The Admission Count Thread.

[PKMLover]

9 minutes ago, Charlie Jatinder said:

At end of round 2, with majority of Europe and Latin America done;

In 27 markets set; Avatar stands at 244mn compared with 319mn Approx of Endgame.

 

If you think, need any correction in any market, you are most welcome, except for UK where data is estimated just like USA using Avatar and Endgame actual ATP in France compared with National ATP. You can see the calculation in Notes Sheet.

 

These 27 markets account for almost 70-75% of world box office. Rest will be updated soon.

Hongkong should be 1.7M+ 

"As of May 13...

From news report, AEG made 204.46M hkd as of Monday, 1,524,722 admissions"

The projected finish...

"220-230M"

https://forums.boxofficetheory.com/topic/970-avengers-endgame-now-the-1-film-of-all-time-in-only-13-days/page/156/#comments

 

Chile already passed 3M more than one week ago

Edited June 25, 2019 by PKMLover

[titanic2187]

1 minute ago, PKMLover said:

After seeing the content of the "longer" version.... it seems that they dont go all out to the record. They are more into fan tribute and PR Spiderman movie

Wining over Avatar as the top grossing film of all time is a fan tribute itself   

[PKMLover]

4 minutes ago, titanic2187 said:

Wining over Avatar as the top grossing film of all time is a fan tribute itself   

I know i know. But from what I just saw on Twitter about what will be appeared in the "longer version", it is not enough to pass Avatar (if they seriously want). They need to add some more things and remove something... to target to fan's interests much more effectively.( I am sure They know what fan need).

Edited June 25, 2019 by PKMLover

[TomCruiseTop]

19 hours ago, ZattMurdock said:

It already has the biggest theatrical original first run. Avatar had $2.749B in its original run.

Why has no one called out this lie? A's OR was $2.755B - where are you getting your number from? 

[peludo]

2 minutes ago, JamesCameronScholar said:

Why has no one called out this lie? A's OR was $2.755B - where are you getting your number from? 

According BOM, Avatar Special Edition did:

DOM: $10,741,486

OS: $22,469,358

WW: 33,210,844

 

So Avatar did during its initial run $2,754,754,243

 

Said this, I do not give a shit about initial runs. Gross is gross, whenever it has been done. In fact, I would love to see re-releases more usually.

[TomCruiseTop]

5 minutes ago, peludo said:

Said this, I do not give a shit about initial runs. Gross is gross, whenever it has been done. In fact, I would love to see re-releases more usually.

Agree 100%. It is interesting that people have become very interested in other metrics of all a sudden, when before original runs and admissions were mere trivialities of the business. The dollar is still king in my book. 

[Barnack]

21 minutes ago, peludo said:

Said this, I do not give a shit about initial runs. Gross is gross, whenever it has been done. In fact, I would love to see re-releases more usually.

 

There is certainly a plus for a movie to be able sustain interest over time and re-release, it is different it is some strange drive-in affair a la Spectre/Wrinkle in time and a Dark Knight. I get the notion of an * if it is a different movie in some ways (3D added, different cut/supplement material), but if it is the exact same movie every big movie ever get them and it would be really bad otherwise.

Edited June 25, 2019 by Barnack

[TalismanRing]

17 minutes ago, PKMLover said:

I know i know. But from what I just saw on Twitter about what will be appeared in the "longer version", it is not enough to pass Avatar (if they seriously want). They need to add some more things and remove something... to target to fan's interests much more effectively.( I am sure They know what fan need).

There's one big scene they filmed for the movie that they took out b/c they thought it didn't fit.  But that scene would have been far more of a pull than the reported one they're adding.  They also had extended footage of the end battle they could have used.  They could have even re-cut the CM end credits and put it back in EG.  As it stands it feels more like a promo for SM.  This isn't that much different than when they added the new SM trailer at the end of the movie a couple weeks after opening.

[peludo]

1 minute ago, JamesCameronScholar said:

Agree 100%. It is interesting that people have become very interested in other metrics of all a sudden, when before original runs and admissions were mere trivialities of the business. The dollar is still king in my book. 

I am more interested in admissions than in dollars 

 

But I do not get the need of split the runs (beyond my favorite film earns more than yours). If a film is good enough, it will be able to bring back people to theaters, no matters the gap of time since its initial release.

[JB33]

Coming from someone who agrees that dollars and cents are what matters, I would say re-releases matter when comparing box office runs. I mean, it's pretty damn simple. You can't fairly compare a film with a normal theatrical run to that of one that had extra opportunities to add to its gross. Pretty straightforward. Avatar still gets credit for every single dollar it made obviously but if you're judging it against other films that had one theatrical run, use the original run of Avatar, which up to this point has vastly surpassed every other film's original run anyway. It seems normal that it would enter the discussion only now that a film (Endgame) is coming so close. Nobody is moving goal posts here.

