AVENGERS ENDGAME | 1939.4 M overseas ● 2797.8 M worldwide

[Legion Again]

On 7/24/2019 at 11:31 PM, Charlie Jatinder said:

5 more days 

 

[charlie Jatinder]

2 minutes ago, Thanos Legion said:

 

Its officially released.

[Legion Again]

10 minutes ago, Charlie Jatinder said:

Its officially released.

I still don’t understand this places’s spoiler policy, tbh. If stuff from official Disney marketing is fine then we’d be able to talk about the whole movie a month ago, cause it was all shown in TV spots XD. @Porthos seemed to have a compelling argument that that wouldn’t make sense, but it’s all a bit blurry for me what is and isn’t considered a spoiler in regard to studio released info 🤷‍♂️

Edited July 26, 2019 by Thanos Legion

[justvision]

13 minutes ago, Charlie Jatinder said:

Why will you delete this?

 

I don't know. As a big fan of IM, I'd prefer a more low key and subdued way of expression of appreciation. Maybe a few of them (especially original Avengers) half kneeling, while some others closing their eyes, some bowing their heads, some embracing each others. A bit cringey to show them all half kneeling.

 

Also, since this scene was cut, the part that showed Gamora leaving the scene was left out as well. (Not that it mattered, as her leaving was easily inferred.)

[Agafin]

4 hours ago, The Dark Samurai said:

I knew that a lot of people would have a hard time accepting Avatar going down but the level of ridiculously desperate  excuse making is certainly eye opening.

 

Avatar sold 110+ million tickets less than Titanic, then sold 100 million tickets less than Endgame.  I love how being sandwiched between two films selling 100 million more tickets is getting completely ignored because it doesn't fit the narrative.

 

Avatar had all the advantages over Titanic that Endgame supposedly has over Avatar and yet it sold 110+ million tickets less. Not to mention that the gimmick with which it made it's money would never fly today. I love that Avatar's selling point of 3D and CGI would have the exact same effect in 2019 where TV shows like GOT have better CGI nowadays and 3D is all but dead. 

 

The arguments are now boiling down to the same nonsense a boxing/MMA P4P list would do. You would compare a 135 pound fighter with Mike Tyson and claim that if his relative speed and power carried proportionally to 225 pounds he would be better. Which makes perfect sense....in an Ant Man movie. The 135 pounder would lose all of his speed advantage when he packs 70 pounds on a 5'6 frame, the ability to take a shot would go down the drain, and his power would be silly compared to an actual Heavyweight. ''He would also be 6'1 in this scenario'' Aaaaa ok, so now a 5'6, 135 pounder would become 6'1, 225 AND retain all the advantages he would have as a small fighter.

 

That's what Avatar's rebels (Save The Dream!) are doing. Having all of the pros of 2009, and there are a LOT of them, including a ridiculous ER (Endgame would have made $3,5B with it) coupled with all of the pros of 2019 (like a bigger China market) but having none of the cons that 2019 would bring.

 

The reality is simple....Endgame made more money despite having a a lot worse ER and it sold 100 million more tickets. Take China out and it's still over 60 million more tickets. Everything else is sour grapes. 

 

 

 

The thing though, is that all the movies released in 2009 had the same advantages and disadvantages that Avatar had, and all the movies released today have the same advadvantages and disdvantages that Endgame has.  Yet no other movie grossed over $1 billion that year whereas at least 5 will do so this year. That to me is the best possible proof that Avatar had the more impressive  run.

[infamous5445]

One thing I don't understand is people thinking an original movie making more is more impressive than a movie that's part of a franchise. Wouldn't the fact that a franchise movie is less accessible to the general audience (since they have to keep up with what's going on and not get burned out at the same time, while also manage fan expectations) yet makes a crap ton of money be way more impressive?

Edited July 26, 2019 by infamous5445

[charlie Jatinder]

18 minutes ago, Agafin said:

The thing though, is that all the movies released in 2009 had the same advantages and disadvantages that Avatar had, and all the movies released today have the same advadvantages and disdvantages that Endgame has.  Yet no other movie grossed over $1 billion that year whereas at least 5 will do so this year. That to me is the best possible proof that Avatar had the more impressive  run.

How many Star Wars, Avengers and present MCU films we had in 2009? 

 

Frozen did $1.25Bn in 2013, and realistically the sequel is supposed to do that much today despite a growth expected in domestic.

 

That leaves us with Toy Story 4, Aladdin and The Lion King. Again, TS3 did almost same as TS4 in dollars despite TS4 ahead in admissions in majority countries by even good margin.

