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

[pepsa]

What do you mean? Btw not to be rude, I genuinely don't get what you tried to say. I think I missed something.

 

But if you mean admission from all markets than new movies would win because massive tickets sales in China, India, Mexico and that woud not be fair for older movies.

[GraceRandolph]

Admissions are useless. A 1 dollar product selling 200 copies is less impressive than a 100 dollar product selling 2 copies.  It’s very telling if people are willing to pay a higher price. At the end of the day the gross is all that matters - it’s a money driven industry.  

[PPZVGOS]

2 hours ago, FilmBuff said:

The only two movies I really remember being released during the titanic craziness is Fifth Element and Face/off

Those came well before. Both were summer 1997 movies. 

 

Titanic was released along with Brosnan's 2nd Bond film in December 1997. Along with Titanic, there were another two much smaller but extremely impressive hits, As Good As It Gets (with Jack Nicholson) and Good Will Hunting (Matt Damon's and Ben Affleck's breakout movie) Those three movies were legging it out long mother*******rs.

 

If I am not mistaken, Lost In Space was supposed to dethrone Titanic at some stage, but it flopped badly. In the end, it was unseated by another DiCaprio movie, The Man in the Iron Mask. 

 

But yes, overall, Titanic did not have to face great competition. Still, its global run is the most impressive in the last 3 decades at least. 

[GraceRandolph]

 

Special report.  According to Grace IW got away with a lot of things that would have otherwise made it as divisive as TLJ.  She doenst understand why the GA and fans arent hating on it.  

[Purple Minion]

Well what do we have here, 4 pages full of Titanic discussion. The joy 

 

 

How's IW doing in China with the extension?

[bladels]

1 minute ago, Purple Minion said:

Well what do we have here, 4 pages full of Titanic discussion. The joy 

 

 

How's IW doing in China with the extension?

Not good. According to POTUS, IW only got 1% of showtime because of JW: FK. It'll likely to miss $380M

[Legion Again]

3 minutes ago, Purple Minion said:

Well what do we have here, 4 pages full of Titanic discussion. The joy 

 

 

How's IW doing in China with the extension?

Got mega-derailed and not a mod in sight.           

 

IW took a bit more of a hit this week from local releases than expected, and will have even fewer screens than expected during the Dragon Boat Festival as a result of being squeezed from JW and those local releases. Could still touch 380, but won’t go any farther.

[Asyulus]

The Titanic discussion in the IW OS thread broadens...

 

(clicks “Unfollow” thread button)

[Rumpot]

29 minutes ago, GraceRandolph said:

 

Special report.  According to Grace IW got away with a lot of things that would have otherwise made it as divisive as TLJ.  She doenst understand why the GA and fans arent hating on it.  

I don't say this to be mean, but something seems to be going on with her.  She has lost weight and her speech is even more pressured.  

[Rebeccas]

Guys, Grace is a literal psycho. She said Kelly Marie Tran online hate was her own fault for having a bad hairdo okay? Let's ignore her.

[Barnack]

6 hours ago, GraceRandolph said:

Titanic was also released in time with no competition. In 2018 there is at least a blockbuster per month - not to mention superheroe movies which oversaturates the market. It makes IW gross even more impressive. 

 

Also movies back in the day could afford to be in theaters for over a year. People had no choice but to go and see it. Today we have illegal downloads and streaming. I have plenty of friends that just wait a couple of months to watch movies for free. Id say the Chinese market isn’t big enough to make up for the loss that’s been caused by the internet.  

 

It would be better if your argument would come with numbers. (no one would say that a movie was released without competition if it was released against the new James Bond in 2018...)

 

I have not read everything, but you have a couple of good points, gross is what matter over admission, people ready to pay PLF tickets, excited enough that they do not wait for Thursday or matinee cheaper ticket is a testimony to the product appeal and will hurt rewatch sales and sales in generals.

 

Now if we look only at the gross and not admissions, Titanic made $2,844,952,887.20 2018 dollar in it's initial run, without adjusting for global market increase it is still bigger than pretty much everything except Avatar.