Edited June 25, 2019 by JB33

[Shanks]

-Searching-

Edited June 25, 2019 by Shanks

[titanic2187]

25 minutes ago, JB33 said:

Coming from someone who agrees that dollars and cents are what matters, I would say re-releases matter when comparing box office runs. I mean, it's pretty damn simple. You can't fairly compare a film with a normal theatrical run to that of one that had extra opportunities to add to its gross. Pretty straightforward. Avatar still gets credit for every single dollar it made obviously but if you're judging it against other films that had one theatrical run, use the original run of Avatar, which up to this point has vastly surpassed every other film's original run anyway. It seems normal that it would enter the discussion only now that a film (Endgame) is coming so close, and in my mind the point is valid.

Before EG opened, no one thought it could come this close to avatar.

 

After the 1.25b worlwide opening, no one thought it could fall this close to avatar. 

 

avatar 30m+ re-release number is very smallish compared to its total gross, less than 1.5% of its total but that now become the gap that EG needs fight to til end to pass.

[Justin4125]

 

My blood pressure spiked when I read this NCsoft post. I didn't think I had a dog in this fight, but this just really rubbed me the wrong way. I am posting just the first sentence below. I think this is the first time someone wrote something that really irritated me on this forum (I invite you to comb through my posts). Congrats poster, you pulled it out of me

 

On 6/24/2019 at 3:29 PM, NCsoft said:

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

 

 

In this post you preach objectivity, yet you provide an incredibly one-sided defense of Avatar. You try to hide behind a veneer of level-headedness, but your tone fails to mask your blatant biases. Additionally, many of your points are circuitous and even approach contradiction. Now I could forgive all that, but you chose to attack the poster directly. You question his integrity and attempt undermine his legitimacy. This post, this very post, has pissed me off more than any other snide retort or insult, precisely because you attempt to take some kind of box office moral high ground. 

 

You start by questioning Charlies integrity!! You're not even discussing numbers here, you go in straight for the kill? What the hell are you doing. FIrst of all, Charlie wouldnt be dictating numbers to us. We would be working as a community to find these admissions numbers, and if you've been on this thread any length of time, you would know that every number will be cross examined. Charlie's own objectivity is immaterial for the purposes of this thread, which, just to repeat one more time, is to collectively gather and verify admissions numbers. These comments were completely unnecessary and simply mean-spirited. Was it really worth it to you? Charlie has contributed so much to this forum, and you, simply over the prospect of an admissions count, attempt to drag his integrity through the mud. Even your grounds for doing so are dubious.

 

Ok, so, someone wants to start counting admissions to Endgame and Avatar, you start by doing your best to undermine that person's integrity, what's your second move?

 

You suggest admissions number are irrelevant for a movie's success, yet you follow that up with a laundry list of every possible disadvantage Avatar faced and why, in fact, it was far more successful than Endgame despite what the admissions numbers may suggest. This paragraph is rife with issues. In essence you're saying the following: admissions numbers don't matter, especially if Endgame has higher admissions than Avatar, BUT admissions do matter, and Avatar was way more successful because we should be implicitly discounting all of Endgame's admission numbers. 

 

The purpose of this thread is to count numbers. These numbers would not in themselves tell us which film was more successful. Once we have the numbers, we can perhaps have such a discussion, but you're trying to frontload the discussion, nay the gathering process itself, with the forgone conclusion that Avatar was more successful. I have a Master's degree in Economics and I work in investment management. As a result I have a strong appreciation for metrics. You gather data first, which should be untainted with the biases you seem to want to bake in. Then, once you have reliable numbers, you use them as tools in more qualitative discussions. These numbers would NOT tell us which film is more successful. Their interpretation and their significance relies on context and all the factors you mentioned (and all the factors in Endgame's favor which are conspicuously absent from your comments) would adorn the numbers. The numbers are just numbers. They are pure and unbiased. For someone seeking an objective data gathering process, you are fervently arguing for biases to taint the numbers themselves. You, my friend, are completely undermining the very objectivity you claim to want.

 

For someone who wishes the "people involved in this exercise has a history of objectivity" you certainly seem to fail your own criterion more so than most others on this thread.

On 6/24/2019 at 3:29 PM, NCsoft said:

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.

