DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Movies and TV => Topic started by: Chino on October 29, 2015, 07:19:06 AM
-
What do you guys think? Will it surpass Avatar's record of $2.7B? I don't think I've ever seen so much hype for a movie.
-
Yes.
-
Yes.
-
Yes.
-
easy peasy
-
For sure.
-
Is this even a real question? Of course, this will shatter every box office record.
-
Is this even a real question? Of course, this will shatter every box office record.
This. And, if it's even half way decent the subsequent sequels will break each record subsequently.......
-
Is this even a real question? Of course, this will shatter every box office record.
Yes it was a real question. The highest estimate I've read so far has been $1.7B worldwide. That's almost a billion shy of Avatar.
I'm wondering if the new Star Wars movie is going to generate return trips to the theater. That's what made Avatar its money. I know many of you would label me insane for seeing it 10 times in the theaters, but I wasn't the only one. Star Wars is going to have to pull something similar off to make more than $2B, I would think. Avatar also had extra ticket revenue from 3D ticket prices. Is Episode VII in 3D? I haven't seen that advertised if it is.
-
Yes although there were also alot of hype for TPM and that movie "only" reached #20 but yea if TFA turns out to suck it still probably gonna shatter some records anyway.
-
I don't think it will honestly, even if I hope so. Avatar is that lightning in a bottle, once in a lifetime success. There's a tiny chance Star Wars could do it, but when people say it will smash it easily, I question whether or not they know exactly how crazy the record is. What made Avatar such a success was that it kept on bringing the dollars week after week without any real competition, people who saw it wanted to see it again and brought new friends to see it. Avatar didn't have a strong first weekend but interestingly enough the drop off was almost non existent and it seemed to earn more money with each week. You only reach 2.7 billion dollars if the majority of the audience goes and see the movie not twice, not three times but maybe four times or more.
It will definitely break the record for biggest opening weekend in December, that I have no doubt about. It has a decent window to earn big bucks, but once you get into February/March there's a few other blockbusters coming out, but Star Wars will have a crazy opening weekend and a great January. I think it will make 2 billion, but Avatar is 0.7 billion ahead of that.. it's a stretch.
-
Avatar only made $77M on its opening weekend.
It will definitely break the record for biggest opening weekend in December
I think it'll break the record for largest opening weekend ever.
-
Yeah, I think it will.
-
If it doesn't break Avatar's record - then it will get bloody close.
I am really interested in watching the figures.
Here's how the all time list looks now :
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/
It will probably beat Jurassic Park and Titanic.
-
It will probably beat Jurassic Park and Titanic.
Jurassic World you mean? ;)
-
No. It will break records for opening weekends, being fastest to reach $1bn, maybe reach $ 2bn, but its legs will fizzle out before it can reach $2.8bn.
That is my current prediction obviously it may turn out to be wrong. Wild cards are markets around the world that have grown hugely since Avatar, primarily China. If this becomes a phenomenon in China far bigger than the biggest films to date (think 2x as much as the current top grossing Western films in China) then it will have a better chance of beating Avatar. But I amn't really in a good position to tell whether it is likely to play really strongly in China or not (obviously it will be a success, but I'm talking about whether it does disproportionately well in China compared to elsewhere). Maybe being the first big "Star Wars" release in China since that marker has grown will make it a huge phenomenon, or maybe the fact that China may not have the same nostalgia and goodwill towards Star Wars will mean it won't do that much better there than more modern franchises like Transformers - like I said I have no idea of peoples' attitudes about in China.
Also obviously depends how good it is, as in how well received and appealing to a mass audience. I know people will think that doesn't really matter that much, and it probably won't for opening weekends and getting big numbers quickly, but I think it will matter very much for reaching the overall record. My personal suspicion is that the film is not going to be as great as it is hyped to be, which will mean after the initial buzz there won't be as big a demand from people going back ton see it again and again or people who didn't care enough to see it quickly feeling like they "have to" go and see it later.
-
My personal suspicion is that the film is not going to be as great as it is hyped to be, which will mean after the initial buzz there won't be as big a demand from people going back ton see it again and again or people who didn't care enough to see it quickly feeling like they "have to" go and see it later.
Well that's the problem with hype so big as this film is getting, it's such large hype that people will be disappointed because the expectation is unreal. That's how I felt with Jurassic World.
I guess my initial thought of "is this even a question?" was a bit off, I just assumed based on the trailer reactions and the star wars name would be enouhg to through this movie into its own catagory of setting the bar for movie success, but I didn't realize just how much Avatar really did make. I guess we will see, but I still think it will be at the top just because it is star wars and the fact that it actually looks like it will be a good movie as compared to episode 1.
-
I don't see any case where it doesn't. No disrespect to Avatar, but Star Wars is just in a completely different league.
-
In defence of Avatar - it made almost 3bn dollars on it's own terms. It wasn't a sequel and it didn't have brand recognition or nostalgia.
If The Force Awakens was a brand new IP and was just a big original summer sci fi - it would probably make $350m tops.
-
Just having a look at the box office charts and notice that all the Star Wars films are very Domestic (i.e. US) skewed. Just look at the % of total gross that is domestic for Star Wars (A New Hope) and the prequel trilogy compared to, say, Avatar. Star Wars always made around 45% or more of its gross in the USA, where as Avatar made only 27%.
So let's say Star Wars 7 were to smash all US box office records and make $1bn domestically, beating Avatar at $760m by over $240m... If it had 40% of its gross in the US (lower than all the previous Star Wars films) it would still "only" reach $2.5bn globally, failing to surpass Avatar. It would require just under 36% domestic to beat Avatar globally, which is easily possible but as I said it depends on Star Wars being as appealing globally as in the US. And that's assuming Star Wars is making $1bn in USA and absolutely demolishing Avatar and Titanic there... If it beats Avatar by, say, $40m in America and makes $800m there, it would need about 28% domestic gross, which is much lower than any Star Wars film so far.
That's why I voted it will be top in the USA (even Jurassic World and The Avengers weren't that far behind Avatar domestically, so Star Wars could probably top it) but not surpass it globally. But like I said, the global market has changed a lot and people in China could be even more hyped than the USA to get a new Star Wars for essentially the first time. Living in the UK and consuming media that is very dominated by the US, it is hard to get a feel for what the attitudes around the world will be.
-
The thing is though - Avatar has a really bad rep. But you almost never - like ever - meet people who don't actually like Star Wars. ( Original trilogy ).
-
I don't see any case where it doesn't. No disrespect to Avatar, but Star Wars is just in a completely different league.
I get that, but the only people that are going to go see episode VII are people who already love Star Wars. Avatar appealed to mostly everyone in one way or another (Nature fans, alien lovers, space geeks, 3D first timers, etc..._. What I mean by that is you didn't necessarily need to be a fan of the franchise or genre to want to go see it. My mother who has no interest in anything SciFi went and saw it in theaters twice. I don't see anyone outside of the Star Wars community going out of there way to see this regardless how good the press ends up being for it.
-
The thing is though - Avatar has a really bad rep. But you almost never - like ever - meet people who don't actually like Star Wars. ( Original trilogy ).
I watched episodes IV and V and was bored to death. Didn't even bother with VI.
-
The thing is though - Avatar has a really bad rep. But you almost never - like ever - meet people who don't actually like Star Wars. ( Original trilogy ).
I watched episodes IV and V and was bored to death. Didn't even bother with VI.
I'm not a Star Wars fan and people are always shocked :lol
It seems to be one of those things you're not allowed to dislike.
-
The thing is though - Avatar has a really bad rep. But you almost never - like ever - meet people who don't actually like Star Wars. ( Original trilogy ).
That has come with time though. I'd say part of what made Avatar so successful was the fact that it was a brand new thing. Nobody knew the mythos or lore of Avatar, and that combined with the 3D/effects craze resulted in people flocking out to the theaters to see Avatar. Everybody wanted to see what it was all about. The bad reputation/mixed reception kinda came over time, and by then people had already seen it at least once in theaters.
With Star Wars, it's both a blessing and a curse that it is a known brand. It's probably the most beloved franchise in history, but you're still gonna get people who say "No I won't watch that because I don't care about Star Wars". With Avatar you didn't get that, because it was a brand new thing.
-
Star Wars has three dreadful films in it's canon too. I think if the PT didn't exist - it could potentially make more.
-
The thing is though - Avatar has a really bad rep. But you almost never - like ever - meet people who don't actually like Star Wars. ( Original trilogy ).
I watched episodes IV and V and was bored to death. Didn't even bother with VI.
I'm not a Star Wars fan and people are always shocked :lol
It seems to be one of those things you're not allowed to dislike.
That's probably why you never seem to meet people that say they don't like it - it doesn't mean everyone actually is a fan though. After all you probably won't hear that many people going around saying Citizen Kane sucks, but that doesn't mean everyone actually likes or cares about that film.
Avatar had the 3D thing going for it. I personally don't think it is that special as a film in itself, and while it would have been a success it would have done no where near as well if it was just a "regular" sci-fi film without the 3D. But because it had that novelty factor, it became an experience that lots of people felt they "had to" go and try; a completely new film going experience that would be worth at least experiencing (regardless of the actual film itself - imagine going to see the first ever colour film if all you have ever seen is black and white, you are probably not going to be too discerning about what the actual content of the film is as long as it looks good in colour). Also it's an experience that can't really be illegally downloaded, or one you can just wait a few months and get on DVD or see on TV.
Star Wars doesn't have that fundamental novelty going for it. To match Avatar's long term numbers there's going to have to be something appealing enough about the film itself make people a few weeks or months after its release say "You have to go to see there new Star Wars movie", after all the fans who will go and see it just because it is the new Star Wars movie have already seen it once and then seen it again.
-
People always bring up 3D as the sole reason Avatar did well. There were plenty of 3D movies around the time but none of them did anywhere near as well as Avatar.
Mostly you heard of people saying they wished Pandora was real.
For me it was the spectacle, the direction, the non Michael Bay shaky cam frame fucking. You could see everything that was happening. It had great pacing.
It was a proper fun movie that just kept building until the climax like a video game.
Oh and Force Awakens is in 3D too - so that'll add 33% to the box office :P
-
People always bring up 3D as the sole reason Avatar did well. There were plenty of 3D movies around the time but none of them did anywhere near as well as Avatar.
To be fair though, that 3D boom started with Avatar, regardless of the fact that there were 3D releases prior. Most theaters didn't even have digital 3D projectors installed and only did so because they'd miss out on the Avatar train otherwise. Avatar filmed from beginning to end in 3D. 98% of the 3D movies that followed were filmed in 2D and converted to 3D in post production. That's usually why they look like shit.
-
People always bring up 3D as the sole reason Avatar did well. There were plenty of 3D movies around the time but none of them did anywhere near as well as Avatar.
To be fair though, that 3D boom started with Avatar, regardless of the fact that there were 3D releases prior. Most theaters didn't even have digital 3D projectors installed and only did so because they'd miss out on the Avatar train otherwise. Avatar filmed from beginning to end in 3D. 98% of the 3D movies that followed were filmed in 2D and converted to 3D in post production. That's usually why they look like shit.
Yea there is a big difference in the Avatar 3D vs. other movies in 3D. I still have not seen any movie as visually appealing as Avatar in IMAX 3D. The Hobbit didn't even come close IMO and that had the high frame rate technology (I dont believe Avatar did?).
-
People always bring up 3D as the sole reason Avatar did well. There were plenty of 3D movies around the time but none of them did anywhere near as well as Avatar.
To be fair though, that 3D boom started with Avatar, regardless of the fact that there were 3D releases prior. Most theaters didn't even have digital 3D projectors installed and only did so because they'd miss out on the Avatar train otherwise. Avatar filmed from beginning to end in 3D. 98% of the 3D movies that followed were filmed in 2D and converted to 3D in post production. That's usually why they look like shit.
Yea there is a big difference in the Avatar 3D vs. other movies in 3D. I still have not seen any movie as visually appealing as Avatar in IMAX 3D. The Hobbit didn't even come close IMO and that had the high frame rate technology (I dont believe Avatar did?).
The next three films will be utilizing the higher frame rates from what I've gathered. Jim hasn't confirmed whether they'll be 48fps or 60fps.
The only other movie that I can think of that was on the same level as Avatar in regards to 3D was Life of Pi, and that was filmed in native 3D using the same cameras and technology as Avatar.
-
Other movie I saw that looked great in 3D was Prometheus.
-
People always bring up 3D as the sole reason Avatar did well. There were plenty of 3D movies around the time but none of them did anywhere near as well as Avatar.
To be fair though, that 3D boom started with Avatar, regardless of the fact that there were 3D releases prior. Most theaters didn't even have digital 3D projectors installed and only did so because they'd miss out on the Avatar train otherwise. Avatar filmed from beginning to end in 3D. 98% of the 3D movies that followed were filmed in 2D and converted to 3D in post production. That's usually why they look like shit.
Yea there is a big difference in the Avatar 3D vs. other movies in 3D. I still have not seen any movie as visually appealing as Avatar in IMAX 3D. The Hobbit didn't even come close IMO and that had the high frame rate technology (I dont believe Avatar did?).
The next three films will be utilizing the higher frame rates from what I've gathered. Jim hasn't confirmed whether they'll be 48fps or 60fps.
The only other movie that I can think of that was on the same level as Avatar in regards to 3D was Life of Pi, and that was filmed in native 3D using the same cameras and technology as Avatar.
Ah yea, Life of Pi was very beautiful as well, but I never saw that in 3D. Looks amazing on my TV at home and a reason why its been on my DVR for over 2 years now.
-
I'm going with no for two reasons. First, James Cameron is a better filmmaker. He makes movies that are visually phenomenal, and combined with the then-groundbreaking 3D Avatar was something that A: had to be seen, and B: had to be seen numerous times by many. The second problem is that while there are plenty of nerdy chicks in the world, they're still a subset of the movie-going public. Avatar appealed to all chicks because of some love story (or so I gather). That will account for a considerable amount of repeat viewings. SWWhatever won't have such a thing. Your average soccer mom might well want to see Avatar for some reason, and her jailbate daughter might want to see it numerous times, but neither will have much of an interest in a new SW movie.
And let's keep in mind that number two on that list is Titanic, and it's there for the exact same reasons. It was a beautiful spectacle of Cameron film-making and it had chick-appeal.
-
Its funny because this discussion just popped up in a work chat room for video gamers. Everyone is thinking it will beat Avatar easily, this one guy is saying 3.5 billion gross. I dont know, I though that as well but after reading this thread maybe not and maybe not even close to 3 billion.
-
$3.5B if you include the retarded amount of merchandise that we're going to see this holiday season.
-
$3.5B if you include the retarded amount of merchandise that we're going to see this holiday season.
Oh if you include merch than we are talking ridiculous money, the merch stands are already stocked with Star Wars stuff and we haven't gotten to November yet.
I stopped at a rest stop in Maryland, tons of star wars stuff on the shelves of the store.
-
$3.5B if you include the retarded amount of merchandise that we're going to see this holiday season.
Luckily it doesn't count towards the Box Office Gross.
-
Its funny because this discussion just popped up in a work chat room for video gamers. Everyone is thinking it will beat Avatar easily, this one guy is saying 3.5 billion gross. I dont know, I though that as well but after reading this thread maybe not and maybe not even close to 3 billion.
Nowhere near.
1. $1bn without breaking a sweat - possibly opening week.
2. $2bn if it's good and people keep going back to see it in 3D.
3. $3bn If it plays in IMAX 3D for the entirety of it's theatrical run - which will most likely be six months give or take.
My prediction is : $2.3bn all in all.
-
You also have to remember that Avatar went back into theaters 08/2010 with nine minutes of additional footage (saw it twice). That's factored into the $2.7B as well.
-
You also have to remember that Avatar went back into theaters 08/2010 with nine minutes of additional footage (saw it twice). That's factored into the $2.7B as well.
As I recall it didn't even make $1m on it's re-release.
I stand corrected !!
During its 12-week re-release, Avatar: Special Edition grossed an additional $10.74 million in North America and $22.46 million overseas for a worldwide total of $33.2 million.[5]
But 33,000,000 out of 2,800,000,000 is neither here nor there really !
-
Speaking of Avatar - now that James Horner has passed - I wonder who Jim Cameron will get to score Avatar II - IV ?
I don't think he'd go for John Williams as he is kind of Spielberg's guy.
I'm thinking maybe Alan Silvestri or Michael Giacchino
-
I'm going with no for two reasons. First, James Cameron is a better filmmaker. He makes movies that are visually phenomenal, and combined with the then-groundbreaking 3D Avatar was something that A: had to be seen, and B: had to be seen numerous times by many. The second problem is that while there are plenty of nerdy chicks in the world, they're still a subset of the movie-going public. Avatar appealed to all chicks because of some love story (or so I gather). That will account for a considerable amount of repeat viewings. SWWhatever won't have such a thing. Your average soccer mom might well want to see Avatar for some reason, and her jailbate daughter might want to see it numerous times, but neither will have much of an interest in a new SW movie.