 

Id say the Chinese market isn’t big enough to make up for the loss that’s been caused by the internet.  

 

Are you sure of that ? Maybe not in revenues but in box office the raise of the International market....

 

Attendance by capita went down a bit, but total attendance was not specially that higher in 1990, was usually less than the 2010:

 

We have a 40b world box office now, it was what around 13-15b when Titanic was released ? I would like to see the argument that it didn't not only compensate but more than made up for it. People just waiting for movies to hit their TV exist since TV became popular in the 50s when theatrical got almost destroyed, didn't change much since.

Edited June 13, 2018 by Barnack

[titanic2187]

11 minutes ago, Barnack said:

 

It would be better if your argument would come with numbers. (no one would say that a movie was released without competition if it was released against the new James Bond in 2018...)

 

I have not read everything, but you have a couple of good points, gross is what matter over admission, people ready to pay PLF tickets, excited enough that they do not wait for Thursday or matinee cheaper ticket is a testimony to the product appeal and will hurt rewatch sales and sales in generals.

 

Now if we look only at the gross and not admissions, Titanic made $2,844,952,887.20 2018 dollar in it's initial run, without adjusting for global market increase it is still bigger than pretty much everything except Avatar.

 

Id say the Chinese market isn’t big enough to make up for the loss that’s been caused by the internet.  

 

Are you sure of that ? Maybe not in revenues but in box office the raise of the International market....

 

Attendance by capita went down a bit, but total attendance was not specially that higher in 1990, was usually less than the 2010:

 

We have a 40b world box office now, it was what around 13-15b when Titanic was released ? I would like to see the argument that it didn't not only compensate but more than made up for it. People just waiting for movies to hit their TV exist since TV became popular in the 50s when theatrical got almost destroyed, didn't change much since.

The little competition in term of blockbuster, no internet piracy and whatever reason that put older generation film in advantage, has all been wiped out by inflation and expansion of OS market. If not, the worldwide box office chart wouldn't dominated by 2000s films. 

 

And of course admission matters, it is people to buy pop-corn and soft drink, not money. 

[Barnack]

7 minutes ago, titanic2187 said:

And of course admission matters, it is people to buy pop-corn and soft drink, not money. 

Matters for theater owner for sure, I think it was meant to size the box office phenomenon, it is unfair to wipe away a movie achievement to sell it's ticket at an higher average price, I doubt we would do it  as easily when comparing an high price Disney classic movie with movie rebate bin sales for Dvds or rented on redbox.

 

And other good way to look at Titanic run is to compare with the giants phenomenon that were the first Star Wars in decade and the first Potter movies, as giant franchise phenomenon as we get today, had an hard time to make half of Titanic. Phantom Menace all had the same condition that Titanic had, competition feared it even more, not being a surprise success, also had really great legs, didn't even came close.

 

I doubt anyone old enough to have been conscious in 1998 would doubt or even have to think about it that Titanic was a much bigger phenomenon than anything that was released in 2018, in absolute term and relative to the market place.

Edited June 13, 2018 by Barnack

[FilmBuff]

So does anyone actually have any os numbers?

[Pouchy]

2 hours ago, Barnack said:

 

It would be better if your argument would come with numbers. (no one would say that a movie was released without competition if it was released against the new James Bond in 2018...)

 

I have not read everything, but you have a couple of good points, gross is what matter over admission, people ready to pay PLF tickets, excited enough that they do not wait for Thursday or matinee cheaper ticket is a testimony to the product appeal and will hurt rewatch sales and sales in generals.

  

Now if we look only at the gross and not admissions, Titanic made $2,844,952,887.20 2018 dollar in it's initial run, without adjusting for global market increase it is still bigger than pretty much everything except Avatar.

 

Id say the Chinese market isn’t big enough to make up for the loss that’s been caused by the internet.  

 

Are you sure of that ? Maybe not in revenues but in box office the raise of the International market....