 

 

 

 

[Shanks]

Source 1: In addition to the 800 US screenings in the US, Avatar: Special Edition will open on more than 1,000 screens in 14 countries, including the UK, Russia and Taiwan this week, and Japan in October. It should add millions to the all-time biggest $2.74 billion worldwide blockbuster. Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/avatar-special-edition-dvd-adds-16-minutes-of-footage-2062087.html

 

Source 2: With moviegoers paying a record $2.74 billion worldwide over the winter to see "Avatar," filmmaker James Cameron believes there are those who just aren't satisfied by the original two-hour, 40-minute runtime of the original release. https://www.thewrap.com/cameron-set-supersize-avatar-20332/

 

I checked Deadline too but it just said 2.7B 

 

These articles were written during the week of 22-24th before 27th Aug, 2010- when Avatar SE released. Avatar was making only a few thousand in theatres during these weeks, no way it would reach 2.755B before Avatar SE would release.

 

Worldwide, 2010:

Aug. 6–8	$24,056	4
Aug. 13–15	$47,735	5
Aug. 20–22	$66,821	7

 

Edited June 25, 2019 by Shanks

[ZattMurdock]

2 hours ago, titanic2187 said:

Wake up!! Nobody cares to recognize the original run champion!

Endgame has only one goal!  $2,787,965,087! Wikipedia, BOM will still recognize AVatar as biggest film if EG failed to top that number. 

 

If wining original run alone can do the trick, disney will not the bother to release a bonus version in the 1st place. 

 

Huh... your posts are always calm and collected, I'm not sure if you are joking or not, but I never claimed any differently. Endgame is coming for the $2.788B tho, don't worry.

[75Live]

@Justin4125

 

[NCsoft]

3 hours ago, Justin4125 said:

My blood pressure spiked when I read this NCsoft post. I didn't think I had a dog in this fight, but this just really rubbed me the wrong way. I am posting just the first sentence below. I think this is the first time someone wrote something that really irritated me on this forum.

If I am the first one who wrote something that irritate you on this forum, then you probably haven't been here for long. I may not have a great number of posts but I've lurked along for years, and in fact, if you've paid attention, I think you would have noticed the  personal attacks that Cameron fans have collectively received for the past two months, not to mention the constant bans due to double standard, the mocking and the ridicules. Actually in this very thread, someone has personally attacked me in a disturbing way resulting in that post getting removed, if that doesn't get your blood pressure up and my calm and collected post does? That probably means you've  taken a side and has a one sided opinion and in that case, it matters little whether my post get your blood pressure up or not, however, in order to calm down your blood pressure, I think I will attempt to explain the situation in the way of commenting on your statements.

 

3 hours ago, Justin4125 said:

In this post you preach objectivity, yet you provide an incredibly one-sided defense of Avatar. You try to hide behind a veneer of level-headedness, but your tone fails to mask your blatant biases.

Since you haven't provided very specific rebuttal here regarding Avatar's impressiveness or lack of, whether my defense is  one-sided or not, is precisely your judgement, and each to their own, other people may see it differently, as I certainly do. If you want to discuss Avatar vs Endgame's box office achievement, I welcome it anytime and can do it all day, been having this discussion numerous times for the last few months, I can back myself up. However, I am not hiding behind "level-headedness", nor am I taking some sort of box office moral high ground. The reason I tried my best to make the post level-headed, is because:

1). Discussion on this board (which I really enjoyed for the past few years) should remain civil, and my post need to start level-headed.

2). Literally for the past two months, being extremely civil and level-headless is one way for us Jim fans to even survive around here. In a place where MCU fans set the tone, outnumber us 10:1, and practically formed an echo chamber where only 1 fixed narrative is paraded, where insults were thrown and vicious personal attacks were directed toward us all the time, and that is totally OK. If we Jim fans even dare to defend Avatar, we get banned for inciting fan war. In order to prevent my effort from being deleted, my post had to be as calm and careful as possible, though it is also my preference to be level-headed, of course.

It's really easy to accuse anyone of "blatant bias", the thing is, I, as a part of Avatar defense force, will try my best to defend Avatar. It's not my job to defend EndGame since many more people are already doing so, and considering that I'm not the one involved in this "admission estimation exercise", there is absolutely no need for me to "mask blatant bias" because 1). I don't think I have blatant biases, I may have subjective opinions, but we all do. and 2). It is not me who started a thread doing admission comparisons. Those who are doing the work needs to be reminded of bias.

 

3 hours ago, Justin4125 said:

You start by questioning Charlies integrity!! You're not even discussing numbers here, you go in straight for the kill?