And let's keep in mind that number two on that list is Titanic, and it's there for the exact same reasons. It was a beautiful spectacle of Cameron film-making and it had chick-appeal.
I just want to acknowledge what Barto is saying here. All of this is 100% true in why both Avatar and Titanic are record hold/breaking movies. They aren't just good/effective movies, they are amazing products.
That being said I'd like to think that Star Wars will break all the records, but honestly if it doesn't it's because it doesn't have the qualities laid out above.
-
Yes. Titanic is an amazing spectacle.
-
I don't see any case where it doesn't. No disrespect to Avatar, but Star Wars is just in a completely different league.
I get that, but the only people that are going to go see episode VII are people who already love Star Wars. Avatar appealed to mostly everyone in one way or another (Nature fans, alien lovers, space geeks, 3D first timers, etc..._. What I mean by that is you didn't necessarily need to be a fan of the franchise or genre to want to go see it. My mother who has no interest in anything SciFi went and saw it in theaters twice. I don't see anyone outside of the Star Wars community going out of there way to see this regardless how good the press ends up being for it.
I understand what you mean. Good points.
-
Regardless of the obsessiveness of Star Wars fans, I think it’s a tad presumptious to decide it’s going to be the highest grossing film of all time before knowing how well it’s received.
-
$3.5B if you include the retarded amount of merchandise that we're going to see this holiday season.
Oh if you include merch than we are talking ridiculous money, the merch stands are already stocked with Star Wars stuff and we haven't gotten to November yet.
I stopped at a rest stop in Maryland, tons of star wars stuff on the shelves of the store.
This is no joke....I saw a Kylo Ren (whatver his name is) Friggin' blow up yard Christmas decoration at Walmart!!? Life size...Christmas....blow up Star Wars figure for your yard?
-
After reading through some of the info. provided in the thread and reading some good points.....now I'm not so sure? Being how heavily this is anticipated I just automatically figured this movie will blow the socks off the record....but....seeing how many return watchers it's going to need REALLY places an importance on the movie actually being GOOD. As was mentioned....AVATAR was 'unique' when it hit and it HAD to be seen at least twice....I watched it 3 times in the theater. It'll be a neat thing to keep an eye on.
One things for sure I think.....I think Disney gets back half of the $4 Billion they paid for the rights to Lucas....just from the movie. Merchandising included....they make their money back by the end of next year I'd think and all the rest from there on out is profit....
-
^ Yup. Force Awakens plus merch easily makes at least half that and there's still 5 more movies plus merch to go. . . .
That $4bn they paid for Lucasfilm is looking like an absolute steal now.
Especially if they release remastered Original Theatrical Trilogy.
If each movie makes $1bn then they've made a profit of $2bn. And that's not including merchandise or revenue from all of the trailers on various outlets on YouTube etc.
I had a quick look and all of the official SW TFA trailers on Youtube add up to over 150 million views. And that's JUST on the official Star Wars channel.
The original Force Awakens teaser on the "MovieClips" channel has 75 million views.
That's easily over 200m views across all of those. And that's just two channels. Think of every single news channel that has hosted it / played it / streamed it and all the advertising on all of
those videos.
-
No pressure to deliver JJ :lol I think it's getting (or always was?) to the point where it might be impossible for JJ to deliver what the fans 'expect' with this movie. If there were three levels of Star Wars fans....Not at All....Like It.....Love it OMG its STAR WARS.......I'd put myself in the 'like it' category and it'd take a hell of crap the bed experience for me not to like this one coming out. But, i think there are a lot of people out there who's expectations will never be met....and if they aren't, they ain't going back for second and third viewings.
If I had to guess I'd say I'll see this at least twice over the holidays. I have a couple groups of buddies who want to see it and I doubt we all go see it the same night so I can definitely see me paying to see this a couple times.
-
I love that clip in the Plinkett reviews of those two guys who were first in line at TPM premiere being let in and bowing on the floor of the cinema. :lol Fuckin Morons. For many reasons !
-
No pressure to deliver JJ :lol I think it's getting (or always was?) to the point where it might be impossible for JJ to deliver what the fans 'expect' with this movie.
Oh, for sure. Even if it's the best Star Wars movie to date ( which won't be hard :p ) - some Star Wars fans will say it's the worst movie ever made by a human.
That's the trouble with the internet. Everything is either " OMFG ITS THE SHITTEST THING EVER MADE BY ANYONE EVER " or " OMFG BEST THING EVER "
There's no such thing as Grey Area.
I predict it will be the best JJ movie.
-
It all comes down to how many people go see it multiple times, really. Even though SW has already broken a lot of pre-sale records, it won't mean a thing in the long run if people only see it that one time. That's why Avatar made such sweet bank, a lot of people saw it 3 or 4 times. I only saw it once myself, but I know several people who went several times, and when a lot of people go back, that results in a lot of money.
Star Wars does have a good chance, but it has to be great to get people to return and see it again. Personally I'm already planning on seeing it at least 2 times, maybe 3 if it's as great as we hope.
-
I like to see films as many times as I can whilst they're in the cinema as you won't get that experience again. I saw Avatar, Prometheus, Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness multiple times.
-
I've never in my life seen a movie more than once at the cinema. If I liked it enough, I'll buy it when it gets a home release.
-
I've never in my life seen a movie more than once at the cinema. If I liked it enough, I'll buy it when it gets a home release.
This is how I feel now as an older guy, as a kid I would see movies multiple times and go with different friends and whatnot.
Even if the movie is amazing, I doubt I see it more than once. I only saw Avatar once, in IMAX 3D.
-
I've never in my life seen a movie more than once at the cinema. If I liked it enough, I'll buy it when it gets a home release.
I haven't seen many more than once.
Avatar (10)
Titanic (4 including 100 year anniversary 3D release)
Transformers (3)
Live Free or Die Hard (2)
Hugo (2)
Borat (2)
Life of Pi (2)
The Interview (2)
It takes a lot to get me into a cinema today period, let alone get me to see the same thing more than once.
-
I've never in my life seen a movie more than once at the cinema. If I liked it enough, I'll buy it when it gets a home release.
Ditto...........never knew repeat visits were so common until this thread.
-
I've never in my life seen a movie more than once at the cinema. If I liked it enough, I'll buy it when it gets a home release.
Ditto...........never knew repeat visits were so common until this thread.
Maybe it's to do with ticket prices in different countries?
It's around $20 to see a movie here, which is the same price of the average new movie DVD. So it's silly to me to watch a movie multiple times at the cinema and have nothing to show for it, when for the same price of a repeat viewing I can have the movie to own and watch any time I want. No movie is worth watching 10 times at the cinema.
-
I rarely see a movie several times in the cinemas either, but it has happened on a few occasions that I've seen movies twice. For me: Inception, Kingsman: The Secret Service and Mad Max: Fury Road are movies that come to mind. Star Wars The Force Awakens will most definitely join the 2-club, but if it's as great as I hope, I might see it three times.
-
I've never in my life seen a movie more than once at the cinema. If I liked it enough, I'll buy it when it gets a home release.
Ditto...........never knew repeat visits were so common until this thread.
Maybe it's to do with ticket prices in different countries?
It's around $20 to see a movie here, which is the same price of the average new movie DVD. So it's silly to me to watch a movie multiple times at the cinema and have nothing to show for it, when for the same price of a repeat viewing I can have the movie to own and watch any time I want. No movie is worth watching 10 times at the cinema.
Okay. Maybe I got a little carried away with Avatar, but to be fair, four of those viewings were on dates (different girl each time). We'll call it 6 viewings. Most of the time I see a movie twice is because it's with two groups. For example, The Interview. I went and saw that with my best bud. My girlfriend wanted to see it too (at that time it wasn't on Netflix yet), so we both went the following weekend.
Also, you can get into a matinee showing for $5 in a lot of theaters around here. It's a cheap afternoon out.
-
I've never in my life seen a movie more than once at the cinema. If I liked it enough, I'll buy it when it gets a home release.
Ditto...........never knew repeat visits were so common until this thread.
Maybe it's to do with ticket prices in different countries?
It's around $20 to see a movie here, which is the same price of the average new movie DVD. So it's silly to me to watch a movie multiple times at the cinema and have nothing to show for it, when for the same price of a repeat viewing I can have the movie to own and watch any time I want. No movie is worth watching 10 times at the cinema.
I would say ticket prices have something to do with it. The prices in the US have gone up a lot, but I just saw The Martian on discount Tuesday by me and it was only 11 for two tickets, for me, that is the way to go in the future. Screw weekend movie going, Tuesdays nights is the way to go!
-
Also, you can get into a matinee showing for $5 in a lot of theaters around here. It's a cheap afternoon out.
I checked the prices for my cinema, and it looks like the tickets for the cheaper times are $13. Seeing The Force Awakens on the bigger screen in 3D would set me back $27.50 a ticket. Screw that!
-
Also, you can get into a matinee showing for $5 in a lot of theaters around here. It's a cheap afternoon out.
I checked the prices for my cinema, and it looks like the tickets for the cheaper times are $13. Seeing The Force Awakens on the bigger screen in 3D would set me back $27.50 a ticket. Screw that!
Holy shit. The most expensive Avatar ticket I paid for was $14.50 for Imaxx 3D at night. That was in 2009 mind you. Still, $27.50 is absolutely absurd. That's for just one ticket?!
-
Also, you can get into a matinee showing for $5 in a lot of theaters around here. It's a cheap afternoon out.
I checked the prices for my cinema, and it looks like the tickets for the cheaper times are $13. Seeing The Force Awakens on the bigger screen in 3D would set me back $27.50 a ticket. Screw that!
Holy shit. The most expensive Avatar ticket I paid for was $14.50 for Imaxx 3D at night. That was in 2009 mind you. Still, $27.50 is absolutely absurd. That's for just one ticket?!
Just for one. The bigger screen costs a couple of bucks extra, as does 3D. They might also be including some "lol star wars fans will pay anything" tax on there for all I know.
-
I haven't been to the cinema to see a movie since 2008.
-
When I lived in England - the local multiplex was at least £10 just for the ticket. Never mind 3D or the best seats or ridiculously over priced cinema snacks.
When I moved back to the small town in Wales - I went to see Jurassic World in our town's local cinema / arts centre and it cost me £12 for the ticket in a VIP seat , a bottle of coke, a tub of pringles and
two tubs of ice cream :lol
For me, my dad and my brother to see SPECTRE on Monday was £18
-
I saw the Lord of the Rings films 3 times each (I think I may have went to see Return of the King 4 times) and the first two Hobbit movies 2 or 3 times each as well. I can't remember if I went to see any other films 3 or more times (though I may have done), but having seen a film twice at the cinema is definitely not that unusual for me. If it was really good or if I am a big fan of the franchise then sometimes I'd want to see it again quickly rather than wait for it to come out on DVD / Blu-ray. And even for movies that are just OK, very often I might see a film twice just out of circumstance, e.g. going to see it with friends and then going to see it again with my family when they go, or vice versa.
On the subject of the box office record, here are the top few films for both Worldwide box office and Domestic (i.e. USA) box office, with their total gross (in millions) as well as how they compare to Avatar's gross in that market (so Avatar's gross is 100%, a film that makes half as much is 50%, etc.):
Worldwide
1. Avatar - $2,788m (100%)
2. Titanic - $2,186.8m (78.4%)
3. Jurassic World - $1,665.8 (59.7%)
4. Marvel's The Avengers - $1,519.6 (54.5%)
5. Furious 7 - $1,514.8 (54.3%)
6. Avengers: Age Of Ultron - $1,402.8 (50.3%)
7. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 - $1,341.5 (48.1%)
Domestic
1. Avatar - $760.5m (100%)
2. Titanic - $658.7m (86.6%)
3. Jurassic World - $651.8m (85.7%)
4. Marvel's The Avengers - $623.4m (82.0%)
5. The Dark Knight - $524.9m (69.2%)
6. Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace - $474.5m (62.4%)
7. Star Wars (A New Hope) - $461.0m (60.1%)
The thing worth noting here imo is how much further ahead the James Cameron duo is in the worldwide box office compared to the USA. For example Jurassic World's domestic gross is over 85% of Avatar's domestic gross, and it almost overtook Titanic. Yet on the worldwide level, Jurassic World (which by no means did badly with global audiences) didn't even reach 60% of Avatar's total. So while other big films are regularly grossing quite close to Avatar in the USA, none are coming close worldwide.
Also worth mentioning that there are different films on those lists - a film being near the top of the overall chart in the USA doesn't necessarily mean it will make the same position worldwide. And notice a couple of films that appear on the US list but not worldwide? Star Wars. You have to go down to #20 on the overall worldwide box office chart to find Episode I, and the original Star Wars doesn't even crack the top 50, despite them being #6 and #7 on the domestic chart.
So seeing those numbers (Avatar not being quite as far ahead of the chasing pack in the domestic box office, and the Star Wars franchise historically doing much better in the US than globally), am I really the only person here that thinks Star Wars 7 might take #1 all time in the domestic box office but not make #1 all time worldwide? I mean, it could be that the market has changed enough and this is the Star Wars film the global box office is ready to really embrace making it #1 in both, or Star Wars could "fail" to pass Avatar's domestic haul and not be #1 in either, but to me it seems as though there is a pretty gaping space in the middle for Star Wars to become #1 domestic but #3 or #2 worldwide, and that might just be the sweet spot for it.
-
am I really the only person here that thinks Star Wars 7 might take #1 all time in the domestic box office but not make #1 all time worldwide?
No, I thought that as well. If Star Wars does beat Avatar, it will only be in the US. China seems to be pretty excited about this movie though. I saw the other day that they stood 500 storm troopers up on the Great Wall.
(https://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/151021010835-srar-wars-disney-handout-6-super-169.jpg)
-
I haven't seen the movie but how the hell did Jurassic World do so well? It just seems like an odd choice of movie to hold that placement in both charts.
-
I'm going with no for two reasons. First, James Cameron is a better filmmaker. He makes movies that are visually phenomenal, and combined with the then-groundbreaking 3D Avatar was something that A: had to be seen, and B: had to be seen numerous times by many. The second problem is that while there are plenty of nerdy chicks in the world, they're still a subset of the movie-going public. Avatar appealed to all chicks because of some love story (or so I gather). That will account for a considerable amount of repeat viewings. SWWhatever won't have such a thing. Your average soccer mom might well want to see Avatar for some reason, and her jailbate daughter might want to see it numerous times, but neither will have much of an interest in a new SW movie.
And let's keep in mind that number two on that list is Titanic, and it's there for the exact same reasons. It was a beautiful spectacle of Cameron film-making and it had chick-appeal.
Women will probably like SWVII a lot because the main character is female. I know my sister is really hyped for the movie because of that
-
I haven't seen the movie but how the hell did Jurassic World do so well? It just seems like an odd choice of movie to hold that placement in both charts.
I'm in the same boat as you.
People expected it to be one of the hits of summer 2015, but no one expected it to do what it did.
-
I think people underestimated how much people love the original Jurassic Park, and wanted a new good JP-movie with the two previous sequels being disappointments. (TLW has some fans but JP3 has mostly negative buzz) I also think people really like Chris Pratt and they did a smart job of casting him as the protagonist.
-
I saw Star Wars when I was a kid, didn't like it that much, and have never bothered watching it, or any of the five sequels/prequels, since.
I have never seen Avatar.
-
I think people underestimated how much people love the original Jurassic Park, and wanted a new good JP-movie with the two previous sequels being disappointments. (TLW has some fans but JP3 has mostly negative buzz) I also think people really like Chris Pratt and they did a smart job of casting him as the protagonist.
I agree with your points but it was clearly advertised as a typical summer popcorn movie. Not great, not terrible but just "have some CGI, thanks for your money". Clearly I don't understand the mindset of the typical movie going person but as soon as I saw the trailer I immediately placed it in the "I'll catch it if it's on HBO on demand in a few months" bucket.
-
I think people underestimated how much people love the original Jurassic Park, and wanted a new good JP-movie with the two previous sequels being disappointments. (TLW has some fans but JP3 has mostly negative buzz) I also think people really like Chris Pratt and they did a smart job of casting him as the protagonist.
I agree with your points but it was clearly advertised as a typical summer popcorn movie. Not great, not terrible but just "have some CGI, thanks for your money". Clearly I don't understand the mindset of the typical movie going person but as soon as I saw the trailer I immediately placed it in the "I'll catch it if it's on HBO on demand in a few months" bucket.
