Jump to content
Jedi Jat

The Admission Count - Avatar vs Avengers: Endgame

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Since, Avengers: Endgame is on its last days of box office earning and I had promised to do this one, so now it begins. The purpose of this thread is to compare the admissions of the two biggest grossers of all time; Avatar and Avengers: Endgame to settle the debate on some issues which concern the box office community; such as exchange rates, inflations, etc. I am starting this thread today but it won't be completed till next two weeks most probably. I am hoping that by July 10th, we will have almost the actual admission count of the two giants, so stay tuned. 

 

The sheet will be the battleground which will be updated in time.

https://bit.ly/aaacount

 

Now somethings I would like to say;

  1. This is an attempt to get the closest to actually count as the absolute accurate number is impossible.
  2. There will be sources, provided for every number taken.
  3. Some numbers will be estimated, the calculations will be provided
  4. If you find any mistake, please let me know.
  5. It will be easier to finish if all of you can help with the markets you track. Thanks in advance.

 

giphy.gif

 

After compiling data for some time now; result are in, with a margin of error less than 5% up/down, the most watched films in last 25 years are as follow.

20 hours ago, Charlie Jatinder said:

Most watched films worldwide in last 25 Years.

 

  1. Titanic: 405mn (Including 40mn 3D re-release)
  2. Avengers: Endgame: 390mn
  3. Avengers: Infinity War: 300mn Approx
  4. Avatar: 289mn 

 

Star Wars: The Force Awakens would be around 220mn Approx

 

Edited by Charlie Jatinder
  • Like 10
  • Thanks 5
  • Haha 1
  • Astonished 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Please let me know if you think any countries number may be wrong: 

 

TICKET  UPDATE:

 

Region

 

 

EndGame

   
         
Australia   5.72    
Europe   53.6*    
USA   85    
South Korea   13.9    
China   86.61    
Philipines   5.2    
Japan   4.01    
Thailand   5.1    
India   22.3    
Vietnam   3.65    
Taiwan   3.45    
Malaysia    2.8    
Hong Kong   1.28    
Indonesia   11.1    
Latin America   69.5~*

 

 
    373.42

 

 

 

I still need ATP sources for South Africa, UAE, Namibia, Myanmar, Pakistan, Israel & a dozen other countries which account for around 8% gross of Endgame. 

 

 

New ATP Sources:

 

India: Avatar should be around 8m and EG 22-23m.

 

Japan --------> Checked out records forum in WoKj.

Indonesia-----> 11M for Endgame Admission was reported on the news. Also, I checked the top 40 movies for Indonesia and Avatar was not in that list, the movie on 40th had 2.7M admission and I gave it to Avatar. 

Australia Admission --> In 2009, In a total of 90.7M admission accounted for AU$ 1085m.  Average Ticket prices were AU$ 11.99 in 2009 to AU$13.86 in 2018. So, Avatar which had earned AU$115M ----> 9.6M tickets. Now, EG has earned AUD 80M, so with 14 AUD average price this year-----> 5.72M tickets.

 

Hong Kong: https://www.cinema.com.hk/en/site/ticketPrice--> You can find EG's price list for 2D & 3D. Just average them.

Malaysia: http://www.cinema.com.my/cinemas/ticketpricing.aspx for EG

TAIWAN: http://www.sunable.net/book/export/html/1191  for EG

Vietnam: https://www.cgv.vn/en/movies/now-showing.html---> Around 70,000VND for CGV Cinemas in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City & 50,000VND for CGV Cinemas in other provinces.

 

Europe: Credit to FireKnight_750 from Reddit.

UK: 10.7 M

France: 6.7M

Germany: 5 M

Italy: 4 M

Spain: 4.4 M

Russia: 10.3M

Poland: 1.9 M

Sweden: 550 K

Iceland: 75 K

Norway: 460 K

Belgium: 840 K

Switzerland: 500 K

Czech Republic: 870 K

Finland: 340 K

Denmark: 800 K

Austria: 400 K

Hungary: 800 K

Ukraine: 1.4 M

Portugal: 650 K

Bulgaria: 210 K

Greece: 540 K

 

Latin America: credit to AgentCooper315 from Reddit.

Updated: A total of at least 62.65M from these 7 major LA markets. These major markets usually represent around 90% of the total admission data in LA. So this would be around 69.5M admissions.

Edited by Shanks
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Wait, I think Vietnam has more than 4M admissions? 

The total money should be 300B already.