Aladdin, well Alice did similar numbers just few months later. 

 

All I am left with is TLK. Now, TLK is a film doing $575-600mn domestically, a number that would be $450mn Approx in 2009, a number that would have placed it to do $1.3-1.4Bn worldwide even in 2009 using slightly worse Alice ratio.

 

So that's what have changed. Rise of MCU and Disney, rest of boxoffice is shittier than it used to be. And no. Boxoffice isn't zero sum industry, every year there would have been a 600mn grosser, not from Disney.

Edited July 26, 2019 by Charlie Jatinder

[The Dark Samurai]

10 minutes ago, Agafin said:

The thing though, is that all the movies released in 2009 had the same advantages and disadvantages that Avatar had, and all the movies released today have the same advadvantages and disdvantages that Endgame has.  Yet no other movie grossed over $1 billion that year whereas at least 5 will do so this year. That to me is the best possible proof that Avatar had the more impressive  run.

That's not true at all. Avatar's 3D was the selling point, it wasn't the quality of the film, it wasn't the performances.

 

Kudos to Cameron for what he did, the 3D was fantastic but before Avatar, 3D was a complete non-factor. A few months after Avatar, Alice in Wonderland made over a billion. A few months after that Toy Story 3 made over a billion.  Avatar came out in December 2009, Alice came in March, Toy Story in June. 

 

Once every film had the same artificially inflated high ticket price advantage that Avatar enjoyed, the billion became a lot easier to achieve. 

[terrestrial]

19 minutes ago, The Dark Samurai said:

the billion became a lot easier to achieve.  

... for established franchises / ~ names only, but not for all established franchises

 

Advertising budgets got nuts-high for reasons..... only one of many points why its still not easy to reach $1b

[Moses]

EG os now at 1936.4 million

Is it updated or the same since last weekend?

[Barnack]

36 minutes ago, infamous5445 said:

One thing I don't understand is people thinking an original movie making more is more impressive than a movie that's part of a franchise. Wouldn't the fact that a franchise movie is less accessible to the general audience (since they have to keep up with what's going on and not get burned out at the same time, while also manage fan expectations) yet makes a crap ton of money be way more impressive?

In a sense yes imo, if a franchise sequel movie would ever get close to do the domination that Titanic first Star Wars, etc... did it would probably be more exceptionable, it never happened yet for a reason. Has for one they are competing with the previous entry in a way.

 

Both Avatar and Titanic tripled the second biggest movie of the year, that would be like Infinity War making 4 billion.

 

It is obviously much easier for a giant franchise entry to do a lot, but to do Titanic/Avatar/First Star Wars/E.T./Jaws/Gone With the Wind/Sound of music level of domination, it look way more possible without the added resistance of being a sequel.

[terrestrial]

12 minutes ago, Moses said:

EG os now at 1936.4 million

Is it updated or the same since last weekend?

BOM does often a weekly / Thursday update, if accessible and still early into a run or high enough or buzz enough....

Does not include all Thursday BO ww, there are countries whose Thursday's BO belongs to their weekend BO

 

see the date named beside the amount to see in BOM's foreign tab, its updated

7/25/19

 

 

 

[infamous5445]

33 minutes ago, Barnack said:

In a sense yes imo, if a franchise sequel movie would ever get close to do the domination that Titanic first Star Wars, etc... did it would probably be more exceptionable, it never happened yet for a reason. Has for one they are competing with the previous entry in a way.

 

Both Avatar and Titanic tripled the second biggest movie of the year, that would be like Infinity War making 4 billion.

 

It is obviously much easier for a giant franchise entry to do a lot, but to do Titanic/Avatar/First Star Wars/E.T./Jaws/Gone With the Wind/Sound of music level of domination, it look way more possible without the added resistance of being a sequel.

Would we not count Endgame on the level or at least close to that level of domination? 

[Permanent Magnet]

2 hours ago, Charlie Jatinder said:

Why will you delete this?

 

why the fuck they didn't include it in the movie or the re-release!

 

WTF fiege

[terrestrial]

counting for a lot of countries, but not all countries:

 

3-D in the Zeitgeist's POV

in 2009 a must see

in 2019 a must avoid

 

[Agafin]

1 hour ago, Charlie Jatinder said:

How many Star Wars, Avengers and present MCU films we had in 2009? 

 

Frozen did $1.25Bn in 2013, and realistically the sequel is supposed to do that much today despite a growth expected in domestic.

 

That leaves us with Toy Story 4, Aladdin and The Lion King. Again, TS3 did almost same as TS4 in dollars despite TS4 ahead in admissions in majority countries by even good margin.

