AVENGERS ENDGAME | 1939.4 M overseas ● 2797.8 M worldwide

[cdsacken]

Djokovic beat up old nadal and Federer got his butt whooped earlier on. Hard to exactly compare one to another in relation to other. However he's juggernaut at AO. Federer at Wimbledon. Nadal at French easily the most dominant at 1 surface. Here is the thing though. 

 

I love Sampras, my favorite all time ever but all 3 will end up with much better resumes in hard eras.

 

They are clearly the most successful imo.

 

Can we agree that regardless of ranking taking out Gone with the wind and other super old movies out that Avatar, EG and Titanic are the top 3 in the last 25 years?

 

Someone said ROTK which is just nuts. Inflating adjusted it's 1.5B.

 

Edited May 26, 2019 by cdsacken

[ZattMurdock]

7 minutes ago, Thrylos 7 said:

It has already collapsed internationally, did you see the numbers it did for the entire week ? It is over, time to accept it and move on, still had an amazing run.

It still did more than IW OS-C. I don’t see how it’s time to throw the towel with barely a month of the film’s release. I remember last year how people didn’t think that IW would cross $2B, and yet here we are.

[Aristis]

2 hours ago, KJsooner said:

Endgame will always be more impressive to most box office pundits over Avatar. Not really up for debate.

Well, you know you can't write something like this and then be mad if those who like Avatar (or dislike Endgame) or just want to have this right answer you? This is a very debatable statement (as those many pages show) and if you don't want this thread to become a Avatar vs Endgame discussion thread you just shoudn't write such things...

[Darth Lehnsherr]

Yeah statements like that are just done to get a rise out of people. Avatar and Endgame had insane runs for different reasons.

[NCsoft]

 

30 minutes ago, cdsacken said:

 

Can we agree that regardless of ranking taking out Gone with the wind and other super old movies out that Avatar, EG and Titanic are the top 3 in the last 25 years?



  

25 Years, what an interesting choice of time period, since we just excluded JP. Yes, those are the top 3.

Titanic > Avatar > Endgame > ROTK > TFA >= IW>TPM>=HP1~=JW   for me personally. 

Edited May 26, 2019 by NCsoft

[NCsoft]

32 minutes ago, ZattMurdock said:

It still did more than IW OS-C. I don’t see how it’s time to throw the towel with barely a month of the film’s release. I remember last year how people didn’t think that IW would cross $2B, and yet here we are.

Interesting because I actually remember the complete opposite, I was worried for Titanic for a while and thought TFA was for sure going down. 

[ZattMurdock]

2 minutes ago, NCsoft said:

Interesting because I actually remember the complete opposite, I was worried for Titanic for a while and thought TFA was for sure going down. 

I think that around week 4 most of us agreed that Titanic was safe, and a lot of people said that it wouldn’t even make to $2b.

[cdsacken]

22 minutes ago, NCsoft said:

 

25 Years, what an interesting choice of time period, since we just excluded JP. Yes, those are the top 3.

Titanic > Avatar > Endgame > ROTK > TFA >= IW>TPM>=HP1~=JW   for me personally. 

I'd say 20 years but that excludes Titanic. Jurassic Park is above ROTK but under End Game via inflation. If you want to include it go ahead. It's under 2B inflation adjusted.

[AndyChrono]

49 minutes ago, ZattMurdock said:

It still did more than IW OS-C. I don’t see how it’s time to throw the towel with barely a month of the film’s release. I remember last year how people didn’t think that IW would cross $2B, and yet here we are.

Well, Charlie and other folks tried to explain it to you like 20 pages ago. Basically the upcoming wide release schedule is way too packed and Endgame is not grossing enough to justify theater owners keeping it over other movies. Most movies are contractually obligated to be shown for 2 weeks, but after that the theaters can drop them if they are not making enough to justify keeping them.

 

Consider a very simple example. We have Movie A (lets just say its Aladdin) and Movie B (Endgame) and you run a small theater that has just 2 screens. It seems like you could just split your screens and give 1 screen to each movie, and indeed if both movies are still in their 2 week grace period that would happen. However, since Aladdin is making more than 5x what Endgame is and Endgame is past the protected period, you actually maximize your revenue by giving BOTH screens to Aladdin and NONE to Endgame.