 

My post does look a little bit weird without a little history and context. I came in hard because I had to, since this forum is dominated by a singular voice, the few of us Jim fans have to be thorough and quick in expressing our ideas. Here is the context: I know this particular thread is going to be made about 1 month ago, we all did. Charlie has been touting that Endgame's admission surpasses Avatar by 30% and by 100M for a while now in order to downplay Avatar, he loves this game, we've had this exact conversation before, several times, to the point that I can go straight to my points without bothering with the old recycled discussion anymore, it's tiring. This thread may seem like it's just starting to you, but it has a conclusion that has already been pre-determined, which is Endgame (grossing less than Avatar after 10 years of global inflation) is somehow going to out-admission Avatar by 30%. Since me and all Jim fans know the end conclusion which this thread will inevitably lead to,  we can cut short the process because Charlie has clearly revealed what his results are going to be, many times over.

 

Charlie has contributed a great deal to this forum, for that I have lots of respect for. However, Charlie has also revealed himself as a die-hard MCU fan many times before, which is totally fine since these forums are fanboy driven and I'm a Cameron and Pixar fan.  When Charlie is providing extrapolation of real time box office data, accuracy is paramount and he's providing pretty much interpretation of objective data. However, the problem arises when this important figure of our community, who also happens to be a MCU fan, who has a history of giving vague and inaccurate admission numbers regarding Avatar and Wolf Warrior 2 regardless of whether its intentional or not, who has tried to downplay Avatar's box office success many times before, suddenly feel the need to take the task into his own hand in comparing Avatar vs Endgame admission to "Settle a debate" which is never a debate to him, I'm sorry but those of us who knows a little history knows too well what this post is all about.

Can you really blame me for questioning his objectivity when he said statement such as : "MCU fans unite, we all know which is the more impressive run"  "We know it's bigger than Avatar" and "The dream of catching Avatar is unfortunately dead, however long the dream lasted" and then proceed to blame China not giving Endgame an extension for not passing Avatar? I'm paraphrasing here, can't remember the exact quotes.

So we're got

1). Die-hard MCU Fan   

2). "authority" poster people trust   

3).Has a history of downplaying Avatar   

4). has a history of giving really questionable admission numbers that's been corrected by others before. 

You do realize it is important for someone who doesn't have a pre-determined narrative to do this right? Is it really a problem if I question this objectivity when I've seen way too many of Charlie's quote and know that he was waiting in sheer anticipating to make this thread to justify endgame's "superiority". While you spend the time to brag to me about "Master in Economics", could you please also think about the impact of biases between "authority" and "common man", it is not as problematic for the common man to be intrinsically biased, because few would believe him/her anyway. It is far more problematic for those who are trusted and has power to actually have a narrative to push, and that is the exact situation here. You've heard of "greater power means greater responsibility", right?

 

3 hours ago, Justin4125 said:

You suggest admissions number are irrelevant for a movie's success, 

NO I DIDN'T, please try not put words in other people's mouth. This "admission" part is actually the most important part of my post and in the midst of defending dear Charlie, I think you missed my point almost entirely. Admissions is a very important measure, that's what adjusting for inflation is for, so obviously it is the metric that makes Titanic or GWTW so impressive. I was stressing that 1). Global admission is very hard to estimate, reports are vague/inaccurate, and sometimes can be subjected to narrative manipulation, and 2). admissions is not a "Be all end all" measurement because it fails to capture market change, therefore it's not a proportional measure.

As a part of Cameron defense league, you might think I completely reject the notion that Endgame might have higher admission than Avatar, I don't. I think it is possible, Endgame has the advantage of cheaper tickers in developing markets, the exchange rate disadvantage while Avatar has higher admission in Europe, and 10 years of price inflation. I think it's probably really close, and I wouldn't be surprised if Endgame edges Avatar out.

HOWEVER, I'm arguing that it doesn't really matter. It is not a proportional measure, the global box office has increased by 40% over the last ten years, while average Hollywood top grosser increased by 42%, Global admission likely increased by more than 40% (due to cheaper ticket!), and especially with China (closing in on being the largest box office market) expanding by 8 times since 2009. It is not a level playing field. Comparing two films released over 10 years apart in terms of global admission is useful as a discussion parameter, perhaps, but ultimately has limited use in measuring success because the baseline is completely different. Endgame almost grossed as much as Avatar 10 years later in a global market that's at least 40% bigger. That's a fact that no one can deny.

What would be a more appropriate measure of film's success proportionally? Here are some examples. 

How does the film compare to film grosses released in the same year/era?

What proportion of yearly global gross did said film take? What proportion of admissions?

How much did the film made compare to other biggest films of its time?

How much did said film beat the record by, what percentage?

