Weekend Thread: Endgame 40.6M Friday, 61-62.5m Sat (per Asgard p.49)

[BardCrank]

It will be so funny when Avatar 2 grosses less than AoU

[charlie Jatinder]

1 hour ago, Barnack said:

 

If you are talking best / more impressive run it is a bit more complex than that imo, higher price could logically drive admission down (there something impressive into the ability to sell very high price tickets also), population/urban sprawling/existence of Television& othercompetition can also play a role. 5m tickets sold over the year):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films_in_the_United_Kingdom

 

According to wiki the top 10 looked like that in 2017 according to guiness world records (would need Infinity War/End games to be added):

 

Highest-grossing films as of 2017 adjusted for inflation^{[32][Inf][AE]}

Rank	Title	Worldwide gross  (2017 $)	Year
1	Gone with the Wind	$3,703,000,000	1939
2	Avatar	$3,251,000,000	2009
3	Titanic	T$3,078,000,000	1997
4	Star Wars	$3,041,000,000	1977
5	The Sound of Music	$2,547,000,000	1965
6	E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial	$2,487,000,000	1982
7	The Ten Commandments	$2,354,000,000	1956
8	Doctor Zhivago	$2,232,000,000	1965
9	Jaws	$2,182,000,000	1975
10	Star Wars: The Force Awakens	TFA$2,144,000,000	2015

GWTW is virtually zero in the east, Titanic isn't. GWTW was basically NA, Europe phenomenon. Titanic is worldwide at same level. I haven't really seen anywhere where Titanic underperformed.

 

TBH I don't really buy the 200mn admits in NA but even if it is, there is a film in India, Sholay which had 250mn plus admissions. It did great in USSR but I will overstating if even 1% in West even heard its name. That's what GWTW is. Popular with less population (Europe + NA) less than India.

Edited May 6, 2019 by Charlie Jatinder

[charlie Jatinder]

18 minutes ago, BardCrank said:

It will be so funny when Avatar 2 grosses less than AoU

I assume you are talking about Domestic only. I won't be really surprised by it though.

[DeeCee]

Shocking. 

 

Someone has graffitied the Endgame billboard near the train station. 

[cdsacken]

17 minutes ago, Charlie Jatinder said:

I assume you are talking about Domestic only. I won't be really surprised by it though.

I know you think it will absolutely crush it in China (it will just how much who knows, maybe over End game imo) but how much total? I think me and Venom are both in the 2.5-2.75 random guess range right now.

 

Avatar fan boys are suggesting 4 billion. Curious on your take.

Edited May 6, 2019 by cdsacken

[The Panda]

1 hour ago, Barnack said:

 

If you are talking best / more impressive run it is a bit more complex than that imo, higher price could logically drive admission down (there something impressive into the ability to sell very high price tickets also), population/urban sprawling/existence of Television& othercompetition can also play a role. 

 

A bit like when you compare athlete of different era, how well it did versus their peers is the first I would look at to judge performance from different era, say how it did relative to the top 10 the year before, it's year and the next year to remove noise from other all time great competition.

 

Nothing ever got close to Titanic that era either even an extremely hyped first Star Wars since the OT, no one thought it was possible, Avatar wasn't that long ago it didn't do Titanic type of phenomenon but was not that far off.

 

 

All debate here are completely pointless but that one because of the removed is a bit less pointless, many other debate you can just look up at box office mojo without having anything to debate (it is pointless to debate over fact, just need to look them up).

 

 

I am a bit curious about your international GWTW that you did dig to say that ? I would imagined that back in the days tracking of intl markets was not usual.

 

In the Uk it would still be number one of all time according to the BFI (wiht a ridiculous 35m tickets sold over the year):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films_in_the_United_Kingdom

 

According to wiki the top 10 looked like that in 2017 according to guiness world records (would need Infinity War/End games to be added):

 

Highest-grossing films as of 2017 adjusted for inflation^{[32][Inf][AE]}

Rank	Title	Worldwide gross  (2017 $)	Year
1	Gone with the Wind	$3,703,000,000	1939
2	Avatar	$3,251,000,000	2009
3	Titanic	T$3,078,000,000	1997
4	Star Wars	$3,041,000,000	1977
5	The Sound of Music	$2,547,000,000	1965
6	E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial	$2,487,000,000	1982
7	The Ten Commandments	$2,354,000,000	1956
8	Doctor Zhivago	$2,232,000,000	1965
9	Jaws	$2,182,000,000	1975
10	Star Wars: The Force Awakens	TFA$2,144,000,000	2015

 

 

Again, “Adjusting for inflation” WW is a dumb and futile task.