Aladdin, well Alice did similar numbers just few months later. 

 

All I am left with is TLK. Now, TLK is a film doing $575-600mn domestically, a number that would be $450mn Approx in 2009, a number that would have placed it to do $1.3-1.4Bn worldwide even in 2009 using slightly worse Alice ratio.

 

So that's what have changed. Rise of MCU and Disney, rest of boxoffice is shittier than it used to be. And no. Boxoffice isn't zero sum industry, every year there would have been a 600mn grosser, not from Disney.

We did not have the MCU or Star Wars or live action remakes but we instead had Potter, Transformers, and Ice Age franchises. Also, I disagree with your assessment that The Lion King would have done $1.3 to $1.4Bn in 2009, that would require $850m-$950m which no movie even came close to doing in the 2000s besides Avatar, not even Spider-Man, Shrek 2, Dead Man's chest, Transformers or The Dark Knight despite all making over $400m dom, yet another proof of the effect of international market expansion.

 

Box office is in fact very close to a zero sum game. In 2012, the biggest franchises at the time all had a movie released and each of them achieved franchise heights worldwide, or came close to it (Avengers, The Dark Knight Rises, Skyfall and The Hobbit) while 2013 had none of those yet the WW box office was mostly unaffected. Why? Believe it or not, people will find something else to watch.

1 hour ago, The Dark Samurai said:

That's not true at all. Avatar's 3D was the selling point, it wasn't the quality of the film, it wasn't the performances.

 

Kudos to Cameron for what he did, the 3D was fantastic but before Avatar, 3D was a complete non-factor. A few months after Avatar, Alice in Wonderland made over a billion. A few months after that Toy Story 3 made over a billion.  Avatar came out in December 2009, Alice came in March, Toy Story in June. 

 

Once every film had the same artificially inflated high ticket price advantage that Avatar enjoyed, the billion became a lot easier to achieve. 

 

3D existed before Avatar. Ice Age 3 and Up for example were available in 3D and generated over 40% of their gross in that format. But none of them made $2B+ showing that you need more than just being in 3D to achieve such phenomenal heights. I'm not sure how the rest of your post is a rebuttal to what I said though. Are  you saying that Avatar is partially responsible for the blowing up of the box office since then? Sure, but that seems to be a tacit acceptance that it is indeed easier to gross more today.

 

Edited July 26, 2019 by Agafin

[Barnack]

12 minutes ago, infamous5445 said:

Would we not count Endgame on the level or at least close to that level of domination? 

Will have to see, it is way less obvious if that is the case.

 

If you look how much of outlier they were of their time

 

Year biggest movie

 

1996: 813.2

1997: 1,835.4 (second biggest: 614.4), Titanic made 2.99x more than the second biggest release of 1997, 2.25x time the biggest of the year before, 3.3 time the biggest of the year after

1998: 554.6

 

Biggest movie of the last year,second biggest of it's year + next year biggest = 1982.2, Titanic made 92.55% of that

 

2008: 1,001.9

2009: 2,782.2  (second biggest: 934.0), Avatar made 2.98x more than the second biggest release of 2009, 2.78x time the biggest of the year before, 2.61 time the biggest of the year after

2010: 1,063.2

 

Biggest movie of the last year,second biggest of it's year + next year biggest = 2999.1, Avatar made 92.7% of that

 

2018: 2,048.4

2019: 2,792.0 (second biggest has of now: 1,128.3, Lion King, Frozen 2, Star Wars could raise that), EndGame 2.47 time for the current biggest movie, 1.36 time the biggest movie of the year before, 2.07 is we remove is own previous entry has a competition (that seem fair)

2020: ? Will see could be quite low without Avatar 2

 

It does seem closer in line to what the other big movie of is time do, now some quality of competition need to be taken into account and can be hard to do, but I think it is safe to say that Toy Story 3 isn't weaker competition than Toy Story 4 and that Phantom Menace was historically a big one and Titanic doubled that first Star Wars movie in a while juggernaut.

 

The difference isn't that far but seem clearly a different step below.

 

 

[terrestrial]

5 minutes ago, Agafin said:

while 2013 had none of those yet the WW box office was mostly unaffected. Why? Believe it or not, people will find something else to watch.

That's a strange way to twists 2013 ww top 10.

Frozen and Gravity were the only ones based on new material, even Monster University was a part 2

 

IM3 followed the Avengers success, Man of Steel was the first - and highly discussed/buzzed about - entry of WBs answer to the MCU, and I guess no one will say its based on a new material anyway.