The average ticket price here is around 67.5k. So it should be at least 4M

@nguyenkhoi282 please check 

 

And the total of 7 major LA countries above is 62.65M already, not 58.7M. If it represents 90% of total admissions of the whole LA, then, it will be 69.5M

EDIT: Mexico updated to 25.5 since last week

@Shanks

Edited by PKMLover
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh god Charlie @Charlie Jatinder, I wish you all the best in this risky adventure. I don't now how will you come out of it when all the numbering (and no-numbering too) is done. So brave you are. I'll keep you in my nightly prayers. 🙏🏻

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a real shame that actual ticket numbers arent reported for alot of countries. I do believe its probably the most valid form of measuring a movies success. Atleast in a certain way.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, Panda said:
 
 
 
1 minute ago, Panda said:

I bet you breathe through your mouth. 

Occasionally, I do. The doctors advised against it though. 

51 minutes ago, JamesCameronScholar said:
 
 
 
40 minutes ago, JamesCameronScholar said:

Please try harder. Put a little thought into your post next time - https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/245/False-Equivalence

 

On another hand, How hard it is to believe that continent with 4.2B people and only 25% (1.05B) of them capable of watching the movie with half the ticket prices embraced a movie and it can have a higher number of footfalls than a movie embraced by a Continent of 0.75B (even if 100% population watched it) with twice/thrice the prices of tickets?

 

Ignoring Logic presented here and trying to find it in my opinion...well, you need to read the link you gave again, not leaving comment section. 

 

Fact: Titanic>Endgame> Avatar in Footfalls. 

Edited by Shanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Shanks said:

On another hand, How hard it is to believe that continent with 4.2B people and only 25% (1.05B) of them capable of watching the movie with half the ticket prices embraced a movie and it can have a higher number of footfalls than a movie embraced by a Continent of 0.75B (even if 100% population watched it) with twice/thrice the prices of tickets?

 

I wasn't saying that this wasn't the case. I agree that considering pop trends it's highly probable footfall has increased, esp. given the rise of India and China. What I object to is the presentation of speculation as fact. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

OK, as we're still in the first page, I do want to take the opportunity to discuss a few points. I do not want us Avatar/Jim stans to be painted as "flat-earthers", I think these points are worthy of noting.

 

*First of all, I think estimating global admission to compare two films is an exercise in futility, the data isn't precise nor clear, as is the case with monetary box office. There are numerous factors such as 3D ratio, ticket price inflation, and exchange rates at play, lots of estimation and guessing game is involved. Most importantly, since none of us is entirely "objective", though some like to pretend that they are, it's  easy for certain members of "authority" to be a bit sneaky here and there, since admission numbers are never absolute (you can already see that disclaimer being made).

 

1. If we have to do an admission estimation, who is the most qualified to do it? Ideally, someone with an unbiased view of global box office markets, and has no dog in the fights. Well, let's just say, looking at the members already in this thread (and past history of Avatar belittling and box office wishful thinking), with people already trying to smear Jim Fans as "Flat Earthers", and knowing that MCU fans outnumber Jim Stans like 10 to 1 on these forums. This doesn't exactly instill confidence in objectivity to me.  

The figurehead of this exercise, Charlie, has a history of being "vague" in admission numbers, to put it mildly. For example, he once claimed Avatar's domestic admission is ~70M, these days he's sticking to 75M, which is closer to the reality, as we don't have concrete data for Avatar domestic admission (ATP calculation put it much higher), most estimations put it in the range of 75-80M, you see, it may not seem to matter a great deal, but sneaking away 5M here, 10M there, soon, you're have a false narrative forming. Speaking of narrative, Charlie once claimed that Wolf Warrior 2 has 130M or so in admission in China to downplay Avatar 2's admission ceiling there, then he was corrected that WW2's actual admission is 169M by knowledgeable members. Whether that's intentional or an error I have no idea, but the point is, sometimes our own biases can re-shape our perception of reality, and admission numbers happen to be unclear/vague enough for narrative manipulation. I am not writing this to antagonize anyone, I just wish that in this exercise, Charlie & Co. will exercise objectivity to the best of their abilities.

 

2. Is admission numbers a great indicator of a movie's relative success? Well, it would not be a bad comparison if global admission numbers stayed consistent over the years. However, that's not the case is it? China's yearly admission literally increased more than 8+ times over the past 10 years, this applies to many other developing markets in Asia, as well as other parts of the world.  We know that global box office increased by 40% over the last ten years, considering admission increases often happens in countries with much cheaper tickets, global admission may very well have increased by more than 40% over the past 10 yearsIs it a fair game comparing film admissions when they are released in markets that's significantly different in admission capacity? We know Endgame grossed $630M in China, the admission boost from there alone cannot be matched by Avatar not because Avatar didn't do well there (it tripled the highest grossing film at the time), but because Avatar simply did not have access to that size of a market, same story applies to many developing markets where Endgame broke the records in. The more accurate way to measure success, would be dividing number of tickets sold (Avatar, for example) by total numbers of yearly global admission of the year the film's released , we get a relative proportional success measurement, best way to counter a ever-changing market, I bet no one wants to do that though, why? Because it will only make Avatar and Titanic look good, two films that gross a disproportionate high amount in the year which they were released. No one wants to talk about how Avatar broke the previous worldwide record by 50%, tripled the second highest grosser of 2009, took almost 10% of global total box office of the year, and grossed more than Endgame in a global market that's 40% smaller in box office, the fact that these more proportional measurements are almost never discussed suggest where we are as a forum in terms of opinions, doesn't it?