Sure, but most of those standard big blockbuster movies make around the 800 million-1 billion mark. Jurassic World made ~1.5 billion (i think?). It didn't get amazing reviews enough to the point where people HAD to see it several times in the cinemas. I just think nostalgia helped to bump it a lot. It was one of those movies nobody really hated, most people seemed to enjoy it (at least as popcorn entertainment) whereas a lot of other big blockbusters (like transformers) while making a lot of money usually has more lukewarm reviews.
-
Sure, but most of those standard big blockbuster movies make around the 800 million-1 billion mark.
I think you are overestimating a bit. Only 49 films in history have made it to 800 million worldwide (not adjusted for inflation). Only 23 films of them have hit 1 billion.
So I wouldn't say that most of the blockbusters hit that mark.
Of course, most of those have come this century.
-
Sure, but most of those standard big blockbuster movies make around the 800 million-1 billion mark.
I think you are overestimating a bit. Only 49 films in history have made it to 800 million worldwide (not adjusted for inflation). Only 23 films of them have hit 1 billion.
So I wouldn't say that most of the blockbusters hit that mark.
Of course, most of those have come this century.
Yeah you're probably right. I think 500 million or more is a better figure to go off, and with Jurassic World making a billion more than that, it's just not your average summer blockbuster.
-
I think people underestimated how much people love the original Jurassic Park, and wanted a new good JP-movie with the two previous sequels being disappointments. (TLW has some fans but JP3 has mostly negative buzz) I also think people really like Chris Pratt and they did a smart job of casting him as the protagonist.
I loved the first film. Definitely in my top ten. I also love the second movie. I don't understand the hate it gets. The third movie was absolute shit.
I was beyond excited for Jurassic World. I had premiere night imax tickets but had to cancel going at the last minute. I still haven't seen it. I had the 3D blueray in my hand over the weekend, but I couldn't get myself to spend $38 dollars on it. If it came with the original trilogy, I would have paid a little more, but I can't justify that much money on a single movie that doesn't come with a lot of special features.
Not sure where I was going with that :lol
-
Star Wars is getting an episode VIII and IX, yes? Has any time frame been given for those? Avatar has movies coming out Dec 2017, 2018, and 2019. Is it possible we might see a Star Wars film and an Avatar film in theaters at the same time? What a month that's going to be for the box office.
-
The force Awakens - 2015
Rogue One - 2016
Episode 8 - 2017
The Han Solo Standalone Story - 2018
Episode 9 - 2019
The Third Anthology Movie - 2020
These are all TBA of course but that's the plan.
-
If I'm not mistaken, the month of release for episodes 8 & 9 will be May of their respective years.
-
I wonder if that's to avoid any Avatar overlap? Not to mention, they'll be able to use #MayTheFourthBeWith you for a ridiculous amount of free advertising.
-
I feel like staying in December would have been even a smarter decision because it's easier to clean bank and get the monies. Star Wars is also a family movie, and with a lot of people spending time with their families around Christmas, it's a win-win. During the summer you have one big blockbuster opening every weekend.
-
Titanic and Avatar both opened in December ? I think so.
I think Jim Cameron will release Avatar 2 & 3 in December too.
-
Titanic and Avatar both opened in December ? I think so.
I think Jim Cameron will release Avatar 2 & 3 in December too.
They've already been slated for Dec 16', Dec 17' and December 18'.
-
Titanic and Avatar both opened in December ? I think so.
I think Jim Cameron will release Avatar 2 & 3 in December too.
They've already been slated for Dec 16', Dec 17' and December 18'.
The first is 2017 isn't it ?
-
17', 18' 19' ***
-
I wonder if that's to avoid any Avatar overlap? Not to mention, they'll be able to use #MayTheFourthBeWith you for a ridiculous amount of free advertising.
It has nothing at all to do with Avatar.
All 6 OT/PT Star Wars movies had May releases, so that's just the traditional date. The only reason The Force Awakens broke with that tradition is because there was no way it was releasing in March 2015 as originally planned, but Disney had already committed to shareholders that it would release in 2015, ruling out a March 2016 date. They just pushed it back as late as possible while still releasing in 2015.
-
^That^ Star Wars is not afraid of Avatar.
-
Avatar has nothing on Star Wars and SW wouldn't move dates because they are afraid of Avatar, but with that said, it wouldn't be a smart move to have the movies come out at the same time, for any of them. It's the same type of movie, a big blockbuster, family friendly with fans in all ages and even though many would see both, a lot of people would pick one, and they would eat each other's box office. Similar to how Captain America: Civil War and Batman v Superman were scheduled for the same weekend but BvS moved, it is smarter for both parties to not go down that road.
-
I'm not claiming Star Wars to be afraid of Avatar. All I was suggesting is that with Avatar already slated for December releases, it would be detrimental to both franchises if they were to be released at the same time. It has more to do with which one called dibs on the month first, not which one is scared of which.
-
Gut feeling, the newer Avatars will not be nearly as successful as the first one. Even if they were released on the same weekend SW would trounce all over it.
-
I'm not claiming Star Wars to be afraid of Avatar. All I was suggesting is that with Avatar already slated for December releases, it would be detrimental to both franchises if they were to be released at the same time. It has more to do with which one called dibs on the month first, not which one is scared of which.
It doesn't really work like that though. With Captain America/Batman v Superman, BvS actually had the date first, then Marvel moved their film onto the date and BvS moved off after a few months of chicken race. There's really no such thing as dibs, it comes down to who has the most to lose. In this case neither really has anything to lose, but Star Wars as a franchise is bigger and so if SW hadn't moved, I'm sure Avatar would have.
-
I'm not claiming Star Wars to be afraid of Avatar. All I was suggesting is that with Avatar already slated for December releases, it would be detrimental to both franchises if they were to be released at the same time. It has more to do with which one called dibs on the month first, not which one is scared of which.
I was kind of kidding.
But for Star Wars, May is the traditional release date.
With Captain America/Batman v Superman, BvS actually had the date first, then Marvel moved their film onto the date and BvS moved off after a few months of chicken race.
That's not actually true. Marvel already had the release date, but at the time it wasn't named which Marvel film it would be. Then BvS picked the same date. Then Marvel announced which film it would be. DC eventually moved.
-
With Captain America/Batman v Superman, BvS actually had the date first, then Marvel moved their film onto the date and BvS moved off after a few months of chicken race.
That's not actually true. Marvel already had the release date, but at the time it wasn't named which Marvel film it would be. Then BvS picked the same date. Then Marvel announced which film it would be. DC eventually moved.
Ah alright. The more you know!
-
I haven't seen the movie but how the hell did Jurassic World do so well? It just seems like an odd choice of movie to hold that placement in both charts.
I'm in the same boat as you.
People expected it to be one of the hits of summer 2015, but no one expected it to do what it did.
Yeah, I think that applied to basically everyone. I certainly had no idea to expect it to be something that'd be mentioned as one of the highest grossing films ever, and all the reports about its box office records seemed basically confused about how it had managed it.
My thought is that a lot of people like Jurassic Park (remember it reigned as the highest grossing film for a few years before Titanic came out) and despite having sequels that weren't as well received, the franchise had been left alone long enough that people were willing to accept it being revived. But also, while nostalgia for the existing film(s) might bring in plenty of people, Jurassic World is something that can be understood and enjoyed by anyone (there are dinosaurs - that's basically all you need to know) whether or not they have seen the previous films, so it is able to appeal to younger kids as much as older fans. And while not many people were saying "This is one of the greatest movies ever", the general consensus seemed to be "It's surprisingly good" or "There's nothing really wrong with it", and personally I suspect that the market was just ready for a big summer blockbuster that wasn't Marvel, so this film that appealed to a wide range of people and was pretty well received was the one to strike success.
The fact that Jurassic World made so much suggests Star Wars has a pretty good chance - like people said no one was talking about Jurassic World's chances of being one of the highest grossing films ever before it came out but it easily reached #3 all time, and you could think that Star Wars could basically have numbers similar to Jurassic World as a base just by being a successful widely appealing blockbuster, plus all the added hype and marketing, plus potentially really good legs over the "dead zone" of January and February next year.
-
https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2015/11/18/box-office-star-wars-the-force-awakens-wont-top-avatar-if-it-plays-like-the-prequels/
Box Office: 'Star Wars: The Force Awakens' Won't Top 'Avatar' If It Plays Like The Prequels
Really good article.
It is quite possible that The Force Awakens can give Avatar a run for its money at the top of the domestic charts. But in order to do so, it will have to sell more tickets in its initial theatrical release than five out of the six Star Wars movies and more tickets than all but eleven movies ever. It would have to gross as much in total box office as the first three Star Wars films earned in their runs, with the second two being aided by those 20th anniversary re-releases. I am not saying it can’t be done. 3D and IMAX/PLF ticket price bumps may well prove to be the deciding factor, while the December release date is a new variable, albeit one I focused on two months ago. But I will be really impressed if a movie, any movie, pulls off that kind of number in today’s theatrical movie going environment. Of course, I’ll be impressed if it’s merely a big hit. So good luck, Disney, J.J. Abrams, Lucasfilm, and all of the Star Wars fans out there. You’ve got 91.3 million tickets to buy/sell starting next month. Game on! This is going to be so much fun…
-
It's definitely a longshot, but also definitely possible.
The hype and expectation is enough to guarantee a monstrous opening weekend. If they have made a truly special film on top of that (for which I am hopeful), which longtime fans reward like they did with the OT (repeated viewings), then they've got a shot.
-
The merchandise surrounding this film is unlike anything I've ever seen. It's literally everywhere. I was in Kohl's the other night and they had at least a half dozen displays around the store with nothing by Star Wars stuff.
-
Yeah, it's everywhere.
But that's OK.
-
I'm not saying that's a bad thing or indicative of anything. Just an observation. I'd be very curious to see what just the merchandise sales generate.
-
I'm not saying that's a bad thing or indicative of anything. Just an observation. I'd be very curious to see what just the merchandise sales generate.
Based on the Force Friday sales, they've estimated $3bn in merchandise by the end of the year, and a total of $5bn for the first year.
-
I'm not saying that's a bad thing or indicative of anything. Just an observation. I'd be very curious to see what just the merchandise sales generate.
Based on the Force Friday sales, they've estimated $3bn in merchandise by the end of the year, and a total of $5bn for the first year.
Wow. That's mind boggling.
-
I don't think Disney will have any trouble making back their $4bn investment on Lucasfilm.
-
I don't think Disney will have any trouble making back their $4bn investment on Lucasfilm.
Hell no. Especially once they get the Star Wars parks up and running.
-
I don't think Disney will have any trouble making back their $4bn investment on Lucasfilm.
Hell no. Especially once they get the Star Wars parks up and running.
Force Awakens will make half that on it's own and then there's still five more movies to come out.
-
I don't think Disney will have any trouble making back their $4bn investment on Lucasfilm.
Hell no. Especially once they get the Star Wars parks up and running.
Force Awakens will make half that on it's own and then there's still five more movies to come out.
They're making six new movies? I thought it was three.
-
3 main story films (episode 7/8/9) every other year and then 3 anthology films (rogue one next year, talks about a han solo/boba fett film) in between them, so 1 every year.
That's just the beginning of course. If this trilogy is successful they will definitely do more with the new cast, and with anthology films you can really do how many you want as long as you have a good character or story.
-
They'll keep making movies for as long as it's profitable. I imagine they might ease up on the "anthology" films after a little while though so as not to oversaturate people with Star Wars and wear it out.
-
So are the anthology movies just side films that aren't really involved with the main story arch?
-
I believe Disney's goal is a new Star Wars film every year until it fails, not necessry Star Wars, but spin offs included.
-
So are the anthology movies just side films that aren't really involved with the main story arch?
Yes.
Rogue One is set around the time of A New Hope and is about the rebels stealing the plans for the death star.
-
Cool. I'd love it if Avatar got a similar treatment, but it looks like we're going to have to settle for comic books.
-
Cool. I'd love it if Avatar got a similar treatment, but it looks like we're going to have to settle for comic books.
GOOD.
I will accept three more Avatar films but after that - I want Jim Cameron to drop Avatar entirely and do something new...
-
Cool. I'd love it if Avatar got a similar treatment, but it looks like we're going to have to settle for comic books.
GOOD.
I will accept three more Avatar films but after that - I want Jim Cameron to drop Avatar entirely and do something new...
I'll be happy with the official trilogy arch following the first film. From a fan perspective, and I know this would probably put everyone else to sleep, I'd love to see a true prequel about our journey to Pandora. I'd love to see how we discovered Pandora, made the decision to go, geared up, and ultimately end the film with first contact with the Na'vi.
The Avatar survival guide goes into some really good detail about events that took place prior to the movie, but I'd like to see it outside of just text on a page.
-
Make Avatar 4 the prequel and be done with it.
-
Make Avatar 4 the prequel and be done with it.
They can't. Technically the first film is the prequel and 2,3,4 is the trilogy. I want a pre-prequel.
-
Who say's they can't ? :P
They probably *won't* but they *should*.
I'd be more than happy with just two more Avatar's. Four is pushing it a bit.
But whatevs.
-
The anthology parts will take place in the same universe but be used more to explain different time periods and different characters I guess. The main story is still the episode-films, but with Rogue One you can tie it into A New Hope while still doing something unique, and I think both Tarkin (via CGI) and Darth Vader are confirmed to appear, so it should be cool. Movies like a young Yoda film, or a young Han Solo film, or even a Boba Fett film could be great films to give you more depth on those characters or the universe in general, but it also isn't needed for the more casual fanbase who just follow the main story.
Unlike Marvel where every movie is vital in the bigger picture, I think Star Wars will take a different route where the anthology movies aren't necessarily important, but they provide us fans with more great content.
-
$238M in the first weekend. Impressive. I know two people who work at movie theaters that have already said that the theaters have already begun to stop filling up and that monster figure was mainly months worth of pre-ordered tickets. I think this is going to clear a $1B no problem, but I really think $2.8B is pushing it.
-
$238M in the first weekend. Impressive. I know two people who work at movie theaters that have already said that the theaters have already begun to stop filling up and that monster figure was mainly months worth of pre-ordered tickets. I think this is going to clear a $1B no problem, but I really think $2.8B is pushing it.
:iagree:
-
That's rather disappointing.
-
I can't say I really care other than the fact that Star Wars seems like a really good movie where as Avatar was only good from the visual perspective. You'd like to think the overall best movie would hold the record, but like I said, I don't really care, and I have not seen Star Wars yet to say I like it better than Avatar, just basing that off what people have said. Hoping to see it within the next few days. By me, I can already see most of the theaters around me don't have many seats open for the evening shows.
But like was discussed, for this to get the record, people are going to have to watch it a few times. As much as I have heard positive reviews, I have not heard people say "I need to see this again" but maybe that is just me and my circle of friends.
-
Can't speak for globally....but here in the states I'm still waiting for a movie to top Gone With the Wind... which still tops the list.
-
$238M in the first weekend. Impressive. I know two people who work at movie theaters that have already said that the theaters have already begun to stop filling up and that monster figure was mainly months worth of pre-ordered tickets. I think this is going to clear a $1B no problem, but I really think $2.8B is pushing it.
:iagree:
I don't ;D That doesn't mean that Star Wars will win out but......
AFAIK the 238m was just US/Canada..........they more than doubled that around the rest of the world . The Avatar $2.8B figure is worldwide , so I don't think that's an apples/apples comparison.
I never even saw Avatar btw :lol
-
I wonder how much movie audience fatigue is a part of this. I'm not saying it's the whole reason, but is there really a movie that would be more anticipated than Star Wars sequel that's likely to be good? I think overall theater excitement has gone down in the past 5-10 years.
-
I don't expect it'll beat AVATAR....but I just hope that it beats Jurassic World. Nothing against JW, but it still baffles me how much $$ that movie made. It was an 'alright' movie....that was it IMO...
-
I don't expect it'll beat AVATAR....but I just hope that it beats Jurassic World. Nothing against JW, but it still baffles me how much $$ that movie made. It was an 'alright' movie....that was it IMO...
Ditto. JW was definitely the result of people chasing the nostalgia and the Chris Pratt hype. Nothing more. It made a third of its overall revenue in the first weekend and then saw a huge drop off in ticket sales. I enjoyed the movie, but I am in no rush to see it a second time.
-
Can't speak for globally....but here in the states I'm still waiting for a movie to top Gone With the Wind... which still tops the list.
That will never happen.
-
The number worldwide is $528 million.
Edit: This doesn't include China. It opens on January 9 there.
-
China is the wild card. The last three SW movies released in China made less than $25M combined.
-
Can't speak for globally....but here in the states I'm still waiting for a movie to top Gone With the Wind... which still tops the list.
That will never happen.