How many countries did the said film achieve highest grossing film of all time?

In which countries did said film break the all time record, and by how much in how many countries?

 

Do you know why no one wants to talk about a more proportionate measure? you guess is as good as mine

3 hours ago, Justin4125 said:

The purpose of this thread is to count numbers. These numbers would not in themselves tell us which film was more successful. Once we have the numbers, we can perhaps have such a discussion, but you're trying to frontload the discussion

I don't disagree here, the admissions numbers would not indicate which film was more successful, it is a parameter to look at and a component of discussion. However, I wish it was that simple and the purpose of this thread is to count numbers. Charlie has been  brewing this post to "settle the debate" for a while now, these are the exact words in the FP. You assessment of me "front-loading" the discussion is not entirely wrong per se, but I hope you'll understand why I felt this was necessary, amidst months of gloating, silencing around here, I have to put a word in, even if just neutralize the narrative for a little. This discussion is fine if it started with genuine intentions, but I think you'll notice box office fanboy-ism is far more toxic than you think. Since there's no way to get around Avatar grossing more than Endgame 10 years ago in a much smaller market, Avatar almost taking 10% of 2009's global box office, Avatar beat previous crown by 50%, Avatar was the all time highest grossing film in USA, China, Overseas and worldwide etc, now with Avatar's worldwide record in doubt, then one way to justify Endgame's success (as if its huge success needs justification), is to use "admissions" which may be advantageous to endgame and also vague enough to manipulate. 

So the purpose of my post was to remind people to keep this exercise objective to the best of ability, to remind people that there are problems with using admission numbers , and most importantly, to remind people these numbers are not often accurate and can be subjected to manipulations.

 

3 hours ago, Justin4125 said:

For someone who wishes the "people involved in this exercise has a history of objectivity" you certainly seem to fail your own criterion more so than most others on this thread.

Because I'm not the one making a thread doing admission tabulation despite unclear/unreported data, and possibly questionable methodology? And the people who attempt to do this should be held to an extremely high standard of "objectivity"? You may have misunderstood why I question his objectivity in the first place.

 

 

 

Edited June 25, 2019 by NCsoft

[TomCruiseTop]

2 hours ago, Justin4125 said:

The purpose of this thread is to count numbers. 

No it's not. That would be using evidence of admission. The purpose of the thread is to count where possible, and calculate the rest. Don't try and obfuscate more than already has been.  

[Pure Spirit]

I was looking through the boxofficemojo record list for Endgame and I couldn't find "global admissions" unfortunately:

 

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=marvel2019.htm

 

I was, however, able to find it when I googled for the definition of COPE. I'm glad Charlie created this thread to provide another stomping ground for Jim Gang to dab on Marvelstans. Keep doing God's work Charlie.

 

As far as admissions go, my gut tells me Endgame is probably a solid second, third, or fourth place with Titanic as number #1, and GwtW/Avatar as the other two possible contenders. But who knows, it's not a record anyone tracks because there's no prestige, because if it had prestige it could be easily gamed. It's like saying "Company Y sold the most shares of stock in its IPO of all time." Yes, and? Nobody cares! You can sell stock shares as cheaply as you want to juice up that number. Fortunately, the almighty $DOLLAR is king and settles all disputes as to which company is more valuable than another. That's why there's hundreds of records related to the $DOLLAR and zero records related to admissions, except in places where admissions is a direct proxy for $DOLLAR.

 

The methods used in this thread to compare admissions numbers are dubious, because as boxofficemojo so eloquently said in 2009 in an article about Avatar becoming the highest grossing movie of all time:

 

"Absent proper admissions tracking, estimated admissions are determined by dividing the grosses by the average ticket prices, but this method is certainly iffy and should not be seen as definitive."

 

However, I am willing to "concede" this record, for the sake of reducing the unnecessary sales of products produced by psychopharmacological companies. Endgame wins first place in the record entitled "probably not third place but actually second in admissions but nobody tracked it until now". Please tweet at Feige so he can focus on Phase 4 instead of being haunted by $2,787,965,087. Also let Feige know that this week Endgame also took first place in "the biggest initial unadjusted run before a re-release but we aren't 100% sure". Of course, Feige may be in his crying room so don't wait around for him to reply right away.

 

Now, go on, and stop fighting. It's time for Marvel Stans and Jim Gang to put aside our differences, and finally admit that Endgame and Avatar both made a lot of money for their respective corporations even though Avatar was art and Endgame was corporate trash. Thank you for reading.

Edited June 25, 2019 by Pure Spirit

[TalismanRing]

The updated Ignore feature is pretty nice and streamlining.