases, the first few of which were separated by mere weeks.

 

WW it didn't have a fraction of the markets even movies in the 1970s had, let alone 1997 or 2018.

 

It opened in France on the day Germany took Paris.  It's admission numbers in Australia are insane.  It showed at the Leicester in London for for four continuous years + 2 months.

 

Comparing it to Titanic is just stupid. Different times, different event movies. It's great on its own.

 

And that's the point.  Each era has it's own set of circumstances that contribute to an event blockbuster run.

 

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





1 hour ago, titanic2187 said:

It's so flawed that you don't even acknowledge the flaw.

Don't put adjusted inflation chart in the game, I do admit that competition and no internet piracy put older generation film in advantage, that explain why the admission chart are full of older generation movie. And adjusted inflation game really put modern movie in structurally disadvantage position. 

When two opposite force that in act, let just look at nominal gross, so that whatever inflation effect, china effect and internet piracy effect are cancelled out.  

Please explain why there is only 3-4 movie form 90s, Titanic , SW1, TLK and Jurassic park stayed in the all time top 50 when they had so little competition and like you said , no internet piracy. By your theory, there should put more movies coming from no internet era, no competition era in the top 50. 

 

Titanic did benefited from 3D release,  but so too IW, and SW7 and every modern blockbuster, I am pretty sure it's a fair game still......

Because those movies you mentioned were massive breakouts. There are only  a couple per decade. It’s like asking why don’t we have blockbusters grossing the same amount as IW and TFA in the 2010s.  

My point still remains. IW had a bigger uphill battle to reach 2B.  

 

Also 3D isn’t as huge as it once was. I’m sure IW would pass titanic if it had a 4D fad to help it with a re-release.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, peludo said:

Titanic did it with prices half than today, without the expansion of Asia and Latin America and without 3D (at least the 1.8b of the orignal run). I get the point of competition and internet, but not with such a huge difference. Even Avatar pales in comparison in terms of attendance.

Wow half the price? That makes IW gross even more impressive. People were less likely to rewatch the movie with the prices doubled. Also sallaries were higher back then due to cheaper rent and lifestyle products in general - people had more spare money to spend at the movies.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites



2 minutes ago, GraceRandolph said:

Wow half the price? That makes IW gross even more impressive. People were less likely to rewatch the movie with the prices doubled. Also sallaries were higher back then due to cheaper rent and lifestyle products in general - people had more spare money to spend at the movies.  

200w.gif&key=7448becb190133b30cce0821a14

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, peludo said:

I am sorry, but to compare Titanic and Infinity War runs with unadjusted dollars is absurd. Titanic is the biggest run ever BY FAR. There is not contest about that, even with the bigger competition. What Titanic did was surreal.

I agree. Titanic remains the most impressive worldwide box office run of recent times. Maybe even of all time (Gone with the Wind notwithstanding). I'm just talking in unadjusted terms about $2-billion grossers and I don't think Titanic should be part of such a discussion. And in reality the only way we could ever compare films objectively is by comparing admissions. Dollar grosses and local currency grosses, whether adjusted or not, are not objective ways to compare the success of different films.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



9 minutes ago, GraceRandolph said:

Because those movies you mentioned were massive breakouts. There are only  a couple per decade. It’s like asking why don’t we have blockbusters grossing the same amount as IW and TFA in the 2010s.  

My point still remains. IW had a bigger uphill battle to reach 2B.  

 

Also 3D isn’t as huge as it once was. I’m sure IW would pass titanic if it had a 4D fad to help it with a re-release.  

My question:

If 80s, 90s movie are really in advantage over 2010s movie in term of lack of competition and lack of piracy on internet despite inflation and expansion of OS market, there should be more 80s and 90s movie in the top 50 all time box office chart. But the real scenario is, we barely have. Explain why?

 

Your answer:

Because those movies you mentioned were massive breakouts. There are only  a couple per decade. It’s like asking why don’t we have blockbusters grossing the same amount as IW and TFA in the 2010s.

 

Are you listening to yourself? What are you answering? Even if so, why can't SW1, JP or TLK made 2b WW like how IW and SW7 did in their original run or at least 1.5b ?

 

Super unpersuasive, your point still remains flawed and started to get stupid and stupider. Get yourself some education. I have no intention to discuss with you further. It was absolutely appalling. 

 

For your knowledge, IW had 38% of 3D share in its opening, translate to nearly 100m in 3D screen in opening weekend alone, which is still higher than the entire 3D run for Titanic. So , 3D may not huge, but it didn't give Titanic a whooping advantage over IW. And , that final showdown of 4D will only valid if both IW and Titanic get 4D re-release run someday..... 