 

We can expand that to say, a theater with 6 screens and in the current market. Since Aladdin is making over 5x what Endgame is this weekend, and John Wick is making more than Endgame, as a theater owner you would make the most revenue by giving 5 screens to Aladdin, the last screen to John Wick, and NONE for Endgame.

 

Now consider what happens next weekend with Godzilla opening. Just for the sake of argument, lets say it opens at 55m for the weekend. Aladdin seems to have good WOM so far, so lets say it falls to around 45m for the weekend. If Endgame continues to track like Infinity War, it is going to be around 10m next weekend, and John Wick will still probably be making more than it. So that means that even if you run a 10 screen theater, it will still be better to give approximately 5 screens to Godzilla, 4 screens to Aladdin, 1 screen to John Wick, and NONE for Endgame. That situation maximizes revenue.

 

Basically at that point, only theaters with more than 10 screens will even consider showing Endgame. If you jump ahead another week, you then have SLOP and Dark Phoenix opening with both tracking to open with 50m or whatever and Endgame will only be making like 7m by that weekend. Godzilla and Aladdin will also still be grossing many times that. So all of the screens will be eaten up by SLOP, DP, Godzilla, Aladdin, and John Wick before the theater can even consider Endgame. So basically by that point only the very largest multiplexes will have Endgame showing.

 

The same thing happens overseas as well. Aladdin made like over 6x what Endgame did this weekend in OS-China so why should theater owners keep Endgame playing? The situation actually is even more competitive overseas because many countries have strong local film industries that will be putting out new their own films that will be grossing more than Endgame at this point in time. This is why OS legs have a tendency to just drop completely off a cliff.

 

Before people who work in theaters jump on me, yes I know those examples are not exactly how it works (there will be split screen showings and such) but it's just meant to illustrate the point. Theater owners ultimately run a business and are not going to do Endgame a favor just to help it get a record.

Edited May 26, 2019 by AndyChrono

[cdsacken]

End game will hold screens better than people think. DP will lose near all of it's screens in 2-3 weeks, JW shortly after.

Edited May 26, 2019 by cdsacken

[sftperson]

1 hour ago, Thrylos 7 said:

It has already collapsed internationally, did you see the numbers it did for the entire week ? It is over, time to accept it and move on, still had an amazing run.

The international numbers are incomplete for this week as the week isn't over and some numbers haven't been reported yet. Wait a couple of more days.

[NCsoft]

25 minutes ago, cdsacken said:

 I'd say 20 years but that excludes Titanic. Jurassic Park is above ROTK but under End Game via inflation. If you want to include it go ahead. It's under 2B inflation adjusted.

Oh I don't just go by inflation adjustment, that ignores market expansion, the Wikipedia inflation adjustment thing put Avatar>Titanic + Titanic 3d, which I find unacceptable. There probably isn't an agreeable way to adjust global run with inflation from different era anyway.

It's a combination of gross at the time vs film from that era, global market size, and inflation, also I guess we should also consider premium formats and global population increase.

That's like 4 different concepts rights there, much more complicated than just inflation:

Inflation: strictly the rise in average ticket price

Market expansion: rise of market like China, where admission increase by 800% in 10 years, not strictly population related, it's just people getting wealthier, China's population is hardly increasing.

Premium showing: sub-charge also inflate ticket price but not exactly the same as inflation.

Global population increase: drastic rise especially in part of Asia + Africa and part of Latin America, just create more potential ticket buyers. 

 

ROTK might adjust to about 1.5 to 1.6B just go by ticket price inflation, but market expansion no doubt takes it to 2B+. I'm thinking 2.3B+. If I can find data on Global box office market size in 2003 (which I can't), I bet it's about half of where it is now ($42B or so), and ROTK did $1.12B in that kind of market. ROTK did like $10M in China, today, that could probably be $350M+, potentially more. Same with lots of other market where 2003 and 2019 are not even in the same scale whatsoever. Inflation alone doesn't even come close to telling the whole story. 