It will never be surpassed since at that time, the movies were the only media besides plays. Now, helk, people watch downloads on their phone or computer and no TV.
-
China is the wild card. The last three SW movies released in China made less than $25M combined.
Well, China has changed a lot in the last 10 years or so.
We'll see. I think it will largely have to be done on the backs of repeat customers, the way the fortunes of the OT were made. Given the fantastic reviews the film is getting, I would say that a lot of that is likely.
-
Specially for hardcore fans and there are lots of those when it comes to SW.
-
China is the wild card. The last three SW movies released in China made less than $25M combined.
Well, China has changed a lot in the last 10 years or so.
We'll see. I think it will largely have to be done on the backs of repeat customers, the way the fortunes of the OT were made. Given the fantastic reviews the film is getting, I would say that a lot of that is likely.
I'll be good for (3) Viewings. Seen it once already, Taking my kids on Wednesday to see it.....and then I plan to see it AT LEAST (1) more time before it leaves the theaters...hopefully that one will be an IMAX viewing.
-
One thing I noticed was just how many screens this movie is playing on. I went to see it in Raleigh in a 14-screen theater, and they had 22 different showings that day. Another 20-screen theater had even more. So, just in Raleigh, it was probably doing 100-200 showings per day.
-
China is the wild card. The last three SW movies released in China made less than $25M combined.
Well, China has changed a lot in the last 10 years or so.
We'll see. I think it will largely have to be done on the backs of repeat customers, the way the fortunes of the OT were made. Given the fantastic reviews the film is getting, I would say that a lot of that is likely.
Yep. I think it will easily top $2bn. Whether or not it can make $2.8bn, way too early to tell even given that TFA has thoroughly smashed almost every record so far.
-
I think the real question here, the real important issue...
is whether it'll break 2 billion galactic credits?
-
Credits don't work out here! They need something more real...
-
Saw it last night.
It will definitely be getting repeat business from me.
-
Not sure I actually will see it again in the theater, but I would like to. We'll see. But once it is available for home use, it will definitely get MANY repeat views.
-
Not sure I actually will see it again in the theater, but I would like to. We'll see. But once it is available for home use, it will definitely get MANY repeat views.
Think about how long it took Episode 4 to make it to HBO and now at worst, 6 months after it's run in the theaters it's out on Blu Ray/DVD. Crazy.
-
Not sure I actually will see it again in the theater, but I would like to. We'll see. But once it is available for home use, it will definitely get MANY repeat views.
Think about how long it took Episode 4 to make it to HBO and now at worst, 6 months after it's run in the theaters it's out on Blu Ray/DVD. Crazy.
I think it may have had two or three theater runs before that even happened (remember when good movies commonly had more than one theater run because there WAS no other way to see them?).
-
I saw Star Wars 9 times in the theater and Raiders Of The Lost Ark 5 times. Oh the memories.
I remember a buddy of mine had it in with this place that rented videos and sold video games. They sold him a used VSH tape of Episode 4 for $80 which was illegal as well.
-
Not sure I actually will see it again in the theater, but I would like to. We'll see. But once it is available for home use, it will definitely get MANY repeat views.
Think about how long it took Episode 4 to make it to HBO and now at worst, 6 months after it's run in the theaters it's out on Blu Ray/DVD. Crazy.
I think it may have had two or three theater runs before that even happened (remember when good movies commonly had more than one theater run because there WAS no other way to see them?).
Yes.
-
Domestically, “The Force Awakens” has grossed a mammoth $544.6 million. Worldwide that figure is nearly $1.1 billion. The “Star Wars” sequel crossed $1 billion in twelve days, something it took the previous record holder, “Jurassic World,” thirteen days to accomplish.
https://variety.com/2015/film/box-office/star-wars-box-office-christmas-daddys-home-point-break-1201668001/
-
Domestically, “The Force Awakens” has grossed a mammoth $544.6 million. Worldwide that figure is nearly $1.1 billion. The “Star Wars” sequel crossed $1 billion in twelve days, something it took the previous record holder, “Jurassic World,” thirteen days to accomplish.
Don't forget Jurrasic World also had China $$ in that as well. The Force Awakens doesn't open in China until January 9th.
This film may beat AVATAR.....
-
Domestically, “The Force Awakens” has grossed a mammoth $544.6 million. Worldwide that figure is nearly $1.1 billion. The “Star Wars” sequel crossed $1 billion in twelve days, something it took the previous record holder, “Jurassic World,” thirteen days to accomplish.
Don't forget Jurrasic World also had China $$ in that as well. The Force Awakens doesn't open in China until January 9th.
This film may beat AVATAR.....
I hope so, finally saw it (sold out theater) and it was great. A much better movie than Avatar and Jurassic World.
-
So what's the deadline for this thing? Is it just by the time the movie exists its round through theaters worldwide and stops playing?
-
Yeah. Whatever it makes in theaters, including any rerelease /extra footage release they're bound to put in theaters 9-11 months from now. Avatar was back in theaters the August following the original November (December?*) release.
-
Ah, okay. Interesting, I think it's a toss up at this point. Another billion to make is a hefty amount... I can completely see it happening especially if it hasn't even released in China and they're much more lax on the media recently and especially in regards to that movie in particular; but I also wouldn't be surprised if it came up short.
-
I'm predicting $2.2B.
-
Yeah. Whatever it makes in theaters, including any rerelease and/or extra footage release they're bound to put in theaters 9-11 months from now. Avatar was back in theaters the August following the original November (December?*) release.
I actually think they might hold off on a theatrical re-release, and just release an extended edition on DVD/BD. Rogue One comes out only a year after TFA, and Ep VIII only half a year or so after that, which I think is already going to be borderline saturation for the franchise.
Maybe they'll be daring and do a re-release in May to line up with the typical Star Wars release date though.
-
Not sure why there is any speculation on a re-release, especially at this point in time. There will be so much Star Wars that it seems like any re-release of the new films would be oversaturation.
-
There will be so much Star Wars that it seems like any re-release of the new films would be oversaturation.
True, but can there really be "oversaturation" with anything Star Wars? Maybe at some point in the future after more films. But at this point in history, I think the answer is "no."
-
When the Holiday Special came out in 1978, there was oversaturation.
-
Maybe. But there were MUCH bigger concerns at stake there. ...like competing with the Kiss holiday special. :paul:
-
I recently read an interview with the director of the Holiday Special. He didn't know anything really about Star Wars, he was brought on board to "fix" the special because it was already a disaster, and he had the reputation as a director who could make chicken salad out of chicken shit.
Obviously, it didn't work this time, but he was pissed off about Lucas wanting to distance himself from it so much (even making comments like "I want to buy every negative of the film and destroy it"), especially since the original story idea came from Lucas, and he had to oversee every single creative decision.
lol
-
I still have no idea why Avatar holds the #1 spot. That's not a slight to the film, I actually enjoy it for what it is. I simply don't understand what made it propel to the top. Especially when you consider the low cultural impact it's had. No one talks about it anymore, but it's the highest-grossing film of all time? That's bizarre.
-
I still have no idea why Avatar holds the #1 spot. That's not a slight to the film, I actually enjoy it for what it is. I simply don't understand what made it propel to the top. Especially when you consider the low cultural impact it's had. No one talks about it anymore, but it's the highest-grossing film of all time? That's bizarre.
I agree, although the answer is basically "3D".
Even though it didn't gross nearly as much overall, I'm even more baffled by the success of Jurassic World, which itself held a lot of records until TFA broke them. I know Jurassic Park was a popular movie, but people weren't talking about it as if that was anything amazing either.
For that reason, I'd love to see Star Wars top them both, because at least it makes sense to me.
-
For that reason, I'd love to see Star Wars top them both, because at least it makes sense to me.
That's why I am rooting for it as well. Avatar was definitely one of the coolest movie experiences for me though, but as an actual movie, Star Wars is more deserving (not because of the franchise either, this movie was just a better movie as well).
-
Jurassic World's success makes way more sense. It's built on nostalgia. Avatar, despite ripping off Pocahontas or whatever, stood alone.
-
:mehlin
Jurassic World's success makes way more sense. It's built on nostalgia. Avatar, despite ripping off Pocahontas or whatever, stood alone.
You're right, I just didn't realize that the Jurassic Park franchise had that much interest or nostalgia these days, and the movie itself didn't rate anything special from what I heard. At least it did have franchise recognition behind it, but it is confusing how a brand new movie like Avatar that was only considered average managed to do so ridiculously well.
Star Wars is a hugely popular franchise, with the new movie being incredibly well received, and I don't remember any movie being this hyped in a long time, and it's smashing every record in its way. And yet it's still probably unlikely to top Avatar. I just don't understand.
I just don't understand.
-
I think it was absolutely completely dependent on a new technology being used by Cameron and the massive media blitz to market "AN ENTIRELY NEW WAY TO WATCH MOVIES SO POWER SO ENERGY THIS IS THE NEW WAY ALL MOVIES WILL BE FILMED THIS IS NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEEEEEEEWWWWWWWW!". That...is not an over the top nutshell sentence of how they marketed that fuckin' film. I still remember every single media (and even straight up news stations) covering the tech behind "Cameron's game-changing film". It was honest to goodness just utterly slammed over the masses heads that this incredibly futuristic, epic, legendary, life-changing format of filming movies will be the new medium and it will change movies forever. That was why it crushed any and all expectations of sales. That, and it's not a bad adventure movie. Add to that the amount of time spent detailing a new world, and that new world was, did I mention? FILMED WITH AN ALL NEW, ALL FUTURE, ALL POWERFUL WAY OF VIEWING MOVIES, THIS SHIT IS THE SHIT, IT'S NEW.
*jack off motion*
It's really a testament to how incredible a movie's marketing can be a make or break aspect though...verily. Very verily. I suppose having a talent like Cameron helps a shitload too. I liked it, I really liked the look, but it was CGI porn at its finest...so...
YeahIdon'tgetthatshiteither. :lol
-
I think it was absolutely completely dependent on a new technology being used by Cameron and the massive media blitz to market "AN ENTIRELY NEW WAY TO WATCH MOVIES SO POWER SO ENERGY THIS IS THE NEW WAY ALL MOVIES WILL BE FILMED THIS IS NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEEEEEEEWWWWWWWW!". That...is not an over the top nutshell sentence of how they marketed that fuckin' film. I still remember every single media (and even straight up news stations) covering the tech behind "Cameron's game-changing film". It was honest to goodness just utterly slammed over the masses heads that this incredibly futuristic, epic, legendary, life-changing format of filming movies will be the new medium and it will change movies forever. That was why it crushed any and all expectations of sales. That, and it's not a bad adventure movie. Add to that the amount of time spent detailing a new world, and that new world was, did I mention? FILMED WITH AN ALL NEW, ALL FUTURE, ALL POWERFUL WAY OF VIEWING MOVIES, THIS SHIT IS THE SHIT, IT'S NEW.
Exactly that is the reason.
-
I think it was absolutely completely dependent on a new technology being used by Cameron and the massive media blitz to market "AN ENTIRELY NEW WAY TO WATCH MOVIES SO POWER SO ENERGY THIS IS THE NEW WAY ALL MOVIES WILL BE FILMED THIS IS NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEEEEEEEWWWWWWWW!". That...is not an over the top nutshell sentence of how they marketed that fuckin' film. I still remember every single media (and even straight up news stations) covering the tech behind "Cameron's game-changing film". It was honest to goodness just utterly slammed over the masses heads that this incredibly futuristic, epic, legendary, life-changing format of filming movies will be the new medium and it will change movies forever. That was why it crushed any and all expectations of sales. That, and it's not a bad adventure movie. Add to that the amount of time spent detailing a new world, and that new world was, did I mention? FILMED WITH AN ALL NEW, ALL FUTURE, ALL POWERFUL WAY OF VIEWING MOVIES, THIS SHIT IS THE SHIT, IT'S NEW.
Exactly that is the reason.
To be fair, story aside......that movie was INCREDIBLE to watch in 3D. I've seen the movie twice, in the theater ....in 3D. I really don't see a reason to watch it 'normal' as the story is not overly compelling and the imagery cannot be fully appreciated (IMO) unless you're watching it in 3D
-
I think it was absolutely completely dependent on a new technology being used by Cameron and the massive media blitz to market "AN ENTIRELY NEW WAY TO WATCH MOVIES SO POWER SO ENERGY THIS IS THE NEW WAY ALL MOVIES WILL BE FILMED THIS IS NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEEEEEEEWWWWWWWW!". That...is not an over the top nutshell sentence of how they marketed that fuckin' film. I still remember every single media (and even straight up news stations) covering the tech behind "Cameron's game-changing film". It was honest to goodness just utterly slammed over the masses heads that this incredibly futuristic, epic, legendary, life-changing format of filming movies will be the new medium and it will change movies forever. That was why it crushed any and all expectations of sales. That, and it's not a bad adventure movie. Add to that the amount of time spent detailing a new world, and that new world was, did I mention? FILMED WITH AN ALL NEW, ALL FUTURE, ALL POWERFUL WAY OF VIEWING MOVIES, THIS SHIT IS THE SHIT, IT'S NEW.
Exactly that is the reason.
Thirded
-
I think it was absolutely completely dependent on a new technology being used by Cameron and the massive media blitz to market "AN ENTIRELY NEW WAY TO WATCH MOVIES SO POWER SO ENERGY THIS IS THE NEW WAY ALL MOVIES WILL BE FILMED THIS IS NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEEEEEEEWWWWWWWW!". That...is not an over the top nutshell sentence of how they marketed that fuckin' film. I still remember every single media (and even straight up news stations) covering the tech behind "Cameron's game-changing film". It was honest to goodness just utterly slammed over the masses heads that this incredibly futuristic, epic, legendary, life-changing format of filming movies will be the new medium and it will change movies forever. That was why it crushed any and all expectations of sales. That, and it's not a bad adventure movie. Add to that the amount of time spent detailing a new world, and that new world was, did I mention? FILMED WITH AN ALL NEW, ALL FUTURE, ALL POWERFUL WAY OF VIEWING MOVIES, THIS SHIT IS THE SHIT, IT'S NEW.
Exactly that is the reason.
To be fair, story aside......that movie was INCREDIBLE to watch in 3D. I've seen the movie twice, in the theater ....in 3D. I really don't see a reason to watch it 'normal' as the story is not overly compelling and the imagery cannot be fully appreciated (IMO) unless you're watching it in 3D
Maybe I had a crappy spot in the theater but only a few of the scenes I saw had any actual 3D depth. The rest just looked like a badly lit movie with typical film depth of field.
-
I never got to see it in 3D but I can't imagine that tech at the time (for the actual 3D in the theaters, not what was used for filming the movie) would make a drastic difference. But hey, I never saw it so I can't say. I've only seen two 3D movies, one a while back and another a couple years ago, both looked pretty amateurish and not worth it at all; ever since the Nintendo 3DS has done 3D better than anything I've seen so... :lol I'm not really interested in 3D for movies. I just can't see the appeal in it aside from, say...a ride at Disney that also has a screen you watch while the ride is going on and shit it flying at you and you feel it at the same time. That would be cool and I've heard it's a blast but that's an all-encompassing experience that is more or less barraging all your senses, so it's no wonder it works.
-
It made a difference. Avatar in IMAX 3d was a movie experience I have never had and still have not had. I thought The Hobbit in IMAX 3d with 60fps would be similar and it was not.
-
I have yet to see a film in IMAX but I have seen IMAX created documentaries movies in IMAX theaters. I felt super uncomfortable and could not see a lot of the screen. Did IMAX technology improve or is that still an issue?
-
Yea Avatar in 3D was like nothing i've ever seen before and i'm glad I got that experience. It's still one of the best 3D films i've seen.
-
Yea Avatar in 3D was like nothing i've ever seen before and i'm glad I got that experience. It's still one of the best 3D films i've seen.
If/when they re-release it in the theaters for 3D I'd go see it again. It was such a great visual experience.
-
I'd bet my entire 100 dollar life savings that before the next one comes out (probably right before) there will be a rerelease. It'd be completely idiotic not to.
-
It will be rereleased for double features, and then rerereleased for triple features.
-
I don't like Avatar all that much, but it remains the best 3-D I've seen thus far.
-
I don't like Avatar all that much, but it remains the best 3-D I've seen thus far.
I was mesmerized by the 3D imagery....it really is a 'beautiful' film. the 'story' was good enough to pass inspection.....