 

Attendance by capita went down a bit, but total attendance was not specially that higher in 1990, was usually less than the 2010:

 

We have a 40b world box office now, it was what around 13-15b when Titanic was released ? I would like to see the argument that it didn't not only compensate but more than made up for it. People just waiting for movies to hit their TV exist since TV became popular in the 50s when theatrical got almost destroyed, didn't change much since.

There are so many reasons why a movie grossing 2 billion in 1998/9 (or close to it) vs. 2018 is LESS impressive. While both achieved remarkable feats - one had the advantages the other can only dream of.

First of all, let us start with the domestic box office. The revenue generated in 1999 was 7.4 billion (adjusted for inflation that's 11.3 billion in 2018 roughly). The peak of revenue was 11.3 billion in 2016 as far as domestic box office gross goes. What does this tell us? That the box office revenue remained flat? Not quite in terms of distribution per movie. 

 

Further, we have two factors to take into consideration - average ticket price AND admissions. While the revenue remained stable (adjusted for inflation) there's a reason for this. The amount of movies included in the 1999 gross (released in the cinemas)? 461? Sounds like a lot doesn't it? Meanwhile, the amount of movies released in 2018 TO DATE is already at 311.

The average movie gross per movie (adjusted) domestically in 2016 (the ''peak'' of domestic box office revenue-wise) was 15.4 million per movie meanwhile in 1999 (unadjusted for inflation) the number was 16.1 million (ALREADY higher). Adjusted for inflation the average movie in 1999 grossed 24 million. That's over 10 million higher per every movie released in 1999 due to the fact you had twice less releases to choose from. It gets even worse when we take into consideration that blockbusters weren't even a thing in the '90s and the increase in the volume of releases not only grew for indie movies but big budget draws exponentially. How many movies that cost over 100 million to make in 1999? With big marketing campaigns? If I'm not mistaken there's only TWO (adjusted for inflation too). How many movies that cost over 100 million to make in 2018? Should I even bother trying to count? 

The number of movies movie-goers and general audiences would even find interesting to go to the cinema and to watch was scarce meanwhile today the studios have to go above and beyond to even get the audiences to go and even then they still have 3x the choices.

 

The movie-going experience has also changed since the 90s very much too. Why would anyone even bother going to the cinema in 2018 in rural areas when they can just sit at home and watch it in high definition on their TV on Netflix? You couldn't get a cinematic experience at home in the '90s. Going to the cinema used to be a weekly thing for many movie-goers and now they'd just rather stay at home with Netflix and not only save money but spare themselves the endless wait lines and expensive tickets for an experience that may not even be worth it. The number of cinemas domestically increased to twice the number since Titanic was released and the ticket price almost doubled too (not adjusted for inflation) yet the market flatlined? More movies? More expensive tickets? Similar admissions? THE SAME REVENUE? Why? Because people simply DO NOT want to go to the movies as much anymore. 

 

That's just one portion of this argument too. Furthermore, piracy, online streaming service, the amount of time the movie is played at the cinema and OTHER entertainment opportunities not previously available play a huge part too. Getting the audiences in those seats have NEVER been harder. 

 

Now we go into the overseas market that is maintaining the fall right?

The average ticket price in countries like India averages between 1 dollar to 3.95 for most expensive showings. This is well below the average ticket price in the US the year Titanic was released and the numbers get much worse if we account for discounts, matinees, and such. While it may inflate the admissions globally to not seem as bad of a drop because of ''growing markets'' the actual revenue isn't really increasing on average now, is it? It's falling as far as Hollywood studios go and falling hard.

The technology for making movies also got cheaper too so people in these markets no longer have to watch Hollywood blockbusters if they want a blockbuster to begin with. Are you forgetting the language barrier? The domestic market never had this issue meanwhile even the admissions and the revenue overseas are facing it because not only do the growing markets have the opportunities to see these movies now but they also have more CHOICES than you had domestically/internationally in the '90s too. 