 

As for Jurassic Park vs Endgame, you can rank them however you want. Fact is JP was the all time world champion, defeating previous worldwide record by 30%+. 

Edited May 26, 2019 by NCsoft

[KJsooner]

To me.

 

Gwtw > Star Wars > Titanic > Endgame > Avatar.

[Heroicpiglet]

[cdsacken]

47 minutes ago, NCsoft said:

Oh I don't just go by inflation adjustment, that ignores market expansion, the Wikipedia inflation adjustment thing put Avatar>Titanic + Titanic 3d, which I find unacceptable. There probably isn't an agreeable way to adjust global run with inflation from different era anyway.

It's a combination of gross at the time vs film from that era, global market size, and inflation, also I guess we should also consider premium formats and global population increase.

That's like 4 different concepts rights there, much more complicated than just inflation:

Inflation: strictly the rise in average ticket price

Market expansion: rise of market like China, where admission increase by 800% in 10 years, not strictly population related, it's just people getting wealthier, China's population is hardly increasing.

Premium showing: sub-charge also inflate ticket price but not exactly the same as inflation.

Global population increase: drastic rise especially in part of Asia + Africa and part of Latin America, just create more potential ticket buyers. 

 

ROTK might adjust to about 1.5 to 1.6B just go by ticket price inflation, but market expansion no doubt takes it to 2B+. I'm thinking 2.3B+. If I can find data on Global box office market size in 2003 (which I can't), I bet it's about half of where it is now ($42B or so), and ROTK did $1.12B in that kind of market. ROTK did like $10M in China, today, that could probably be $350M+, potentially more. Same with lots of other market where 2003 and 2019 are not even in the same scale whatsoever. Inflation alone doesn't even come close to telling the whole story. 

 

As for Jurassic Park vs Endgame, you can rank them however you want. Fact is JP was the all time world champion, defeating previous worldwide record by 30%+. 

Which means nothing since if you increase the box office total by 150%, double the rate of inflation and it still loses to EG. 

 

Even if EG beats Avatar on inflation adjusted it's going to come under in tanking. 

[Pure Spirit]

8 hours ago, KJsooner said:

Will the Cameronstan dickriders stop with their bullshite. Obviously what Endgame is doing is much more impressive than what Avatar and its inflated bullshit 3D did. Endgame already slaughtered it worldwide in tickets sold. Warm glass of ‘shut the hell up’ to the Jimstans. 

I agree, tickets sold is the metric we prefer to use on BoT, which is why we have to adjust "discount Tuesdays" upwards to get the true daily gross of a movie.

[Pure Spirit]

 

[Barnack]

7 minutes ago, cdsacken said:

Which means nothing since if you increase the box office total by 150%, double the rate of inflation and it still loses to EG. 

 

I imagine you mean increase by 50% and even then, there is a 77% inflation since 1993.

 

$914 million + .5*914 = 1371

 

Double the inflation (I imagine you do not mean annual rate but the total) to 144%

 

1371+1.44*1371 = 3345 millions

[Pure Spirit]

7 hours ago, cdsacken said:

Avatars run not factoring currency rates was absolutely more impressive. Titanic was way more impressive than both. Like not even close.

I agree Titanic was significantly more impressive (I was 17 when it dropped like a nuke after a year of dubious advance buzz and journalists prepped with headlines like "Titanic sinks at box office"), but I think most people are focused on tracking Endgame's progress towards #1 WW unadjusted.

[cdsacken]

7 minutes ago, Pure Spirit said:

I agree Titanic was significantly more impressive (I was 17 when it dropped like a nuke after a year of dubious advance buzz and journalists prepped with headlines like "Titanic sinks at box office"), but I think most people are focused on tracking Endgame's progress towards #1 WW unadjusted.

Of course we want to see a record broken. This whole it has to be smashed is crazy. When Avatar 2 comes out and absolutely does not smash the record I expect a lot of excuses and changing of opinions.