-
I think it was absolutely completely dependent on a new technology being used by Cameron and the massive media blitz to market "AN ENTIRELY NEW WAY TO WATCH MOVIES SO POWER SO ENERGY THIS IS THE NEW WAY ALL MOVIES WILL BE FILMED THIS IS NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW NEEEEEEEWWWWWWWW!". That...is not an over the top nutshell sentence of how they marketed that fuckin' film. I still remember every single media (and even straight up news stations) covering the tech behind "Cameron's game-changing film". It was honest to goodness just utterly slammed over the masses heads that this incredibly futuristic, epic, legendary, life-changing format of filming movies will be the new medium and it will change movies forever. That was why it crushed any and all expectations of sales. That, and it's not a bad adventure movie. Add to that the amount of time spent detailing a new world, and that new world was, did I mention? FILMED WITH AN ALL NEW, ALL FUTURE, ALL POWERFUL WAY OF VIEWING MOVIES, THIS SHIT IS THE SHIT, IT'S NEW.
Exactly that is the reason.
To be fair, story aside......that movie was INCREDIBLE to watch in 3D. I've seen the movie twice, in the theater ....in 3D. I really don't see a reason to watch it 'normal' as the story is not overly compelling and the imagery cannot be fully appreciated (IMO) unless you're watching it in 3D
I saw it in 3D and then on a Bluray in 2D and it looked SO MUCH BETTER in 2D. None of the dulled colours and weird perspectives. The film came along at the right time for 3D movies, that's it really.
-
The color probably would not have looked so weird if you spelled color properly.
-
I don't like Avatar all that much, but it remains the best 3-D I've seen thus far.
I was mesmerized by the 3D imagery....it really is a 'beautiful' film. the 'story' was good enough to pass inspection.....
I had no problem with the "story" it was perfectly fine, but nothing new. It was the visuals that made this movie stand out.
-
The color probably would not have looked so weird if you spelled color properly.
That's what happens when you visit Canada.
-
The color probably would not have looked so weird if you spelled color properly.
That's what happens when you visit Canada.
Only on the Dream Theatre Forums :lol
-
Rich did this past year! :lol
-
The color probably would not have looked so weird if you spelled color properly.
lolmerica
-
So any idea yet if the new Star Wars will top Avatar or not? Obviously I'm too lazy to look into it myself (mostly b/c I don't even know what I'd look for).
Going Friday to see it a second time with my daughter. I think the only time before this I've seen a movie in the theater twice was the second Deathly Hallows movie. My main motivation is reading all the theories and stuff, and want a second view to re-view everything knowing what I know now.
-
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=starwars7.htm
-
It's almost at half of what Avatar has made, but you gotta keep in mind that the first 2 weeks are also when the movie brings in the most cash. It's gonna be all downhill from here, and what will determine whether it breaks the record or not is simply how much of a downward trajectory it is. Second week it made ~153 million dollars domestically, which was around a 40% drop from the first week. But what is crazy if you put things into perspective is that The Force Awakens had a SECOND WEEK that would rank as the 10th highest grossing weekends of all time. Only NINE (!) films made more in their FIRST week than TFA made in its second week. That's pretty crazy.
I'm very curious about this weekend's numbers, because I think the third weekend will give us a clear indication of how many people are still going and showing huge interest. If TFA makes over 100 million domestically in the third weekend (not impossible, it would be roughly a 33% drop from last weekend, and the drop is usually the biggest from week 1 to 2, and 2 to 3 usually is lower) I think it's got a good chance to beat Avatar. If TFA does come in at over 100 million this weekend it would be crazy. It's never happened that a film makes over 100 million in its third week of release, even with two weeks it has only happened 2 times I believe, with Jurassic World and Avengers. TFA is setting all kinds of records, but the toughest one is the international box office that Avatar holds at 2.7 billion. Avatar didn't actually make much money at all initially, and I believe its opening weekend was around 75 million dollars domestically, which is almost 1/3 of what Star Wars made its first weekend. What made Avatar the juggernaut was how it kept building, and where most movies have a downward trajectory, Avatar had a good streak of almost earning more and more the longer it was out. I do hope TFA beats it, because it's a much better film IMO.
-
One thing to keep in mind is that Avatar still made that figure even after being banned in 1600 Chinese theaters after just two weeks. It might have gotten closer to $3B had that not happened. China will be the wild card for TFA.
-
One thing to keep in mind is that Avatar still made that figure even after being banned in 1600 Chinese theaters after just two weeks. It might have gotten closer to $3B had that not happened. China will be the wild card for TFA.
Yep. That and repeat views. I know I'm going to see it one more time, that'd make (3) views....but I think AVATAR was getting like 5,6...7 repeat views? That's massive. I don't think the 'average' person out there is seeing TFA more than twice, most probably will only see it once. The hard core folks will see it over 5 times but $2.7 billion is a tough number to top.
-
One thing to keep in mind is that Avatar still made that figure even after being banned in 1600 Chinese theaters after just two weeks. It might have gotten closer to $3B had that not happened. China will be the wild card for TFA.
Why was it banned? I don't remember.
-
As I remember it was a combination of fear that the populace would identify too strongly with the Na'vi and that domestic films wouldn't stand a chance competing with it.
-
One thing to keep in mind is that Avatar still made that figure even after being banned in 1600 Chinese theaters after just two weeks. It might have gotten closer to $3B had that not happened. China will be the wild card for TFA.
Why was it banned? I don't remember.
Because it's China and the Chinese dictators are complete a$$hats.
-
Will SW:TFA surpass Avatard? Let's hope so. I'm still sore at James Cameron from stealing the great Roger Dean's artwork.
-
Lol
-
Looks like it will for sure be taking over domestically: https://uproxx.com/movies/star-wars-the-force-awakens-top-box-office-ever-avatar/
-
I love the completely unnecessary last sentence. Way to just shove your opinion into an article like that.
-
$1.5bn in under three weeks. It's going well. it's halfway to beating Avatar but numbers always decline.
However - it hasn't opened everywhere yet and it'd only been out a month. I imagine this will sit in cinemas until it's no longer worth it. About six months i'd say.
-
I think Kung Fu Panda 3 and later Deadpool are the two big roadblocks, but even KFP3 is 4 weeks away. And even with other big blockbusters like KFP3 and Deadpool out, SW is still gonna bring in some money, even if it's gonna fall on the top5.
-
I don't think Deadwood is a big block at all. I do want to see it but it's not that big of a movie to slow down SW.
-
I don't think Deadwood is a big block at all. I do want to see it but it's not that big of a movie to slow down SW.
I think the shocker here is that they are re-releasing the 2007 British horror film that basically went straight to DVD
-
I don't think Deadwood is a big block at all. I do want to see it but it's not that big of a movie to slow down SW.
I think the shocker here is that they are re-releasing the 2007 British horror film that basically went straight to DVD
Yeah, I mean I don't even know why we'd think that would slow SW down.
-
I think due to the brilliant marketing (best marketing for a film ever?) with Deadpool, it's gonna end up being a bigger surprise than we first thought. Initially I think most of us were expecting it to make maybe 40-45 million dollars opening weekend (domestically), but with the brilliant marketing and the great trailers, I think it will end up closer to the double of that. While there are a lot of superhero films coming out, Deadpool is really unique and one of a kind, and I think the gimmick of the film, with the whole R-rating, breaking the 4th wall, making fun of the superhero genre while also being a superhero film is something that's gonna appeal to a lot of fans who might already be off the superhero film wagon. I know several people who have very lukewarm interest in Batman v Superman and Civil War (because it's essentially more of the same) but are very hyped for Deadpool mainly for how unique it will be.
But Deadpool comes out at February 12th, which is what, 8-9 weeks after the premiere of The Force Awakens? At that point the people who really wanted to see Star Wars have already seen it, and Deadpool is the big thing of that weekend. I think the longer SW stays in theaters, the more its income will be based on repeated viewings. I've seen it 3 times myself, but I would be up for seeing it a 4th time, maybe 5-6 weeks from now. I think there are others who saw it at the release who will feel an itch to see it again before it goes out, because then you have that long wait for the BluRay.
-
I think due to the brilliant marketing (best marketing for a film ever?) with Deadpool, it's gonna end up being a bigger surprise than we first thought. Initially I think most of us were expecting it to make maybe 40-45 million dollars opening weekend (domestically), but with the brilliant marketing and the great trailers, I think it will end up closer to the double of that.
Is this sarcasm? I've seen nothing on the movie.
-
I think due to the brilliant marketing (best marketing for a film ever?) with Deadpool, it's gonna end up being a bigger surprise than we first thought. Initially I think most of us were expecting it to make maybe 40-45 million dollars opening weekend (domestically), but with the brilliant marketing and the great trailers, I think it will end up closer to the double of that.
Is this sarcasm? I've seen nothing on the movie.
Have you been living under a rock?
-
I think due to the brilliant marketing (best marketing for a film ever?) with Deadpool, it's gonna end up being a bigger surprise than we first thought. Initially I think most of us were expecting it to make maybe 40-45 million dollars opening weekend (domestically), but with the brilliant marketing and the great trailers, I think it will end up closer to the double of that.
Is this sarcasm? I've seen nothing on the movie.
I am vaguely aware that at some point in the future there is a movie about a character named Deadpool. If it weren't for a particular general nerdy page I follow on Facebook, I wouldn't have seen anything about it.
-
I think to be fair, the movie is 1 ½ month out and the most intense marketing will probably start in 2 weeks or so for that final month. With Star Wars spending 50 billion on their marketing campaign and being everywhere, bus stops, commercials, football games, it's kinda pointless for a film like Deadpool, which premieres 2 months after to really start the big push. But there has been marketing and it has been great so far.
-
According to Wikipedia = the total budget for The Force Awakens was nearly half a billion including production budget and marketing.
It's made that back three times over but $500m to make a film :o :o ridiculous.
-
Yeah it's ridiculous how much money they spend on movies in Hollywood. Look at a film like District 9 which only had a 30 million dollar budget yet was a really great sci-fi film, and still most new sci-fi films have over 100 million as their budget. The Force Awakens probably spent at least 250 million dollars on the marketing, which is insane.
-
I think due to the brilliant marketing (best marketing for a film ever?) with Deadpool, it's gonna end up being a bigger surprise than we first thought. Initially I think most of us were expecting it to make maybe 40-45 million dollars opening weekend (domestically), but with the brilliant marketing and the great trailers, I think it will end up closer to the double of that.
Is this sarcasm? I've seen nothing on the movie.
Have you been living under a rock?
Not at all. Like blob said I know there is a movie coming out at some point but I have seen zero trailers, tv spots, etc. I watched football all day yesterday and if this movie has the type of marketing you say it does I would guess I would've seen at least one TV spot or even a plug somewhere.
-
I think due to the brilliant marketing (best marketing for a film ever?) with Deadpool, it's gonna end up being a bigger surprise than we first thought. Initially I think most of us were expecting it to make maybe 40-45 million dollars opening weekend (domestically), but with the brilliant marketing and the great trailers, I think it will end up closer to the double of that.
Is this sarcasm? I've seen nothing on the movie.
I am vaguely aware that at some point in the future there is a movie about a character named Deadpool. If it weren't for a particular general nerdy page I follow on Facebook, I wouldn't have seen anything about it.
I've heard world of mouth that the movie was coming out. But I've also found it disappointing that I have actually seen almost nothing. I believe I saw one trailer when it was first released, and that was a link here I believe. Not a word on FB, not a trailer at the movies. Dead silence on nerd forums. I don't even know when it's finally coming out, nor do I know a single thing about it because the trailer is almost like one of those non-sequitur Old Spice commercials. So the lack of any info at all has been a little frustrating.
-
Yeah it's ridiculous how much money they spend on movies in Hollywood. Look at a film like District 9 which only had a 30 million dollar budget yet was a really great sci-fi film, and still most new sci-fi films have over 100 million as their budget. The Force Awakens probably spent at least 250 million dollars on the marketing, which is insane.
Lol. Way more than that. Avatar spent nearly $250M in marketing. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that Disney spent upwards of a billion dollars promoting this film (franchise). I have never seen so many ads, commercials, or coverage for a movie before. Every commercial break, every store you go in, every street you walk down (literally), etc.. all have a reference to Star Wars somewhere.
Fun fact; India put a research satellite into orbit around Mars for less money than it cost to make the movie Gravity.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYpxsJHVC-0
Deadpool trailer
-
It looks like it's going to beat Avatar and it hasn't even opened in China yet.
-
It looks like it's going to beat Avatar and it hasn't even opened in China yet.
It's going to smash Avatar's US domestic record (it's only a few million off beating it already), but it's a long way from beating the worldwide gross yet. Hopefully China does big numbers for it.
-
It looks like it's going to beat Avatar and it hasn't even opened in China yet.
Episodes 1, 2, and 3 didn't make $20M combined in China. If TFA managed to make $250M in China, I'd be shocked. That would mean the rest of the world needs to kick in an additional billion.
-
It's made $1.5bn in record time but I fully expect to see that slow down in the next few weeks.
For example. It made like $500m worldwide in it's first weekend and $88m worldwide this weekend. That's a pretty big drop off.
-
Yeah it's ridiculous how much money they spend on movies in Hollywood. Look at a film like District 9 which only had a 30 million dollar budget yet was a really great sci-fi film, and still most new sci-fi films have over 100 million as their budget. The Force Awakens probably spent at least 250 million dollars on the marketing, which is insane.
Lol. Way more than that. Avatar spent nearly $250M in marketing. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that Disney spent upwards of a billion dollars promoting this film (franchise). I have never seen so many ads, commercials, or coverage for a movie before. Every commercial break, every store you go in, every street you walk down (literally), etc.. all have a reference to Star Wars somewhere.
But the thing is, a LOT of that isn't even Disney spending money--it is other companies that have spent money to use Star Wars to promote their product. The car companies paid Disney to use Star Wars in their ads that they--not Disney--are paying to air. Disney pockets the money and benefits from additional promotion of the film that they don't even have to do. Toys: same. Clothing: same. Food items: same again. Disney is making a TON off this film, but isn't quite spending as much as you imply.
-
It's made $1.5bn in record time but I fully expect to see that slow down in the next few weeks.
For example. It made like $500m worldwide in it's first weekend and $88m worldwide this weekend. That's a pretty big drop off.
Exactly. It basically has to do everything it's done all over again. It took Avatar something like 44 days to reach the point the TFA is currently at, and it was still steadily climbing. TFA's graphs are already heading in the other direction.
-
Yeah it's ridiculous how much money they spend on movies in Hollywood. Look at a film like District 9 which only had a 30 million dollar budget yet was a really great sci-fi film, and still most new sci-fi films have over 100 million as their budget. The Force Awakens probably spent at least 250 million dollars on the marketing, which is insane.
Lol. Way more than that. Avatar spent nearly $250M in marketing. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that Disney spent upwards of a billion dollars promoting this film (franchise). I have never seen so many ads, commercials, or coverage for a movie before. Every commercial break, every store you go in, every street you walk down (literally), etc.. all have a reference to Star Wars somewhere.
But the thing is, a LOT of that isn't even Disney spending money--it is other companies that have spent money to use Star Wars to promote their product. The car companies paid Disney to use Star Wars in their ads that they--not Disney--are paying to air. Disney pockets the money and benefits from additional promotion of the film that they don't even have to do. Toys: same. Clothing: same. Food items: same again. Disney is making a TON off this film, but isn't quite spending as much as you imply.
Ohhhh. I wasn't aware of that. I figured Disney was paying every car manufacturer to subtly work their music and stuff into their adds. My mind is blown.
-
If you follow genre movie info outlets like aintitcoolnews, slashfilm, comicbookmovie, there has been a steady stream of Deadpool info for a year now. If you don't follow sites like that, you probably haven't seen much because it is going to be an R-rated film, there have already been at least two red-band trailers, so they aren't being shown in theaters. It is being marketed (at this point) to a very specific genre audience who already knows who Deadpool is and can't wait to see the film. I would imagine more broad-based marketing is imminent.
-
I found it funny that Kellogs is using Star Wars to promote cereal...
...but then they put Vader on all their boxes :lol
" New Star Wars movie ? That's the Darth Vader movie isn't it ? "
-
I found it funny that Kellogs is using Star Wars to promote cereal...
...but then they put Vader on all their boxes :lol
" New Star Wars movie ? That's the Darth Vader movie isn't it ? "
Technically they show his mask for 5 seconds so now they can use him in the marketing! (Insert reference to Plinkett's RotS review with them using Vader in one scene at the end)
-
In addition to the price of 3D tickets in most places, something Avatar had to its advantage was that it was more of a theme park ride than a movie. It was all about taking in a big CGI spectacle as it happened, which is part of why so many people saw it several times in theaters. With a movie that's more about story or characters, even if it's really good, fewer people are going to go see it again and again and again.
If it's more about story and characters, people who like it will probably see it once or twice, and then wait for home media. With something like Avatar that's so heavily focused on the spectacle though, for most of the audience, the added spectacle of seeing it theatrically in 3D is a big part of the experience; they're more likely to see it several times in theaters, because it loses so much in a home viewing.