  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AIW did much better than I ever thought it could. It becomes 3rd alltime WW, a great achievement.

 

It isn't even easy to compare it to TFA. That one had huge hype because it relied much on the nostalgia of 10 years without SW. Therefore it was huge in Europe, which is declining, and Australia, Japan and America.

AIW is part of a universe with a steady growth, something we never had in BO. Being marketed as the culmination of years it exploded especially in growing markets in South America or Asia.

There are Pro's and Con's for both of them to be more impressive - maybe more for AIW, even if it doesn't pass TFA.

 

But to compare it to GWTW or Titanic it just irrational (may I say stupid?). If it would become the biggest movie of all time we could talk about it, but it'll become 4th! GWTW was a time uncomparable to today (especially since there are very few OS numbers...). Titanic is hard to compare, but I don't think uncomparable. It was huge in countries that were big back then, especially America, Europe, Japan and Australia, but there are also numbers from China or Brazil that show that Titanic was huge for the time.

If AIW would have passed Avatar to become the biggest movie of all time we could (at least) have discussed about being the most impressive. But so I don't know if you're serious or just want to provoke...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



2 hours ago, Quigley said:

I agree. Titanic remains the most impressive worldwide box office run of recent times. Maybe even of all time (Gone with the Wind notwithstanding). I'm just talking in unadjusted terms about $2-billion grossers and I don't think Titanic should be part of such a discussion. And in reality the only way we could ever compare films objectively is by comparing admissions. Dollar grosses and local currency grosses, whether adjusted or not, are not objective ways to compare the success of different films.

Tbf admission is also not a good way to compair. Many developed markets don't sell nearly as much admission as 20 years ago. Tickets are way more expansive and there are many more ways to get entertainment then 20 years ago. Every metric has it's own problems, there is no way to compare movies accurately. They all have massive flaws. My point is no mather what methode you use there will always be manny counter arguments. 

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



1 hour ago, titanic2187 said:

My question:

If 80s, 90s movie are really in advantage over 2010s movie in term of lack of competition and lack of piracy on internet despite inflation and expansion of OS market, there should be more 80s and 90s movie in the top 50 all time box office chart. But the real scenario is, we barely have. Explain why?

 

Your answer:

Because those movies you mentioned were massive breakouts. There are only  a couple per decade. It’s like asking why don’t we have blockbusters grossing the same amount as IW and TFA in the 2010s.

 

Are you listening to yourself? What are you answering? Even if so, why can't SW1, JP or TLK made 2b WW like how IW and SW7 did in their original run or at least 1.5b ?

 

Super unpersuasive, your point still remains flawed and started to get stupid and stupider. Get yourself some education. I have no intention to discuss with you further. It was absolutely appalling. 

 

For your knowledge, IW had 38% of 3D share in its opening, translate to nearly 100m in 3D screen in opening weekend alone, which is still higher than the entire 3D run for Titanic. So , 3D may not huge, but it didn't give Titanic a whooping advantage over IW. And , that final showdown of 4D will only valid if both IW and Titanic get 4D re-release run someday..... 

  

Why would there be? Inflation erased all of them. Only a few OLD movies are still in the top 50 list - Titanic is one of them. Not everything in the 70s, 80s and 90s was as huge as titanic, just like barely anything is as big as IW this decade.  It’s simple logic. Titanic still had an easier time to reach the mass audience.  Imagine Infinty War’s gross had there been no competition.  

 

Also you shouldn’t recommend anyone to get educated given that you’re struggling to form basic English sentences.  

 

 

Edited by GraceRandolph
Link to comment
Share on other sites



There are so many social factors people will ignore to make their nostalgia-driven arguments seem more impressive. People don't seem to acknowledge the average attention span has more than dwindled since the release of GWTW and Titanic too.

 

The way people consume media and entertainment has changed immensely since the 30s and the 90s even. Getting someone to see a movie and dedicate themselves to it is much harder than it was during those times. Look at the media shift alone - people don't even have the time to read the newspaper let alone dedicate hours of their ''precious'' time to a movie/event they may or may not even particularly be interested to see like they used to.

140/240 character headlines have almost entirely replaced news and people's attention span is brought to a bare minimum but you think it's easy to bring audiences in those seats in 2018? And it's only getting harder. Netflix, Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Reddit, Instagram, etc. and tons of other short-attention and quick gratification type of media are practically our EXISTENCE at this point. Never has it been easier to BE ENTERTAINED and do virtually nothing for it. Instant gratification. 

 

You really need to put many more factors in perspective than just the dwindling way of video formats shifting and piracy growing cause if you look back and ask yourselves what you did in the 90s with your day you'll find the difference in the amount of entertainment and quick gratification available to you was much lower than it is now.