Part 2 or 3 or even a part 6 of either already established franchises or in parts also based on successful book series too

 

Quote

2013 WORLDWIDE GROSSES

Rank	Title (click to view)	Studio*  Filter A24 BV CBS FD Focus Fox FoxS LG/S LGF ORF Par. RAtt. RCR Rela. SGem Sony SPC TriS Uni. W/Dim. WB WB (NL) Wein. ALL	Worldwide	Domestic / %		Overseas / %
1	Frozen	BV	$1,276.5	$400.7	31.4%	$875.7	68.6%
2	Iron Man 3	BV	$1,214.8	$409.0	33.7%	$805.8	66.3%
3	Despicable Me 2	Uni.	$970.8	$368.1	37.9%	$602.7	62.1%
4	The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug	WB (NL)	$958.4	$258.4	27.0%	$700.0	73.0%
5	The Hunger Games: Catching Fire	LGF	$865.0	$424.7	49.1%	$440.3	50.9%
6	Fast & Furious 6	Uni.	$788.7	$238.7	30.3%	$550.0	69.7%
7	Monsters University	BV	$744.2	$268.5	36.1%	$475.7	63.9%
8	Gravity	WB	$723.2	$274.1	37.9%	$449.1	62.1%
9	Man of Steel	WB	$668.0	$291.0	43.6%	$377.0	56.4%
10	Thor: The Dark World	BV	$644.6	$206.4	32.0%	$438.2	68.0%

 

[Agafin]

14 minutes ago, terrestrial said:

That's a strange way to twists 2013 ww top 10.

Frozen and Gravity were the only ones based on new material, even Monster University was a part 2

 

IM3 followed the Avengers success, Man of Steel was the first - and highly discussed/buzzed about - entry of WBs answer to the MCU, and I guess no one will say its based on a new material anyway.

Part 2 or 3 or even a part 6 of either already established franchises or in parts also based on successful book series too

 

 

That's pretty much my point though. I'm arguing that every year, there is always something to watch even though some years are undoubtedly stronger than others. Charlie and some other users (like @JimiQ) seem to be implying that without the MCU/Disney, the WW BO will simply collapse despite the fact that no such thing has ever happened in the over 100 years of movie making.

 

 

 

Edited July 26, 2019 by Agafin

[terrestrial]

4 minutes ago, Agafin said:

That's pretty much my point though. I'm arguing that every year, there is always something to watch even though some years are undoubtedly stronger than others. Charlie and some other users seem to be implying that without the MCU/Disney, the WW BO will simply collapse despite the fact that   no such thing has ever happened in  the 100 years of movie making. Franchises and  studios have risen a

MCU pushed the ww BO every year, and even in 2013, as it was still a newish thing, 2 MCU titles are already in the top 10 beside Thor 2 being a rather weak movie (means with it being a better movie as it is, I think the # would have been higher).

 

Collapse... not totally, but a decrease for a time I too think is quite possible

In a lot of countries there is a tendency to go less often into a cinema (again). Out of those who never go or seldom go, there are quite some that go and watch e.g. the MCU team ups, but nothing else.

 

I had quite some heated discussions with my pupils (I teach e.g. media at school) about that, as I try to get some of those to get interested into other kind of movies as well. Lots of those watch movies only on their smartphones even (shudder).

A lot of movies only get an alarmingly low young audience split for a reason, even the big event ones usually get way more adults audience, depending on which movie, the grandparents age reaching a far bigger part than the children and teens together.

 

I see the same with certain older people I know, who do not go that often to a cinema (like having a rather good home theatre and less interest to drive somewhere for...)

That includes to a degree myself,

I have to drive quite a long way to get to see a movie in a good quality cinema, the most movies of today can be watched at home as well as in a cinema, sometimes even better, depending on the quality of the cinema (if you have access to a good equipped home theatre),

Like what kind of visuals or.. are even a reason to still watch a movie in a cinema.

To me its e.g. space, vast landscapes like often to see e.g. in old western, fast races through a city or wherever,.... added to an interesting or otherwise compelling story... yes, for that I'll spend a half day to watch it in a cinema.

But I can see 3 movies at home for way less money in that time too..... and as I am not one who needs to see all at their release dates.... at home I have a lot more titles I can chose from, which title might tickle my fancy. Or pick a classic movie I also love to watch and so on.

 

I think the MCu helps to a degree to let certain people not forget about cinema even more (as do all movies with a good audience reaction), also whilst watching there a movie the trailers have a way bigger impact as seen with a bigger focus and per people potentially going to a cinema, than as one of many clips at a TV..

= I can understand the POV of members here thinking so.

Its all a question of wording, how absolute to word such kind of statements.