Big spectacle movies also tend to do well in a wider range of markets. When people want more story driven films, they're more likely to consider more local fare. With big spectacle stuff, it's just a matter of who's making the most spectacle-y stuff, and that mostly happens to be American popcorn movies at the moment. Couple that with several large markets really opening up within the last decade (such as China, among others). It's how Furious 7 managed to make over a billion dollars in the foreign market, while not cracking the Top 30 in the domestic market.
Personally, when I saw Avatar, I was bored out of my mind. It was very much "Really? This is what people are going so crazy for?". I'm definitely rooting for Star Wars to beat it.
[pedantic]Also, the "Domestic" market is Canada and the US, not just the US. :P [/pedantic]
-
This isn't the Avatar thread but I have no idea how people could be *bored* watching Avatar.
The story never stops moving imo. It just keeps on building towards the climax.
-
This isn't the Avatar thread but I have no idea how people could be *bored* watching Avatar.
The story never stops moving imo. It just keeps on building towards the climax.
I can only speak for myself, but I just didn't find anything about the story or characters interesting. Sure, things were happening, but nothing resonated with me or drew me in at all. Combine that with not caring about CGI spectacle (sure, as far as CGI goes, it was very good CGI, and CGI can be used effectively so enhance a film, but if I don't care about the characters or story, and all I'm left with is flashy CGI, then I'm probably going to get bored pretty quickly).
-
This isn't the Avatar thread but I have no idea how people could be *bored* watching Avatar.
The story never stops moving imo. It just keeps on building towards the climax.
Predictable as hell story, one-dimensional characters, standard action scenes, and I personally was not really all that impressed by the CGI. I'm not saying the CGI was bad in any way it just never wowed me. It was safe eye candy.
-
For me it's a combination of the story being the exact same story of Pocahontas or Dances With Wolves. Now, a story that has been done before CAN work if you like the characters. But I didn't. Sam Worthington is IMO a really bland actor who is serviceable as a smaller role at best, but definitely not engaging enough to be the big star. Michelle Rodriguez plays the same character she does in every movie. The plot itself was predictable, and because the main character and the main conflict was so uninteresting, the movie suffered. Visually it had some great stuff, but to me the humans were portrayed too much like stereotypical bad guys and the Na'vi were portrayed too much as the victims that it wasn't a very interesting conflict.
-
Damn, that rotten, decayed, putrid horse carcass is still being beaten to shit, huh? LET NESSY REST IN PEACE YOU HEARTLESS BASTARDS!!
-
Damn, that rotten, decayed, putrid horse carcass is still being beaten to shit, huh? LET NESSY REST IN PEACE YOU HEARTLESS BASTARDS!!
:metal
-
China 11/5/99 $4,100,273
The Phantom Menace.
China - 5/20/05 - - $9,128,645
Revenge Of The Sith
China 7/12/02 - - $5,488,408
Attack Of The Clones.
So yeah - banking on China for big big money may not work out.
-
I agree. The fact that it hadn't opened yet in China was just an interesting tidbit. China was never going to put it over the top.
Unless things have changed more in China than previously thought.
-
I also read that China are very ban-happy with films and if they don't like the merest hint that Poe may be gay - they might refuse to show the film.
But that same article also said it might cost Disney "Hundreds of Millions" if China refuse to show it.
But judging on the figures above it's not going to be anywhere near that and they've already made back all their money for Episode 7 just on merch.
-
It's been said several times now; China has opened up as a foreign film market in a big way in the last few years. Like, less than a decade ago.
It used to be that a good run for a western film in China was 5-8 million. In the past few years, the Chinese box office has skyrocketed, often rivaling the North American Domestic market.
The prequels came out before that happened.
I think some people are over-hyping how well Star Wars will do in China, but the box office of the prequels there literally tells us nothing.
Edit: For a similar time frame;
Casino Royale made about $10 million in China in 2006.
Spectre has made more than $83 million there.
Transformers made about $37 million in China in 2007.
Transformers 4 made a bout $320 million in China (beating the NA Domestic total of $245 million).
-
Well, if it IS massive in China, things could get a lot more interesting.
I'm just not counting on it, that's all. After all, a HUGE part of the success of this film is the nostalgia factor, looking back to the older films. If the older films didn't get much viewership there, there may not be any real reason for the film to do super well there.
-
It's definitely true that it won't have the same nostalgia factor in China.
They'll have to depend more on the 'spectacle' factor, which is what has mainly driven ticket sales for western films in that market in the last few years. Only time well tell how that will go.
-
From what I've heard Star Wars isn't THAT big in China compared to let's say Japan, and overall I think the record for a film in China is 390 million (don't remember which one, but not a Star Wars film). It is definitely a wild card, but I don't see it being a HUGE surprise and getting half a billion there or something. I do believe I heard it hasn't opened in India either (not sure) but that would also be a fairly big country, so could probably earn in some bucks.
-
India is interesting in how small of a market they are compared to their population.
Now, part of that has to do with poverty, but another factor is how domestically focused their film industry is. They have a thriving film scene, with most attention given to domestic productions. Sure, foreign films get some attention, but between the domestic focus, typical incomes, and lower ticket prices, they haven't really become a major international market the way we're seeing with China.
-
I think Star Wars is one of those very rare examples where a film is so big that it will break through barriers that others wouldn't. Sure, the prequels didn't earn a lot in China, but I think TFA will do much better, and with a country like India that is mainly about their own films, I think Star Wars has that appeal that a lot of people will see it.
Still, that Avatar record is tough despite how well Star Wars has been going so far. The first 3 weeks are pretty much always the majority of what a movie is going to earn, and with SW dropping 30-40% from weekend to weekend, the amount it's earning is gonna shrink fast. Avatar was just weird because it didn't have that decrease, but rather it was going up from week to week. I hope TFA has the legs though, it's a much superior film to Avatar.
-
I think Star Wars is one of those very rare examples where a film is so big that it will break through barriers that others wouldn't. Sure, the prequels didn't earn a lot in China, but I think TFA will do much better, and with a country like India that is mainly about their own films, I think Star Wars has that appeal that a lot of people will see it.
Still, that Avatar record is tough despite how well Star Wars has been going so far. The first 3 weeks are pretty much always the majority of what a movie is going to earn, and with SW dropping 30-40% from weekend to weekend, the amount it's earning is gonna shrink fast. Avatar was just weird because it didn't have that decrease, but rather it was going up from week to week. I hope TFA has the legs though, it's a much superior film to Avatar.
It took Avatar 44 days to do what TFA did in 18.
-
Yeah but TFA is still only half way there with the 3 big money earning weeks behind it. The record is possible, but still a big challenge.
-
Yeah but TFA is still only half way there with the 3 big money earning weeks behind it. The record is possible, but still a big challenge.
I'm with you. I don't think it's going to get there, but if it does, it's going to be neck and neck. At which point I'll have no choice to attribute its victory to the fact that Avatar was banned in 1600 Chinese theaters after just 2 weeks because it was too successful.
-
Yeah but TFA is still only half way there with the 3 big money earning weeks behind it. The record is possible, but still a big challenge.
I'm with you. I don't think it's going to get there, but if it does, it's going to be neck and neck. At which point I'll have no choice to attribute its victory to the fact that Avatar was banned in 1600 Chinese theaters after just 2 weeks because it was too successful.
Or maybe the Chinese just have higher standards.
-
How much has TFA made outside of the US so far? $800M or so? Looking at recent movies in China, that demographic looks to make up about 10% of non-US revenue. That would indicate that TFA in China will likely make somewhere between $85M and $120M. That's my guess.
Looks like I won't be too far off with this guess. I honestly expected a better opening than that in China.
-
[pedantic]The "Domestic" box office isn't just the US.[/pedantic]
At which point I'll have no choice to attribute its victory to the fact that Avatar was banned in 1600 Chinese theaters after just 2 weeks because it was too successful.
One thing you're glossing over;
While they stopped screening Avatar in 2D in China after a couple weeks, they continued to screen it in 3D. I don't know why they made such an arbitrary decision, but it actually had a long, wide release theatrical run in China, and almost entirely in more expensive 3D screenings.
-
Walt Disney DIS -0.86% sent out an “It’s official!” press release Wednesday at around 4:30 p.m. PT, but in case you need hard confirmation, Wednesday’s $6.2 million gross for Star Wars: The Force Awakens has indeed pushed the Walt Disney film past the $760.5m domestic gross of James Cameron’s Avatar.J.J. Abrams’s sci-fi sequel is now the biggest grossing movie ever in America — if you don’t adjust for inflation, the 3D bump and the IMAX/PLF bumps. For the first time in 18 years, a James Cameron movie is not at the top of the charts, and for the first time in forty years, a film not helmed by James Cameron, George Lucas, or Steven Spielberg is the biggest movie ever in America. It really is the end of an era.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2016/01/07/box-office-star-wars-the-force-awakens-zooms-past-avatar-soars-to-764m-cume/
-
Noice. Next up: THE WORRRRLLLLLD!!! MUUUUUAHAHAHAHAHA.
-
$53 million in the first 2 days in China. Not bad.
Looking at the numbers as they currently stand... it's going to be pretty dang close. I feel like the international numbers are going to fall short of where Avatar landed. It may really be a matter of whether or not the extra domestic total can make up the shortfall.
If this ends up being the case, it actually isn't that surprising. In markets where there may be a potential language/cultural barrier, it makes sense that Avatar would do better, since it was more focused on visual spectacle, since that wouldn't lose as much in translation (linguistically or culturally). It also doesn't rely at all on knowledge of previous films.
It's going to be incredibly interesting to see how the next few weeks play out.
-
It won't make another $53m next weekend in China.
Maybe half that.
The daily figures worldwide are already bottoming out.
It went from almost $50m a day to not even $6m a day worldwide.
I think everyone has seen it by now AND they've all been back to see it several times.
It's only been out for a month though so we'll see. The worldwide figures Monday Week ( Jan 18 ) will be telling.
-
I'm not even that big a fan, and I'm not done seeing it yet. I don't dress up, I don't give a rats but about the extended universe, I don't defend the prequels.
...but I'm betting I'm going to go see this film at least 2 if not 3 or more times. I can't be *that* rare. Not to mention, the real fanboys are going to continue to make it a weekly experience.
-
Did a quick sum.
Assuming Force Awakens stays in cinemas for another 5 months - it would need to make $210m each month for the next 5 months to beat Avatar.
-
No chance
-
Who cares.
-
Who cares.
People who say Who Cares ?
-
Who cares.
Well I mean
that is what this thread is about
so
people in this thread?????
-
Wrong. I haven't paid one lick to the numbers. I couldn't tell you the top ten if I had a gun to my head. It means zero to me. I care more about the films.
Who cares.
Well I mean
that is what this thread is about
so
people in this thread?????
Big whoop. It's over obsessing on trivial things. Will Brian be devastated if Star Wars beats Avatar? He is the biggest fan. I'd say henough cares about the next movie.
-
:lol Then don't post in this thread...
-
Nope. I'll be here to point out how trivial it is.
-
So, you don't care at all about which film does better at the box office, so you go into a thread that is literally just about that, just to shit on people who are interested in that?
Okay then.
-
Yup. It's stupid.
-
Yup. It's stupid.
The thing you're doing right now. Yes, yes it is. :P
-
Yup. It's stupid.
The thing you're doing right now. Yes, yes it is. :P
-
Did a quick sum.
Assuming Force Awakens stays in cinemas for another 5 months - it would need to make $210m each month for the next 5 months to beat Avatar.
When all is said and done, it'll be interesting to look at various foreign markets, and see where the difference was.
-
Yup. It's stupid.
The thing you're doing right now. Yes, yes it is. :P
That's fine. It's still trivial. I care more about the movie itself then the dollars it makes. But continue to be pissed because I am not in agreement with you.
-
Re: Will the new Star Wars movie top Avatar at the box office?
That's fine. It's still trivial. I care more about the movie itself then the dollars it makes. But continue to be pissed because I am not in agreement with you.
-
Yup. It's stupid.
The thing you're doing right now. Yes, yes it is. :P
That's fine. It's still trivial. I care more about the movie itself then the dollars it makes. But continue to be pissed because I am not in agreement with you.
Who is pissed?
A bunch of us were having a fun discussion about films we like battling it out at the box office. There has been plenty of discussion about the films themselves in other threads. This is something some people enjoy talking about. There have been a few playful jabs here and there, but I think everyone here knows that it's all in good fun.
I'm not sure why you seem to be taking issue with that.
-
Why bother responding to me TL if I'm not bothering you. Seems to me you don't like my opinion on how something like how much a movie that has made an unbelievable amount seems like it's not really an important topic. It's ok.
-
Yup. It's stupid.
The thing you're doing right now. Yes, yes it is. :P
That's fine. It's still trivial. I care more about the movie itself then the dollars it makes. But continue to be pissed because I am not in agreement with you.
I don't think anyone here is pissed, just kind of baffled? Like, I just don't really understand why you would post in a thread about a topic you ostensibly don't care about, just to tell everyone how much you don't care about it. Why not just avoid threads you don't care about?
-
Why bother responding to me TL if I'm not bothering you. Seems to me you don't like my opinion on how something like how much a movie that has made an unbelievable amount seems like it's not really an important topic. It's ok.
I'm legitimately just curious about your train of thought here. It just seems like an odd thing to do.
It's absolutely fine if you don't give a single flip about box office numbers! It's just strange that you feel this compelled to make that known.
-
I posted that I think it really is trivial to care how much a movie makes. It just seems silly. That's all. I loved the Star Wars movie and thoughthe Avatar was goid5, not great but doesn't mean squat to me on the money end. That's all.
I know others smooth but it just seems on the very low end to me when it comes to movies.
-
Cool.
I just feel like it's as if I went into the Game of Thrones thread specifically to post about how I don't care about Game of Thrones.
That said, you're absolutely entitled to your opinion. Keep on shining on. :lol
-
:lol
It's all good. I get its important to some. There are so many other things about films that's important to me.
And I think like Kotowboy it won't reach Avatar but no big whoop. I'm interested in their next films.
-
You must've been really pissed off about this king - your spelling was spot on for a couple of posts there . When things got a bit more relaxed though you relapsed :lol
-
You must've been really pissed off about this king - your spelling was spot on for a couple of posts there . When things got a bit more relaxed though you relapsed :lol
It does focus me. :lol
-
Let the hate flow through you!
-
King, not sure why you felt a need to shit all over the thread. Easier just to ignore it, surely?
-
Studies show that holding in shits is unhealthy and can lead to further health issues.
-
I don't think a single person here cares more about the numbers than the movie. That's just silly to imply.
-
I don't think a single person here cares more about the numbers than the movie. That's just silly to imply.
No. I mean - ultimately I don't care either way it's just fun to watch.
-
It's a thing. It's happening. There have been far more inane discussions persisting for far longer on this beautiful insane asylum of a site. I'd say that it's relatively normal and something to care about. It'll certainly affect how future movies are released and how their budget will be determined. I mean it's important as far as the grand scheme of all things Hollywood is concerned.
-
As I said - I worked out it needs to stay in cinemas for the next 5 months and earn $200m each month to beat Avatar and I don't see that happening at all.
It earned less than $100m this weekend even with China's money.
-
I don't think a single person here cares more about the numbers than the movie. That's just silly to imply.
Yup, but as I mentioned, it would be nice if the top money making movies were "the best" which is obviously just an opinion, but I think it would set a good stnadard for the industry. Make a good movie and you will be rewarded.
Avatar may not have been the best movie, but it sure was one hell of an experience to see and deserves to be up there.
TFA is a really well done movie, its based off previoius well done movies. It deserves to be up there
Jurassic World... um not bad, but really don't see why this is there. I want it gone.
And also the discussion on world #'s is cool, learn a bit about the movie business in other places than my home. The whole China discussion is interesting.
-
I wonder how much general movie fatigue factors into how much movies make, if any at all, or if it even exists.
I'm referring to how big Hollywood movies seem to be coming out more and more now, possibly causing the general population to be a bit tired of watching them.
-
Avatar - great visual spectacle. Predictable story. But didn't bother me.
Star Wars 7 - great visual spectacle - rehashed structure and plot. But didn't bother me.
-
I wonder how much general movie fatigue factors into how much movies make, if any at all, or if it even exists.
I'm referring to how big Hollywood movies seem to be coming out more and more now, possibly causing the general population to be a bit tired of watching them.
I'm shocked MARVEL movies *still* bring in the big bucks. Aren't people just sick to death of superheroes yet ?
-
I think TFA is going to just barely squeak by Titanic for the number 2 spot, but I think it's pretty safe to say it won't be coming anywhere near Avatar.