 

3. Don't downplay 3D/premium showing. Many people are trying to use admission numbers to downplay Avatar, which is ridiculous since Avatar has impressive admission numbers. However, people fail to consider that if a film drives people to see it in IMAX, 3D and all other premium showings, the film must have done something right to earn that premium sub-charge. That means perhaps the film deserves that money? Admission counts treats a 2D ticket the same as IMAX 3D, while failing to consider that people who spends a lot more on premium tickets are less likely to repeat watching the same films. If I had the money to see a film in 2D repeatedly for 5 times, that's only enough for 3 times with a 3D showing, and maybe 2 times with a IMAX 3D showing, the point is, massive premium showing percentage will likely drive down overall admission. Sometimes, actual box office money is more reflective of a film's success because it doesn't treat a 2D general ticket the same as a premium ticket.

 

So in summary, I wish the people who are involved in this exercise has a history of objectivity, as I wish global admission reporting is more accurate and is less prone to manipulation, on that, I remain ambivalent. Global admission count comparison is not fair for movies released 10 years apart, because the total yearly admission may have increased by 40%+ and the about-to-be largest market in the world increased yearly admission by 8 times, which Endgame fully took advantage of. Finally, high 3D showing ratio is not a crime and shows audience confidence in a film's ability to deliver a visual spectacle, admission treats 2D and premium tickets the same, thus not necessarily a be all end all measure, like many claims it is.

 

Edited by NCsoft
  • Like 10
  • Thanks 5
  • Astonished 1
  • Not Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, NCsoft said:

OK, as we're still in the first page, I do want to take the opportunity to discussion a few points. I do not want us Avatar/Jim stans to be painted as "flat-earthers", I think these points are worthy of noting.

 

*First of all, I think estimating global admission to compare two films is an exercise in futility, the data isn't precise nor clear, as with monetary box office numbers. There are numerous factors such as 3D ratio, ticket price inflation, and exchange rates at play, lots of estimation and guessing game is involved. Most importantly, since none of us is entirely "objective", though some pretends that they are, it's really easy for certain members of "authority" to be a bit sneaky here and there, as admission numbers are never absolute (you can already see that disclaimer being made).

 

1. If we have to do an admission estimation, who is most quality to do it? Ideally, someone with an unbiased view of global box office markets, and has no dog in the fights. Well, let's just say, looking at the members already in this thread (and past history of Avatar belittling and box office wishful thinking), with people already trying to smear Jim Fans as "Flat Earthers", and knowing that MCU fans outnumber Jim Stans like 10 to 1 on these forums. This doesn't exactly instill confidence in objectivity to me.  

The figurehead of this exercise, Charlie, has a history of being "vague" in admission numbers, to put it mildly. For example, he once claimed Avatar's domestic admission is ~70M, these days he's sticking to 75M, which is closer to the reality, as we don't have concrete data for Avatar domestic admission (ATP calculation put it much higher), most estimations put it in the range of 75-80M, you see, it may not seem to matter a great deal, but sneaking away 5M here, 10M there, soon, you're have a false narrative forming. Speaking of narrative, Charlie once claimed that Wolf Warrior 2 has 130M or so in admission in China to downplay Avatar 2's admission ceiling there, then he was corrected that WW2's actual admission is 169M by knowledgeable members. Whether that's intentional or an error I have no idea, but the point is, sometimes our own biases can re-shape our perception of reality, and admission numbers happen to be unclear/vague enough for narrative manipulation. I am not writing this to antagonist anyone, I wish that in this exercise, Charlie & Co. will exercise objectivity to the best of their abilities.

 

2. Is admission numbers a great indicator of a movie's relative success? Well, it would not be a bad comparison if global admission numbers stayed consistent over the years. However, that's not the case is it? China's yearly admission literally increased more than 8+ times over the past 10 years, this applies to many other developing markets in Asia, as well as other parts of the world.  We know that global box office increased by 40% over the last ten years, considering admission increases often happens in countries with much cheaper tickets, global admission may very well have increased by more than 40% over the past 10 yearsIs it a fair game comparing film admissions when they are released in markets that's significantly different in admission capacity? We know Endgame grossed $630M in China, the admission boost from there alone cannot be matched by Avatar not because Avatar didn't do well there (it tripled the highest grossing film at the time), but because Avatar simply did not have access to that size of a market, same story applies to many developing markets where Endgame broke the records in. The more accurate way to measure success, would be dividing number of tickets sold (Avatar, for example) by total numbers of yearly global admission of the year the film's released , we get a relative proportional success measurement, best way to counter a ever-changing market, I bet no one wants to do that though, why? Because it will only make Avatar and Titanic look good, two films that gross a disproportionate high amount in the year which they were released. No one wants to talk about how Avatar broke the previously worldwide record by 50%, tripled the second highest grosser of 2009, took almost 10% of global total box office of the year, and grossed more than Endgame in a global market that's 40% smaller in box office, the fact that these more proportional measurements are almost never discussed suggest where we are as a forum in terms of opinions, isn't it?