[honestbharani]

I am very new here and a total n00b when it comes to BO predictions (and I am 35+ as you can guess from my usage of the word n00b), but am I the only one who thinks Avatar 2 will not do any bonkers numbers?    Now, if the movie is really good and it creates an absolute must watch experience in the cinemas, then sure, I can see Avatar 3 breaking all kinds of records.   But given the time that has passed since Avatar 1, I feel 2 has to lay some of the foundation again for its successors to reap the rewards.

 

 

The same with the MCU and whatever the next Avengers movie is.   I feel Avengers 5 has to act as a set up and be so good that Avengers 6 can then look at toppling BO records.

 

And for all we know, some new movie can come in and totally crush it as well but I still feel we are now heading into the "sequels set all the records" territory given how front-loaded and competitive the entertainment market has been getting.

[JB33]

2 minutes ago, honestbharani said:

I am very new here and a total n00b when it comes to BO predictions (and I am 35+ as you can guess from my usage of the word n00b), but am I the only one who thinks Avatar 2 will not do any bonkers numbers?    Now, if the movie is really good and it creates an absolute must watch experience in the cinemas, then sure, I can see Avatar 3 breaking all kinds of records.   But given the time that has passed since Avatar 1, I feel 2 has to lay some of the foundation again for its successors to reap the rewards.

 

 

The same with the MCU and whatever the next Avengers movie is.   I feel Avengers 5 has to act as a set up and be so good that Avengers 6 can then look at toppling BO records.

 

And for all we know, some new movie can come in and totally crush it as well but I still feel we are now heading into the "sequels set all the records" territory given how front-loaded and competitive the entertainment market has been getting.

Good post. I agree completely.

[Barnack]

7 minutes ago, A Panda of Ice and Fire said:

Again, “Adjusting for inflation” WW is a dumb

Why ?

 

Quote

and futile task.

Sure, but what would be a non futile box office task or message on a box office message board ? This is all masturbatory math pure loosing our time, everything ever said/made here was futile. So sure, yes, but in the context that everything in this thread is pure futility....

[JimiQ]

4 minutes ago, honestbharani said:

I am very new here and a total n00b when it comes to BO predictions (and I am 35+ as you can guess from my usage of the word n00b), but am I the only one who thinks Avatar 2 will not do any bonkers numbers?    Now, if the movie is really good and it creates an absolute must watch experience in the cinemas, then sure, I can see Avatar 3 breaking all kinds of records.   But given the time that has passed since Avatar 1, I feel 2 has to lay some of the foundation again for its successors to reap the rewards.

 

 

The same with the MCU and whatever the next Avengers movie is.   I feel Avengers 5 has to act as a set up and be so good that Avengers 6 can then look at toppling BO records.

 

And for all we know, some new movie can come in and totally crush it as well but I still feel we are now heading into the "sequels set all the records" territory given how front-loaded and competitive the entertainment market has been getting.

Knowing nothing about A2 plot or Avengers 5 plot I'd say Avengers 5 will make around Avengers 1 numbers and A2 around 2B.

[IronJimbo]

1 hour ago, MikeQ said:

That is, I would say, largely because of the two original juggernauts of Titanic (1997) and then Avatar (2009). It seems a handful of sequels and established franchises would have snatched the worldwide record, if these two original films hadn’t so dramatically set new records (smashing the $1 billion and $2 billion marks, respectively, so handily for the first time). Titanic’s 12 year stretch with the crown is the longest serving worldwide record in modern box office history.

 

It is interesting to look at the films that would have set the worldwide record if Titanic and Avatar hadn’t existed. For example, the Harry Potter series would have set the record twice with its first and final films of the series. The final Lord of the Rings instalment would have also set the record. The Star Wars franchise would have set the record another two times (in additional to the original). Etc.

 

From Jurassic Park’s worldwide record in 1993 onwards:

(*All original run grosses only; films that didn't, but would have set the record, are in blue)

 

Jurassic Park (1993) — $914,691,118 (actual record holder prior to Titanic’s whopping % increase)

Titanic (1997) — $1,843,201,268 

The Phantom Menace (1999) — $924,317,558

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone (2001) — $974,755,371

Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (2003) — $1,118,888,979

Avatar (2009) — $2,749,064,328 

Transformers: Dark Side of the Moon (2011) — $1,123,794,079

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 (2011) — $1,341,511,219

Marvel’s The Avengers (2012) — $1,518,812,988

Jurassic World (2015) — $1,671,713,208

Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015) — $2,068,223,624

Avengers: Endgame (2019) — $2,188,698,638 (will be the current record holder; on its way to surpassing Avatar worldwide)

 

Peace,

Mike

I always facepalm when people suggest it's impressive for a sequel to make that sorta of money because only original films out of no where can.

 

It's like they've been living under a rock the last 15 years, we are in the sequel era. Jim knows that, that's why he's making an Avatar franchise.

[reddevil19]

46 minutes ago, keysersoze123 said:

I think there is enough JC fanbase to gross few hundred million WW. You are underestimating the man.