 

Did Titanic face the issue of the rednecks from Texas NOT wanting to see the movie in the '90s because it wasn't in English? Did it face this issue? Do you think rural China will ever accept these movies and make the effort to go and see them? The tickets are cheaper too so not only do we have a big issue with prices but also the fact more people won't be seeing them because they are seeing THEIR OWN movies. 

 

Do you think the admissions you see for India or China that help the make the box office seem stronger HELP the Hollywood movies? Movies like Infinity War? They really won't as much as you think compared to the decline domestically.

 

The argument you have about the growth isn't even applicable since the domestic market didn't have an issue with Titanic nor did the majority of the markets overseas that saw Titanic. Meanwhile markets that matter now like India, China, etc. (admissions and revenue-wise) PROVIDE this difficulty. 

 

Not only is it harder to sell this movie domestically but also overseas. There are so many factors in favor of current movies and so few in favor of older movies. Just because movie studios work much harder to make these movies happen and achieve what they did doesn't make them LESS valuable cause you have a nostalgia bias.

 

Simply put the admissions were in an advantage of Titanic because they didn't need to be inflated by markets and people who will flat out reject the movie cause of its country of origin. These markets didn't even matter at the time very much.

 

The money made domestically was much easier to attain as the tickets were cheaper on average domestically and internationally too because you really don't want me to make a price comparison in countries like Sweden, Denmark, etc. and even Germany and France in the 90s compared to now.

A cup of coffee cost as much as a movie ticket in many of them and they had no issues spending them on English-speaking movies like rural China or India do either meanwhile today I can buy myself an H&M shirt or go see a movie. While the shirt is on the cheap end too it STILL puts things into perspective.

And lastly, piracy, movie-going habits, amount of time these movies spent in the cinema, amount of movies released and amount of VOD and streaming services available in the '90s (almost NONE) compared to NOW. 

 

The argument is easy to make and while impressive Titanic's trajectory is nowhere near as impressive as the OTHER 3 movies that crossed the 2 billion threshold. 

Edited June 13, 2018 by Pouchy

[GraceRandolph]

1 minute ago, Pouchy said:

There are so many reasons why a movie grossing 2 billion in 1998/9 (or close to it) vs. 2018 is LESS impressive. While both achieved remarkable feats - one had the advantages the other can only dream of.

First of all, let us start with the domestic box office. The revenue generated in 1999 was 7.4 billion (adjusted for inflation that's 11.3 billion in 2018 roughly). The peak of revenue was 11.3 billion in 2016 as far as domestic box office gross goes. What does this tell us? That the box office revenue remained flat? Not quite. 

 

Further, we have two factors to take into consideration - average ticket price AND admissions. While the revenue remained stable (adjusted for inflation) there's two reasons for this. The amount of movies included in the 1999 gross (released in the cinemas)? 461? Sounds like a lot doesn't it? Meanwhile the amount of movies released in 2018 TO DATE is already at 311.

The average movie gross per movie (adjusted) domestically in 2016 (the ''peak'' of domestic box office revenue-wise) was 15.4 million per movie meanwhile in 1999 (unadjusted for inflation) the number was 16.1 million (ALREADY higher). Adjusted for inflation the average movie in 1999 grossed 24 million. That's over 10 million higher per every movie released due to the fact you had twice the less releases to choose from. It gets even worse when we take into consideration that blockbusters weren't even a thing in the '90s and the increase in volume of releases not only grew for indie movies but big budget draws exponentionally. How many movies that cost over 100 million to make in 1999? With big marketing campains? If I'm not mistaken there's only TWO (adjusted for inflation too). How many movies that cost over 100 million to make in 2018? Should I even bother trying to count? 

The amount of movies movie-goers and general audiences would even find interesting to go to the cinema and to watch was scarce meanwhile today the studios have to go above and beyond to even get the audiences to go and even then they still have 3x the choices.