 

The fact people choose the movies they choose to dedicate their time to in a cyber era where the format has not quite adapted yet speaks volumes of its mass appeal. 

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



Just checked the 1998s highest grossing movies.  LMAO half of them are romantic/comedies.  This just further goes to show how little competition Titanic had.  In 2018 - mostly blockbusters take up the top 20 spot.  You’d never find a basic romantic comedy on the list.  

Edited by GraceRandolph
Link to comment
Share on other sites



3 minutes ago, Pouchy said:

There are so many social factors people will ignore to make their nostalgia-driven arguments seem more impressive. People don't seem to acknowledge the average attention span has more than dwindled since the release of GWIT and Titanic too.

 

The way people consume media and entertainment has changed immensely since the 30s and the 90s even. Getting someone to see a movie and dedicate themselves to it is much harder than it was during those times. Look at the media shift alone - people don't even have the time to read the newspaper let alone dedicate hours of their ''precious'' time to a movie/event they may or may not even particularly be interested to see like they used to.

140/240 headlines have almost entirely replaced news and people's attention span is brought to a bare minimum but you think it's easy to bring someone to those seats in 2018? And it's only getting harder. Netflix, Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Reddit, Instagram, etc. and tons of other short-attention and quick gratification type of media are practically our EXISTENCE at this point. Never has it been easier to BE ENTERTAINED and do virtually nothing for it. Instant gratification. 

 

You really need to put many more factors in perspective than just the dwindling way of video formats shifting and piracy growing cause if you look back and ask yourselves what you did in the 90s with your day you'll find the difference in the amount of entertainment and quick gratification available to you was much lower than it is now.

 

The fact people choose the movies they choose to dedicate their time to in a cyber era where the format has not quite adapted yet speaks volumes of its mass appeal. 

This is so true. Entertainment is in our hands 24-7 with smartphones and the internet. Going to the cinema used to be an experience - something exciting.  Now it’s just another way to pass time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



 

3 hours ago, peludo said:

Titanic did it with prices half than today, without the expansion of Asia and Latin America and without 3D (at least the 1.8b of the orignal run). I get the point of competition and internet, but not with such a huge difference. Even Avatar pales in comparison in terms of attendance.

I think Grace's point is a good one, the entertainment landscape has changed completely, and there's no real way to put that into perspective like we can with adjusting ticket prices.  But.....

 

3 hours ago, peludo said:

I am sorry, but to compare Titanic and Infinity War runs with unadjusted dollars is absurd. Titanic is the biggest run ever BY FAR. There is not contest about that, even with the bigger competition. What Titanic did was surreal.

Yes, Titanic's run is nearly unbelievable.  Isn't there a thread here where someone calculated total tickets worldwide for it, and it's head and shoulders above everything else?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



@titanic2187 mate I know you love Titanic and tbh I found your post thanking all the european countries funny but bringing Titanic constantly leads to derailments like this and arguments over inflation snd admissions that almost always leads no where. Can we please keep the talk in here to IW? Anything else can go in the fanboy wars thread because this is nothing but just fanboy jerking imo

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



11 minutes ago, MattW said:

 

I think Grace's point is a good one, the entertainment landscape has changed completely, and there's no real way to put that into perspective like we can with adjusting ticket prices.  But.....

 

Yes, Titanic's run is nearly unbelievable.  Isn't there a thread here where someone calculated total tickets worldwide for it, and it's head and shoulders above everything else?

There is no denial over that, but when all positive force and negative force act all in once, their effect got cancelled out. The nominal gross, somehow is the best metric we got to compare films from different era.

Titanic had advantage of in the less-crowded blockbuster cinema and harder access to piracy while IW had advantage of developing countries boom and inflation. In the end, their advantage will cancelled out in term of nominal gross.  

But, there is no way to prove that Titanic is easier to get money in worldwide scale than IW, or vice versa. Trying to exaggerate the effect of one factor without considering the frictional factor that goes against it was absolutely mindless.  

 

My point is , and always will be, never dismiss an older era film when come to nominal gross, you can say whatever you want when analysing adjusted gross but not nominal gross.

  

  • Haha 1
  • ...wtf 1
  • Disbelief 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



2 hours ago, pepsa said:

Tbf admission is also not a good way to compair. Many developed markets don't sell nearly as much admission as 20 years ago. Tickets are way more expansive and there are many more ways to get entertainment then 20 years ago. Every metric has it's own problems, there is no way to compare movies accurately. They all have massive flaws. My point is no mather what methode you use there will always be manny counter arguments. 

But the argument about developing markets affects both box office grosses and admissions.

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.