I'd probably go as well. I've seen Avatar a dozen times already - not because I love it, but because it’s a fairly easy watch if it's on. And I'd check it out again on the biggest screen I could find. I wouldn't be in a hurry to book it, but I would watch it.

 

I kinda feel the same about the sequel. That's why I find it hard to decide on my expectations regarding its box office. I expect a larger opening than the original, but not gigantic, as there wouldn't be a rush factor to find out what Jake Sully has been up to! I expect weaker legs than the original, but I can easily see a lot of people having my attitude of "guess I'll go see it, then" through the holidays. And if it does bring something new visually, and again becomes a conversation piece, then...who knows?

 

Reckon the best thing they could do is try and sort an early release in China. That's going to be guaranteed bonkers and, as we saw with Aquaman, early huge numbers there can drive buzz elsewhere. Obviously it’s not all down to the studio, but Chinese authorities expect it to be huge as well, so maybe a week early there will be doable.

[NCsoft]

4 minutes ago, reddevil19 said:

Reckon the best thing they could do is try and sort an early release in China. That's going to be guaranteed bonkers and, as we saw with Aquaman, early huge numbers there can drive buzz elsewhere. Obviously it’s not all down to the studio, but Chinese authorities expect it to be huge as well, so maybe a week early there will be doable.

This is the biggest unknown factor, it actually hinges on whether 2020 is a good year or not in China...

If it's good enough, the authority will be satisfied with the year's performance and feel no need to compensate, also if a big local film target the Dec slot, authorities might want to prevent competition. 

[The Panda]

22 minutes ago, Barnack said:

Why ?

 

Sure, but what would be a non futile box office task or message on a box office message board ? This is all masturbatory math pure loosing our time, everything ever said/made here was futile. So sure, yes, but in the context that everything in this thread is pure futility....

Elaborated on it when people were discussing this in the weekend thread.

 

In brief, there’s a lot of compounding factors that aren’t reflected in the adjustments, such as exchange rates, overseas market expansions, population growth, changes in theatrical business and pricing models, data issues in certain countries, etc.  When looking at a single country, it can be a somewhat useful, yet flawed, measure to look at attendance.  

 

You aren’t really getting all that better of a measure of popularity by doing so instead of just acknowledging how well a movie did within its time instead of trying to compare films popularity that are decades apart from each other.

 

I think you’re just better off acknowledging something like, Titanic was a major phenomenon in the 90s, Endgame is a major phenomenon now.  

Edited May 6, 2019 by A Panda of Ice and Fire

[DeeCee]

It’s hard enough adjusting the Domestic gross of films as old as GWTW let alone attempting worldwide. 

 

https://forums.boxofficetheory.com/topic/20886-gone-with-the-wind-1939-box-office20-million-tickets-sold-in-the-first-year/?do=findComment&comment=2339485

[Cap]

1 hour ago, Charlie Jatinder said:

TBH I don't really buy the 200mn admits in NA but even if it is, there is a film in India, Sholay which had 250mn plus admissions. It did great in USSR but I will overstating if even 1% in West even heard its name. That's what GWTW is. Popular with less population (Europe + NA) less than India.

Gotta remember it was a totally different time for how you consumed entertainment. No TVs or laptops. The movies were cheap forms of entertainment. The 1940s was the height  of admissions for the movie industry. 

Edited May 6, 2019 by captainwondyful
Height not high of

[Thomas Beck]

1 minute ago, captainwondyful said:

Gotta remember it was a totally different time for how you consumed entertainment. No TVs or laptops. The movies were cheap forms of entertainment. The 1940s was the high of admissions for the movie industry. 

 

And also far smaller population. US 1940 had 132M as opposed to 327M now.

[charlie Jatinder]

1 minute ago, captainwondyful said:

Gotta remember it was a totally different time for how you consumed entertainment. No TVs or laptops. The movies were cheap forms of entertainment. The 1940s was the height  of admissions for the movie industry. 

Still 200mn seems bloated figure.  I will like to know what our senior users like @baumer has to say about it.

 

[Broshnat]

32 minutes ago, DeeCee said:

It’s hard enough adjusting the Domestic gross of films as old as GWTW let alone attempting worldwide. 

 

 

Well I like to use admissions as the fairest method to compare movies across the last 100 years - no method is perfect but it takes care of things like exchange rates and ticket price inflation.

 

Edited May 6, 2019 by Broshnat
Fixed picture

[charlie Jatinder]

31 minutes ago, DeeCee said:

It’s hard enough adjusting the Domestic gross of films as old as GWTW let alone attempting worldwide. 

 

https://forums.boxofficetheory.com/topic/20886-gone-with-the-wind-1939-box-office20-million-tickets-sold-in-the-first-year/?do=findComment&comment=2339485

So its 155mn Approx. I can buy that.