 

3. Don't downplay 3D/premium showing. Many people are trying to use admission numbers to downplay Avatar, which is ridiculous since Avatar has impressive admission numbers. However, people fail to consider that if a film drives people to see it in IMAX, 3D and all other premium showings, the film must have done something right to earn that premium sub-charge, and the film deserves that money? Admission counts treats a 2D ticket the same as IMAX 3D, while failing to consider that people who spends a lot more on premium tickets are less likely to repeat watching the same films. If I had the money to see a film in 2D repeatedly for 5 times, that's only enough for 3 times with a 3D showing, and maybe 2 times with a IMAX 3D showing, the point is, massive premium showing percentage will likely drive down overall admission. Sometimes, actual box office money is more reflective of a film's success because it doesn't treat a 2D general ticket the same as a premium ticket.

 

So in summary, I wish the people who are involved in this exercise has a history of objectivity, as I wish global admission reporting is more accurate and is less prone to manipulation, on that, I remain ambivalent. Global admission count comparison is not fair for movies released 10 years apart, because the total yearly admission may have increased by 40%+ and the about-to-be largest markets increased yearly admission by 8 times, which Endgame fully took advantage of. Finally, high 3D showing ratio is not a crime and shows audience confidence in a film's ability to deliver to visual spectacle, admission treats 2D and premium tickets the same, thus not necessarily a be all end all measure, like many claims it is.

 

Well said. :Gaga:

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
  • ...wtf 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JamesCameronScholar said:

Well said. :Gaga:

I was writing really fast in order to make sure it lands in the first page, turns out I was the very last post!:rofl:

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • ...wtf 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, NCsoft said:

people already trying to smear Jim Fans as "Flat Earthers"

Wow, it was just me alone bro. This here is a real problem. You came uninvited!! 

It was just me who said that.

Direct hate to me. Not everybody else.

I never said you (NCsoft) is flat-earther.  I didn't take a dig at any other stan either. it was just for JCS. Are you his alt account?

It was for @JamesCameronScholaralone but first panda defended him and now you? 

 

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least Charlie is trying to report facts using statistics. All Cameron fans - well, just @JamesCameronScholar so far - are doing is throwing out smug one liners in retort.

 

Yeah, JCS, your elitist tone minimalist form of posting is just soooo convincing.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 3
  • Disbelief 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure this thread will be pleasant and full of nuanced discussion.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, instead of complaining about this work, do it yourself if you think it's wrong. No one's stopping you.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, infamous5445 said:

You know, instead of complaining about this work, do it yourself if you think it's wrong. No one's stopping you.

Yep, exactly. That's not the way with Cameron fans though. It seems like all they do is just sit there and snicker in response to anything that's not Cameron love. There's almost zero effort applied to intellectual discussion.

Edited by JB33
  • Like 3
  • Not Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, JB33 said:

Yeah, JCS, your elitist tone minimalist form of posting is just soooo convincing.

Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. :Gaga:

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • ...wtf 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Shanks said:

Wow, it was just me alone bro. This here is a real problem. You came uninvited!! 

 I never said you (NCsoft) is flat-earther.  I didn't take a dig at any other stan either. it was just for JCS. Are you his alt account?

What do you mean I came uninvited? the very existence of this thread invites both MCU fans and Jim fans to discuss, and I thought I put up a perfectly civil discussion in an attempt to counter what will almost definitely be a "One sided narrative".

I didn't want to single you out, of course, trust me, I've been here long enough to know that in these forums, where Jim Gang are mentioned, they're usually painted under 1 brush, and not a positive one either, that's why we have united to such an extent, despite the fact that we're very different people. Also, we're subjected to much worse than "flat earther" so no hard feeling from me there, I was just using that as an example.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, infamous5445 said:

You know, instead of complaining about this work, do it yourself if you think it's wrong. No one's stopping you.

Are you talking about JC's box office dominance? I know no one's stopping me, but to be honest if not even EG can beat Avatar I don't see myself being able to do it. If you're talking about comparing EG to Avatar, that's already done by BOM, and plenty of other sources. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.