-
TFA definitely has a good shot at dethroning Avatar, but it's still a huge task. It's a bit of a shame that such a mediocre movie sits at the throne, but what Avatar had that Star Wars doesn't have is the whole spectacle angle and in pretentious words "it's more like an experience than just a film", which in contrast TFA doesn't have. Then again, Star Wars comes with pre-existing fandom and has other perks.
TFA is gonna continue to drop, but there's still not a lot of big movies coming anytime soon. Kung Fu Panda 3 is the first movie that will dethrone Star Wars as nr1 for a weekend, and that one is still 2 ½ weeks away. Even with that one out, there's not gonna be a lot of big non-animated films out, with a few like Deadpool in February and then Batman v Superman in March coming up. I still think there's plenty of people who have waited with TFA until the initial craze wears off, and there's also people like myself who will most likely go a 4th or 5th time.
2.7 billion is a tall order but it's not over until it's over.
-
$200m a month for the next 5 months isn't just a big ask - it's pretty impossible i'd say.
-
I mean it exploded with a 53 million dollar opening in China (think it was even a record?) and made another 41 million from the domestic numbers, so almost 100 in TWO countries in one weekend, not counting the rest of the world. I think the number will definitely go below 200 million dollars per month at some point, but not until February or March. We're only roughly a week into January and it has already made what, more than half of what it needs to make for the whole month?
Worth mentioning it opened in China on Saturday so no Friday in the calculation.
-
I think those numbers show that China won't push TFA over Avatar though. Even if they do end up being records for China. TFA needs a new edit version to hit the theaters or something.
-
I think Avatar only made around 200 million dollars in China so TFA could definitely beat that. 53 million in 2 days with the premiere on Saturday is really good numbers. Sure, it will decline, but still a really good start and probably better than they had hoped for.
-
Everyone was expecting China to bring in $500m :lol
" Star Wars will never beat Avatar "
" Just Wait til it opens in China "
It's not going to make $1.5bn in China is it...:lol "
-
I think it all comes down to legs which is something you can't predict. Again, Avatar didn't make more than 200 million in China, but it made good bank pretty much everywhere hence why it ended so high. It's almost baffling to me how so many people completely disregard every country that isn't America or China like if those two are the only ones that bring in money. Avatar made 2 billion of its money from other countries than America. 200 million of those, so about 1/10th of those 2 billion was from China. The rest was spread over all the other countries.
-
I think it all comes down to legs which is something you can't predict. Again, Avatar didn't make more than 200 million in China, but it made good bank pretty much everywhere hence why it ended so high. It's almost baffling to me how so many people completely disregard every country that isn't America or China like if those two are the only ones that bring in money. Avatar made 2 billion of its money from other countries than America. 200 million of those, so about 1/10th of those 2 billion was from China. The rest was spread over all the other countries.
I said this a few pages back;
"How much has TFA made outside of the US so far? $800M or so? Looking at recent movies in China, that demographic looks to make up about 10% of non-US revenue. That would indicate that TFA in China will likely make somewhere between $85M and $120M. That's my guess. "
-
Noice! Chinotistics. Your number one go-to movie revenue prediction service.
-
None of these movies have sold nearly the number of tickets that older movies like Gone With the Wind have sold. Inflation-adjusted, that one is over 2 Billion domestically.
-
None of these movies have sold nearly the number of tickets that older movies like Gone With the Wind have sold. Inflation-adjusted, that one is over 2 Billion domestically.
But there wasn't so many mediums like there is today. For most, the movies was their TV.
-
None of these movies have sold nearly the number of tickets that older movies like Gone With the Wind have sold. Inflation-adjusted, that one is over 2 Billion domestically.
Gone with the Wind was released like nine times, each time being at least six months. It was released in a period when most people didn't even have a radio. Can't really compare anything released today to that movie. Completely different time.
-
None of these movies have sold nearly the number of tickets that older movies like Gone With the Wind have sold. Inflation-adjusted, that one is over 2 Billion domestically.
Gone with the Wind was released like nine times, each time being at least six months. It was released in a period when most people didn't even have a radio. Can't really compare anything released today to that movie. Completely different time.
Indeed! Remember, back in the day there was a much bigger spread on the movies and much less competition. Nowadays you have several films opening each weekend, and not just that, you know a leak or home video release is coming in just a few months, but back in the day you pretty much had to see it at the cinema because home video wasn't a thing.
-
Aren't people just sick to death of superheroes yet ?
no
-
I sure as hell am. Last one I watched was TDK, which put me off for the rest of my life.
-
None of these movies have sold nearly the number of tickets that older movies like Gone With the Wind have sold. Inflation-adjusted, that one is over 2 Billion domestically.
Gone with the Wind was released like nine times, each time being at least six months. It was released in a period when most people didn't even have a radio. Can't really compare anything released today to that movie. Completely different time.
Indeed! Remember, back in the day there was a much bigger spread on the movies and much less competition. Nowadays you have several films opening each weekend, and not just that, you know a leak or home video release is coming in just a few months, but back in the day you pretty much had to see it at the cinema because home video wasn't a thing.
Movies today have to compete against all forms of entertainment. One of the main reasons I've only seen 4 movies (two of those were The Interview) in the last two years is because I find it hard to see the value in it. By the time you factor in gas, it costs my girlfriend at least $25 to go see a movie (I'm aware day time showings are cheaper). I can get three months worth of endless streaming from Netflix for that price. Also, there needs to be some advantage to seeing it in the theater that I can't get at home. That's hard to doing seeing as I have a 60" 3D screen and a sound system that would probably cause my house to fail structurally if I turned it up loud enough.
I have almost no reason to ever go to a theater these days. It's just not worth it, to me. I was excited as hell for Jurassic World. I actually had bought tickets to opening night Imax and had to bail. I ended up just waiting to see it at home. Realistically, the only film on my movie theater radar is ID4-Resurgence, and that's only so I can discuss it on the internet.
-
Also, there needs to be some advantage to seeing it in the theater that I can't get at home.
The advantage is seeing it at all, since if it's showing in the theater, it's not showing at your home. :lol
-
Also, there needs to be some advantage to seeing it in the theater that I can't get at home.
The advantage is seeing it at all, since if it's showing in the theater, it's not showing at your home. :lol
That's a timing point, which I think is what Chino was getting at. I'm the same, I hardly ever go to the cinema.
-
Also, there needs to be some advantage to seeing it in the theater that I can't get at home.
The advantage is seeing it at all, since if it's showing in the theater, it's not showing at your home. :lol
But it will be in two months under another service I already pay for, and if not, I can rent it for $4. I can watch it in my boxers and use a pause button if needed.
-
Also, there needs to be some advantage to seeing it in the theater that I can't get at home.
The advantage is seeing it at all, since if it's showing in the theater, it's not showing at your home. :lol
But it will be in two months under another service I already pay for, and if not, I can rent it for $4. I can watch it in my boxers and use a pause button if needed.
I guess that's all good and well if you don't mind waiting that long. If I really want to see something, I don't want to wait for it and be behind on the discussion and excitement.
-
The cinema is the whole experience.
Watching a dvd at home doesn't come close.
-
The cinema is the whole experience.
Watching a dvd at home doesn't come close.
Depends on what you're watching. Why they hell would anyone spend $10 a ticket to go see The Butler in the movie theater? What can a theater possibly do for that movie that my setup at home couldn't?
-
The cinema is the whole experience.
Watching a dvd at home doesn't come close.
Maybe for you, but my 60 inch TV and surround sound would say that it is a pleasurable experience in the comfort of my own home and couch, and much cheaper food.
Only benefit is getting to see the movie while it is "hot" and being talked about. Such as TFA, it was hard to wait the week to see it since everyone was talking about it and you didn't want to get spoiled.
-
Only benefit is getting to see the movie while it is "hot" and being talked about. Such as TFA, it was hard to wait the week to see it since everyone was talking about it and you didn't want to get spoiled.
Good luck to anyone trying to last until TFA gets released for home viewing without having it spoiled for them beforehand. :lol
-
The cinema is the whole experience.
Watching a dvd at home doesn't come close.
Maybe for you, but my 60 inch TV and surround sound would say that it is a pleasurable experience in the comfort of my own home and couch, and much cheaper food.
This. So much this. Last time I went to a movie (saw The Martian), there was a sea of little fucks throughout the theater snapchatting with that new forward flash feature on iPhones. Annoying as hell. I'd say my living room set up is infinitely more comfortable and provides an equally good experience.
-
I wonder how much general movie fatigue factors into how much movies make, if any at all, or if it even exists.
I'm referring to how big Hollywood movies seem to be coming out more and more now, possibly causing the general population to be a bit tired of watching them.
I'm shocked MARVEL movies *still* bring in the big bucks. Aren't people just sick to death of superheroes yet ?
No, because Marvel continues to produce well-written, well-directed films with legit actors giving believable performances, that HAPPEN to be super hero films.
-
I wonder how much general movie fatigue factors into how much movies make, if any at all, or if it even exists.
I'm referring to how big Hollywood movies seem to be coming out more and more now, possibly causing the general population to be a bit tired of watching them.
I'm shocked MARVEL movies *still* bring in the big bucks. Aren't people just sick to death of superheroes yet ?
No, because Marvel continues to produce well-written, well-directed films with legit actors giving believable performances, that HAPPEN to be super hero films.
Maybe so, but I am also sick of super hero films.
-
Maybe so, but I am also sick of super hero films.
-
The cinema is the whole experience.
Watching a dvd at home doesn't come close.
Depends on what you're watching. Why they hell would anyone spend $10 a ticket to go see The Butler in the movie theater? What can a theater possibly do for that movie that my setup at home couldn't?
Exactly - which is why I mainly go and see sci fi / action in the cinema.
And it supports my argument that Into Darkness may be a very flawed movie - but on the big screen it's immensely entertaining.
-
This. So much this. Last time I went to a movie (saw The Martian), there was a sea of little fucks throughout the theater snapchatting with that new forward flash feature on iPhones. Annoying as hell. I'd say my living room set up is infinitely more comfortable and provides an equally good experience.
This is the worst thing about going to the cinema.
-
This. So much this. Last time I went to a movie (saw The Martian), there was a sea of little fucks throughout the theater snapchatting with that new forward flash feature on iPhones. Annoying as hell. I'd say my living room set up is infinitely more comfortable and provides an equally good experience.
This is the worst thing about going to the cinema.
Im actually surprised that the last couple movies I did go to, this was not a problem.
-
Yeah Cinema is a gamble these days.
-
This. So much this. Last time I went to a movie (saw The Martian), there was a sea of little fucks throughout the theater snapchatting with that new forward flash feature on iPhones. Annoying as hell. I'd say my living room set up is infinitely more comfortable and provides an equally good experience.
This is the worst thing about going to the cinema.
Im actually surprised that the last couple movies I did go to, this was not a problem.
I've never had that problem. There are never that many people at the movies when I am, and they always sit right at the back. Star Wars on opening night was the biggest crowd of any movie I've seen, and that was maybe 30-50 people spread across the entire theatre? Can't remember a single incident of annoyance from any movie I've been to, it's just crowd laughter etc.
-
I have very rarely had it be an issue either. I find that most people are generally well behaved enough to not ruin most others' experiences in the vast majority of theaters.
-
In fact, I've only had such a thing be a big problem once.
-
It's been a problem a couple times before for me, not so much the phone, but teenagers chit chatting near me. And to be honest, I know I've been that pain in the ass before when I was young and going to the theater with my friends.
-
To me the cinema experience is still so superior that even at the 15-18 dollar ticket prize, plus parking, plus dinner, plus snacks at the cinema (basically a whole evening) I still go to every movie I want to see, which is usually at least once a month. I factor out some films depending on various factors, but if I'm excited about a film I will see it at the cinema. To me the big screen and the sound is so superior to anything I could get going at home that it's a no brainer. The only competition would be if I could afford to build my own ranch like George Lucas and have an actual cinema in my basement that was a copy of a real cinema with the same specs, maybe then I would watch more at home, but a film home on the computer or TV just isn't the same. It's great in a lot of ways, but not as epic as a cinema experience.
Depends on your own thoughts on what's worth it or not though. To me, there's not a lot of other things I would consider a better way of spending money (movies rank the highest for me after music) so I will spend money on it, just like I will travel 50 miles by car to a concert.
-
The two times I went to see Force Awakens there were issues.
But this was my local little cinema and theatre. I think if I went to the big multiplex in the city - it would not be so much of a problem as prices are higher.
-
I've gone to the cinema for over 15 years and only experienced ONE technical issue where the fire alarm went off for some reason, and everybody had to go out. There was maybe 20 minutes left off the film I was watching (Tropic Thunder) and everyone got a free ticket to see a movie of their choice at another time. Hard to give the cinema shit about that, it's the kind of thing that can happen anywhere, and with the free ticket I got, I was OK with it, but had it been a movie I was more hyped about, it would have sucked more.
I've also been rather fortunate with other moviegoers. A few loud talkers that have been silenced but no major drama situations that have derailed the experience. I do tend to stay to certain type of movies though. For example I saw the remake of Evil Dead in the cinema, and I thought to myself afterwards "Never see a horror film at the cinema again". Because there were annoying teenage girls who were screaming and shouting to the smallest things, and I would be really annoyed if I had to endure that all the time. But also, I think horror films in general work better if you see them at home, either alone or with just 1 or 2 other people, not in a packed theater with 300 other people. You want that claustrophobic alone-feeling, because it adds to it. So missing out on teenage girls gasping and screaming is not a big harm.
-
I had one issue where a film stopped playing, everyone walked out of the theater and was given a free ticket to a movie of their choice, but if you were patient and waited the 10 minutes then the movie was working again so we got to finish it and got a free ticket for another movie. Couldn't complain. That's how you should take care of your customers when things go wrong, and things do go wrong sometimes that is life.
-
The tenth time I saw Avatar in theaters, I saw it at an old mom and pop screen in town. Sound cut out for a good minute about an hour in. Everything was okay though, I was able to fill in until it came back on.
-
I'd never go see a film that many times.
Most i've seen a movie is 4 times.
( Star Trek, Into Darkness, Prometheus ).
-
The most times I've seen a movie is once.
In the case of Into Darkness, that was already one too many times. :biggrin:
-
The most times I've seen a movie is once.
In the case of Into Darkness, that was already one too many times. :biggrin:
:deadhorse:
-
As long as you keep setting 'em up, I'll keep hitting them. :hat
-
But it is BEYOND boring !
-
I've seen several movies multiple times in theaters, but the only one I've seen multiple times in theaters in the last 20 years or so was Guardians of the Galaxy, and only then because my daughter was working at the theater at the time so I got in for free :lol
-
I've seen several movies multiple times in theaters, but the only one I've seen multiple times in theaters in the last 20 years or so was Guardians of the Galaxy, and only then because my daughter was working at the theater at the time so I got in for free :lol
Titanic: 4 times (including 100 year anniversary release in 3D)
The Interview: 2 times
Transformers: 3 times
Hugo: 2 times
Avatar: 10 times
That might be it for return visits.
-
I've seen several movies multiple times in theaters, but the only one I've seen multiple times in theaters in the last 20 years or so was Guardians of the Galaxy, and only then because my daughter was working at the theater at the time so I got in for free :lol
Episode 7 was the first time in 2 decades I went to see a movie twice in the theaters. Though one was I-MAX 3D and the other was 2D in a D-Box seat.
-
I saw all three OT Star Wars films multiple times (at least 2-3 times each).
I saw Ghostbusters 4 or 5 times (including a sneak preview the week before its release date - won in a radio contest :metal).
I saw the Michael Keaton Batman 3 or 4 times.
I'm sure there were others, but they escape me for now.
-
I've seen a couple of films twice (Inception, Mad Max: Fury Road, Kingsman: The Secret Service in recent memory) but The Force Awakens is the first movie I've seen 3 times. I will definitely see it a fourth time, but I'm seeing The Hateful Eight on Saturday and then Revenant in 2 weeks, plus as it stands now, my current job contract ends at the end of January, so I will have more time after that, and will try to catch TFA. Plus, I wanted some time to pass, so it feels more fresh again.
-
I saw Avatar 5 times, and The Force Awakens 5 times too. Those two are the ones I've seen the most.
-
I saw The Last Airbender twice in theaters.
:justshootme:
-
I saw The Last Airbender twice in theaters.
:justshootme:
WTF
-
THATS THE WRONG AVATAR
-
First time at midnight, despite it already having a 0% on RT from the night before. I was pretty active in the fandom nd communiry back then so it was something I just had to do. Then I had promised friends that I'd go see it with them another time so...rip me.
-
I actually like going to the cinema to watch terrible films. My bro and I used to do it. Then we can make fun of it afterwards.
We went to see Total Recall 2012 ( forgettable ) and Die Hard 5 ( awful ).