 

The movie-going experience has also changed since the 90s very much too. Why would anyone even bother going to the cinema in 2018 in rural areas when they can just sit at home and watch it in high definition on their TV on Netflix? You couldn't get a cinematic experience at home in the '90s. Going to the cinema used to be a weekly thing for many movie-goers and now they'd just rather stay at home with Netflix and not only save money but spare themselves the endless wait lines and expensive tickets for an experience that may not even be worth it. The number of cinemas  domestically increased to twice the number since Titanic was released and the ticket price almost doubled too (not adjusted for inflation) yet the market flatlined? More movies? More expensive tickets? Similar admissions? THE SAME REVENUE? Why? Because people simply DO NOT want to go to the movies as much anymore. 

 

That's just one portion of this argument too. Furthermore, piracy, online streaming service, the amount of time the movie is played at the cinema and OTHER entertainment opportunities not previously available play a huge part too. Getting the audiences in those seats has NEVER been harder. 

 

Now we go into the overeas market that are maintaining the fall right?

The average ticket price in countries like India averages between 1 dollar to 3.95 for most expensive showings. This is well below the average ticket price in the US the year Titanic was released and the numbers get much worse if we account for discounts, matinees, and such. While it may inflate the admissions globally to not seem as bad of a drop because of ''growing markets'' the actual revenue isn't really increasing on average now is it? It's falling as far as Hollyowod studioes go and falling hard.

The technology for making movies also got cheaper too so people in these markets no longer have to watch Hollywood blockbusters if they want a blockbuster to begin with. You're forgetting the language barrier? The domestic market never had this issue meanwhile even the admissions and the revenue overseas is facing it because not only do the growing markets have the opportunities to see these movies now but they also have more CHOICES than you had domestically/internationally in the '90s too. 

 

Did Titanic face the issue of the rednecks from Texas NOT wanting to see the movie in the '90s because it wasn't in English? Did it face this issue? Do you think rural China will ever accept these movies and make the effort to go and see them? The tickets are cheaper too so not only do we have a big issue with prices but also the fact more people won't be seeing them because they are seeing THEIR OWN movies. 

 

Do you think the admissions you see for India or China daily that'll make the box office seem stronger HELP the Hollywood movies? Movies like Infinity War? It really won't.

 

The argument you have about the growth isn't even applicable since the domestic market didn't have an issue with Titanic nor did the majority of the markets overseas that saw Titanic. Meanwhile markets that matter now like India, China, etc. (admissions and revenue-wise) PROVIDE this difficulty. 

 

Not only is it harder to sell this movie domestically but also overseas. There's so many factors in favor of current movies and so few in favor of older movies. Just because movie studios work much harder to make these movies happen and achieve what they did doesn't make them LESS valuable cause you have a nostalgia bias.

 

Simply put the admissions were in advantage of Titanic because they didn't need to be inflated by markets and people who will flat out reject the movie cause of its country of origin. These markets didn't even matter at the time very much.

 

The money made domestically was much easier to attain as the tickets were cheaper on average and so was internationally because you really don't want me to make a price comparison in countries like Sweden, Denmark, etc. and even Germany and France in the 90s compared to now.

A cup of coffee cost as much as a movie ticket in many of them and they had no issues spending them on English-speaking movies like rural China or India do either meanwhile today I can buy myself an H&M shirt or go see a movie. While the shirt is on the cheap end too it STILL puts things into perspective.

And lastly piracy, movie-going habits, amount of time these movies spent in the cinema, amount of movies released and amount of VOD and streaming services advailable in the '90s (almost NONE) compared to NOW. 

 

The argument is easy to make and while impressive Titanic's trajectory is nowhere near as impressive as the OTHER 3 movies that crossed the 2 billion treshold. 

Wow I was typing a similar post to this but I suppose no point now that you did it!  I agree with everything you said.  IW is more impressive than Titanic all things considered. 

[FilmBuff]

Most of these are tl;dr. 

[Barnack]

1 hour ago, Pouchy said:

The amount of movies included in the 1999 gross (released in the cinemas)? 461? Sounds like a lot doesn't it? Meanwhile, the amount of movies released in 2018 TO DATE is already at 311.

The amount of studios movies didn't went up too it went down, of those 311 movies this year only 52 reached 2,000 theater. Digital opened distribution to a lot of small movies from small distributor that will not cause an issue for the blockbuster of today to reach a milestone. It is even the other way around, the top earner of today get a larger proportion of the pie even if there is more release today.

 

 

Year Produced Rated Released:

https://www.immagic.com/eLibrary/ARCHIVES/GENERAL/MPAA_US/M050309M.pdf

 

Year	Produced	Rated	Released
2004	611	871	483
2003	593	940	473
2002	543	786	467
2001	611	739	483
2000	683	762	478
1999	758	677	461
1998	686	661	509
1997	767	673	510

 

Yes less movies back then, but actual studio movies

 

 

Films released by MPAA studio's decreased massively in resents year's.

2016: 139

2004: 199
2003: 194
2002: 220
2001: 188
2000: 191
1994: 166

 

The numbers of movie making 100m adjusted at the dbo didn't change much in the last 20-25 year's..

 

 

1 hour ago, Pouchy said:

. How many movies that cost over 100 million to make in 1999? With big marketing campaigns? If I'm not mistaken there's only TWO (adjusted for inflation too). How many movies that cost over 100 million to make in 2018? Should I even bother trying to count? 

100m in 1998 was 65m dollar, a list of those listed has 100m movies in today purchasing power, movie above 130 are 200+m movies today, 97m are 150m today:

 

Armeggedon: 140m

Lethal weapon 4: 140m

Godzilla: 125m

Ennemy of state: 85m

Meet Joe Black: 85m

Deep Impact: 80m

6 days, 7 nights: 80m

Lost In space: 80m

What Dreams May Come: 80m

Mighty Joe Young: 80m

Babe: Pig in the City: 80m

Soldier: 75m

Snake eyes: 73m

Sphere: 73m

Doctor Dolittle: 71.5m

Star Treck: 70m

The siege: 70m

Hard Rain: 70m

X-files: 66m

Saving Private Ryan: 65m

You<ve got Mail: 65m

Zorro: 65m

Primaries colors: 65m

 

That 23 movies or about 2 month, because studio movies output declined so much it would not surprise me if the amount of 100m dollar's movies in a year went down or at least not that much higher.

 

Titanic was the first movie ever to reach 1 billion, it did 1.83b, that was almost doubling the all time record at the box office.

 

1 hour ago, Pouchy said:

Simply put the admissions were in an advantage of Titanic

Yes well maybe, I am not so sure about world admission, but I was not talking about admissions, Titanic made much more money, not just admission, it made around 2.8b in today money in is first release.

 

To think that making 2 billion in 97-98 was easier than in 2018 when no movies ever made 1 billion is really a stretch, to me, 2 billion would have been making around 15% of the world box office, that 6 billion today) . There is many difficulty now, but the world box office still almost tripled and the studio's top title market exploded in the last 20 year's. Jumanji just made about the same than Jurassic Park in 1993, it was no where close to be the same phenomenon.

 

[GraceRandolph]

Making 2B today is much harder because the prices are insanely high over seas and it’s simply not worth it when you have free entertainment at home. 

[Barnack]

7 minutes ago, GraceRandolph said:

Making 2B today is much harder because the prices are insanely high over seas and it’s simply not worth it when you have free entertainment at home. 

Do you really think that making 2b in a 40b market place is much harder than 20 year's ago in a 13.5b market place ? Or it is part of your trolling ? Most of what you say do sound like trolling so it is hard to say sometime.

 

Again, numbers would be nice in france for example ticket price grew a bitslower than inflation between 1998 and 2011:

 

 

UK:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/285783/cinema-ticket-prices-average-annual-price-in-the-united-kingdom-uk/

 

2000: ticket were 7.04 2017 pound vs 7.49 pound today (I imagine 3D vs no 3d ticket could easily explain most of that 6% higher price difference).