But then we went to see Robocop 2014 and we both liked it.
-
TLA sadly wasn't entertaining though. Not in the way some bad movies are. Sure, it had its moments of hilarity, but all I was getting was prequel flashbacks, but worse.
-
The last movie I saw more than once in theaters was Skyfall, twice. I saw Casino Royale three times.
I also saw Superbad a bunch of times in theaters, mostly because different groups of people I was with kept deciding to go see it (and I liked it well enough to go along).
-
I think TFA is going to just barely squeak by Titanic for the number 2 spot, but I think it's pretty safe to say it won't be coming anywhere near Avatar.
Mind you, Titanic in its original run made $1.8 billion (which is legitimately impressive, especially considering the time and other factors).
Its current total includes more than $300 million from its re-release a few years ago. Which is also impressive; just noting that $2.1 billion wasn't its original run.
I will say, I really expected Star Wars to keep a bit more momentum week-to-week than it has domestically. Some of the foreign returns are also a bit surprising.
I also officially don't understand China's taste in foreign movies. Not even commenting on Avatar; more that Furious 7 made almost $400 million there. Avatar doing well there makes a lot more sense to me than something like that.
That said, my realistic expectation for China was about $200-$300 million, which is still on the table. It's more that there are a lot of other countries where the numbers are a lot lower than I would have expected.
All in all, barring something unexpected, or another big foreign market opening that I'm not aware of, it looks like Avatar will keep the worldwide record. I'm expecting TFA to rack up about 2.2 billion worldwide, which is still a bit of money.
It will be interesting to do a sort of post-game analysis eventually.
-
Another thing I'm wondering about;
While it definitely isn't the make or break, I do wonder how Canada's dollar being in the toilet is effecting the domestic box office.
In terms of ticket sales, Canada is about 10% of the "Domestic" box office. Our dollar has dropped about 30% against the US dollar in a relatively short span of time, while movie tickets haven't really adjusted to that (thankfully). Basically, our former Prime Minister bet everything on oil, and then the world decided to tank oil prices to mess with Russia after the whole Ukraine thing.
It's probably not going to effect TFA's worldwide box office ranking, but it is probably a shortfall of about $24-$25 million US so far.
Edit: When it gets to the point of bringing up changing currency values over time though, I feel like that's a rabbit hole too crazy for even me to venture down. :lol
-
I read online that Disney have already made back the $4bn they paid for Lucasfilm JUST in Merchandise for The Force Awakens.
If that's an exaggeration - they've AT LEAST made half of it back surely.
-
I read online that Disney have already made back the $4bn they paid for Lucasfilm JUST in Merchandise for The Force Awakens.
If that's an exaggeration - they've AT LEAST made half of it back surely.
I can see it, I doubt its much of an exaggeration. Anyone who thought that price tag was too big was crazy. Star Wars has that much appeal in so many areas other than being a movie or movies.
-
Yeah If I owned the Star Wars name and someone came along and said " Hey, we wanna make six more Star Wars movies. We wanna buy the rights.
Now, you will no longer have any part of it going forward but we will pay you four billion pounds. "
I'd be all :lol " DEAL ".
-
Yeah If I owned the Star Wars name and someone came along and said " Hey, we wanna make six more Star Wars movies. We wanna buy the rights.
Now, you will no longer have any part of it going forward but we will pay you four billion pounds. "
I'd be all :lol " DEAL ".
Well especially if you are old and at an age of retirement. Hell yea!
-
I wonder if he gets any royalties at all from now on ?
He came up with universe and the characters. You can't buy that.
I expect he gets something from the previous six films. Just not as much as before.
If they outright bought him out then yeah $4bn is pretty cheap.
-
God I wish I'd never posted in this thread so it would just go away from my feed.
-
And yet here you are.
Did you catch something from king ?
-
I am genuinely, honestly interested in why this pisses people off so much. :lol It's nuts! I mean, it's certainly not the most interesting of subjects, but I'd say this thread is leagues better than the random threads we have popping up now and again that are either to bash bands/movies/games or 'list the worst bands/singers/instrumentals/movies/games' bullshit. Those, in my eyes, truly have little to no merit and even still are valid simply because 'discussionyay'. This actually does have a purpose. It's going to affect future movies, it's going to affect the release of said movies, and it's going to affect the budget of those movies. Granted, by this point it's said and done; we'll be getting the best of the best no matter what. But there is still a point to it and I find it at least something to monitor and see either 'oh wow that didn't go as planned' or 'holy crap it broke another record'. No harm, no foul.
I'm pretty sure no one here is just looking for one movie to just shit on the other and/or are bashing one or the other so...I really struggle to see how this can illicit so much vitriol. Whatevs, bros. To each their own but...damn, have a snickers!
-
Agreed, I have way more meaningless/uninteresting threads popping up in my feed than this one.
-
An interesting side note, I was actually one of few who voted No in the poll, but has kinda gotten more optimistic after seeing the numbers, whereas a lot of other people seemed very sure it would beat Avatar easily in 2-3 weeks already, yet those people are starting to turn now. :P
-
I think everyone could have predicted it's rapid ascent and it will cross $2bn .
After that it'll slow way down.
-
An interesting side note, I was actually one of few who voted No in the poll, but has kinda gotten more optimistic after seeing the numbers, whereas a lot of other people seemed very sure it would beat Avatar easily in 2-3 weeks already, yet those people are starting to turn now. :P
I actually did not vote at all. I would have been shocked if it did not beat Avatar in the U.S. But I have no idea what other markets have been doing and honestly couldn't even make an educated guess.
-
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=starwars7.htm
-
An interesting side note, I was actually one of few who voted No in the poll, but has kinda gotten more optimistic after seeing the numbers, whereas a lot of other people seemed very sure it would beat Avatar easily in 2-3 weeks already, yet those people are starting to turn now. :P
I'm one of 3 (and fairly sure I was the only one at the time) who voted that it would be #1 domestic but not #1 worldwide. Looking more and more likely that will turn out to be true :tup
Some people are interested in box office records and statistics and stuff. Avatar's record is so far ahead that since it was set there hasn't been a single film that ever seemed like it was coming close to it. Star Wars was pretty much the first film to come along that was widely expected to have a chance, so naturally there was some discussion and predictions about whether it would or would not... That's why there's a separate thread about it here, completely separate from the main The Force Awakens thread. It'd be one thing to complain if people were filling that thread with box office numbers while people are trying to discuss the content of the film, but coming to the thread specifically set aside for the numbers discussion to complain that people are discussing it seems pointless.
-
SO...
The Force Awakens only made $25m worldwide this weekend. I think that wraps it up. Everyone and their dog has seen it 5 times already.
It still has to make over 900m to beat Avatar and even at $25m a week - that's another 10 months.
Not gonna happen.
So far - China has bought in $65m in total.
-
Doesn't Avatar's numbers include a re-release? I feel like that should be adjusted. Either that, or TFA should get some sortof re-release as well.
I'd be curious as to what Avatar's numbers were *just on the initial run*....
-
SO...
The Force Awakens only made $25m worldwide this weekend. I think that wraps it up. Everyone and their dog has seen it 5 times already.
It still has to make over 900m to beat Avatar and even at $25m a week - that's another 10 months.
Not gonna happen.
So far - China has bought in $65m in total.
Yup looks like it's sealed. My prediction of #1 in North American box office but not #1 Worldwide feels secure now :)
As for re-releases, box office numbers (for example on Box Office Mojo) do include re-releaes and you can usually look at the breakdown of where the numbers came from. For Avatar the only other release I see for it is a "special edition" in 2010, which took $10m domestically compared to the $760m of the original run (I don't see international numbers but I imagine it'd be pretty similar). Personally I don't remember any major re-release of Avatar, though no doubt Chino could fill us in on exactly how many times it has been re-released.
In any case, right now Star Wars TFA is about $900m behind it, and taking out any numbers from later release wouldn't come close to changing that. If Star Wars does get another re-release that makes major money (which personally I find quite unlikely considering Disney's current plan of saturating the market with a stream of Star Wars and Star Wars related films) then it could end up the official highest grossing film. But I think Kotow is right and it's chances of being the highest grossing excluding re-releases are finished. Perhaps it could still pass Titanic for #2 though - particularly in "original run only" gross, as Titanic did make quite a lot on a re-release a few years ago I think...
-
Doesn't Avatar's numbers include a re-release? I feel like that should be adjusted. Either that, or TFA should get some sortof re-release as well.
I'd be curious as to what Avatar's numbers were *just on the initial run*....
Avatar made an additional $33m on the re-release. Not huge numbers.
-
Doesn't Avatar's numbers include a re-release? I feel like that should be adjusted. Either that, or TFA should get some sortof re-release as well.
I'd be curious as to what Avatar's numbers were *just on the initial run*....
Avatar made an additional $33m on the re-release. Not huge numbers.
this just really re-affirms what a huge deal AVATAR was at the time. I mean, TFA has been ON FIRE and it's still a hair under a billion short.
-
Yeah it's pretty insane how amazingly high Avatar's numbers got.
I'd also like to remind people of how awesomely powerful and all encompassing their media blitz for Avatar was. Now, everyone and their grandmother has heard or seen something of TFA, but that's about it. There's nothing really more than "IT'S HERE! IT'S EVERYWHERE". Avatar had that plus about a billion other things going for the publicity, the numerous media outlets publishing dozens of articles not only about the technology but about Cameron, the movie, the possible sequels, etc. Star Wars has the already established series going for it, but that's a bit of a double edged sword as well; people know what it is, they're aware of what's coming and more or less know the gist by now. There wasn't going to be any massively controversial or left-field surprises here. With Avatar you had (have) the intrigue of a new series, new possibilities, new technologies, new blue people, new plants to smoke, new planets, everything was fresh and exciting and no one had any idea of what to expect except that it was going to to blow the fuckin' lid off of everything awesome.
Remembering on it and realizing how much they capitalized on that in their marketing...man...they killed it. Over and over again. Star Wars was nothing more than a blitz and a tugging on our nostalgia, that really is it. There was nothing remarkable or special about their marketing other than 'it's everywhere', and that gets old pretty quick and then simply becomes a topic of 'yeah, you can't go anywhere without seeing it' instead of actually promoting discussion of 'Oh, did you hear about this new thing today?' like it was with Avatar. Like I said, on one hand...Star Wars didn't need to do that, but Avatar probably gained a lot of newcomers that Star Wars didn't because of that.
Yeah, pretty much over by now. Still, great stuff over the last few weeks.
NOW OMG PPLZ STOP TALKING ABOUT THIS YOU ALL SUCK MONEY SUCKS WHY ARE THESE MOVIES MAKING MONEY AND YOU PPLZ ARE TALKING OF THESE HAPPENINGS WHYYYYYYYYY!?!? :metal :yarr /coffeehigh
-
I reckon Avatar 2 will break records.
Such as the record for the highest drop off for a sequel. :P
-
Even though Star Wars has a ton of fans, there's always gonna be those people who don't watch a new SW-movie because their opinion is "Eww Star Wars". With Avatar, they managed to catch just about everyone's curiosity, because it was a brand new thing. I don't think Avatar 2 is gonna make more than 1.5 billion at most (probably closer to 1 billion) mainly because people have now seen it, and opinions were mixed. But that initial curiosity and getting even the skeptics to see it once was a big key to the success.
-
Even though Star Wars has a ton of fans, there's always gonna be those people who don't watch a new SW-movie because their opinion is "Eww Star Wars". With Avatar, they managed to catch just about everyone's curiosity, because it was a brand new thing. I don't think Avatar 2 is gonna make more than 1.5 billion at most (probably closer to 1 billion) mainly because people have now seen it, and opinions were mixed. But that initial curiosity and getting even the skeptics to see it once was a big key to the success.
Do you think so? I dunno, my instinct says that TFA probably actually reached a wider audience than Avatar, but Avatar somehow did better at getting people like Chino to go and see it 10+ times.
-
I reckon Avatar 2 will break records.
Such as the record for the highest drop off for a sequel. :P
I'm actually not interested in the sequels but i'll go see them anyway since I love the first one.
-
I wouldn't be surprised if the Avatar sequels collectively made less than the first film.
-
That's still around $1bn each. :p
-
I wouldn't be surprised if the Avatar sequels collectively made less than the first film.
I can see you being right. The 'hype' isn't the same...the technology really hasn't made leaps and bounds, it's been refined but the allure isn't there. I'll go see them but I imagine only once each.
-
I wouldn't be surprised if the Avatar sequels collectively made less than the first film.
I can see you being right. The 'hype' isn't the same...the technology really hasn't made leaps and bounds, it's been refined but the allure isn't there. I'll go see them but I imagine only once each.
This isn't entirely accurate. There have been three fairly large breakthroughs with the technology since the first movie.
1) The original system's processing power limited the cameras to only being able to track about 25 characters at a time before it'd crash. This has been greatly improved on and I've read that upwards of 100 people can be filmed and tracked simultaneously now. That breakthrough really only effects the time spent in post processing, not so much the viewer's experience.
2) Cameron figured out how to use his motion capturing underwater which will hopefully give us some pretty awesome ocean sequences.
3) Cameron has said the sequels will play at a minimum of 45fps, and he's hoping to get 60fps. That will make the movie all the more pretty.
As for the 'hype', it's not the same for the general population, but Avatards and myself are patiently shitting our pants in excitement for the followups. Now that we've been introduced to the Na'vi and their world, Cameron doesn't have to waste any time on back stories or arch development. The trilogy can start from frame one at full throttle. There's a chance he nails it and gives the world Avatar fever again. I'm going to try my best to not see any previews for the sequels. I knew absolutely nothing about the first movie before seeing it. I didn't even know the people were blue. I had read articles over the years prior talking about the new technology Cameron was using, and that alone was enough for me to want to see it. I never expected to get sucked into it like I did.
-
Pretty sure gmillerdrake was referring to the 3D technology that actually affects the viewing experience, so points 1 and 2 don't matter. And they're not leaps and bounds anyway, those are standard evolutions of technology, just as any movie benefits from as time progresses. It may take more time and money, but the end result is the same regardless of how they get there. I could name bigger technological leaps for movies throughout history that you wouldn't have heard of, because it's just a part of improving film making, not something the average viewer cares about or notices.
Concerning 3, the Hobbit films were all shot in 48fps, and people reacted very negatively to it. It's not a new thing, and probably not a positive selling point. People have a mental association with the 24fps look as being more film-like.
-
Concerning 3, the Hobbit films were all shot in 48fps, and people reacted very negatively to it. It's not a new thing, and probably not a positive selling point. People have a mental association with the 24fps look as being more film-like.
From what I understand, that was only with the 3D versions of the film. The 2D 48fps looked stunning and was well received. Cameron has said he's figured out how to make 48fps work with 3D. Also, a big complaint about the hobbit was that it made everything look fake and not believable. Cameron would never allow something like that on the big screen. I'm confident he'll do it just fine.
-
Cameron would never allow something like that on the big screen.
Errrrr I'm just going to leave that one alone......
48fps is 48fps. There's no difference in the native exposure time between the 2D and 3D versions, since they're derived from the same element, the only difference at all is one is mono and one is stereo. If people reacted badly to the 3D version, it's because of the 3D aspect, not directly the framerate. I also didn't hear that the 2D 48fps version was any better received.
James Cameron doesn't have any magical control over how people react to subconscious mental association. Maybe the fact that Avatar already looked fake and unbelievable will help, but people just appear to not like higher frame rates for movies.
-
Cameron would never allow something like that on the big screen.
Errrrr I'm just going to leave that one alone......
48fps is 48fps. There's no difference in the native exposure time between the 2D and 3D versions, since they're derived from the same element, the only difference at all is one is mono and one is stereo. If people reacted badly to the 3D version, it's because of the 3D aspect, not directly the framerate. I also didn't hear that the 2D 48fps version was any better received.
James Cameron doesn't have any magical control over how people react to subconscious mental association. Maybe the fact that Avatar already looked fake and unbelievable will help, but people just appear to not like higher frame rates for movies.
I'm not baiting, I'm actually curious. Why do people prefer higher FRs on video games then? I've read a lot about VR over the last few years, and the getting a high frame rate seems to be the toughest obstacle. Why do people like watching video games at 60fps and movies at 24fps?
-
That's not baiting at all, that's a great question.
As I said, it's a matter of mental association, and there's absolutely no technical reason to favour a lower framerate. VR and videogames don't have that same association in our minds because they're in an entirely different context where the higher framerate also has a direct positive impact, so the higher framerate is always desirable.
One major reason is obviously interactivity. In video games, higher framerates mean better responsiveness while playing, which makes a difference to how well the game plays, so people have favoured high frame rates in games long before games got to the point that the visuals themselves were up to that level of quality.
Another reason is context. As I said, people have a mental association with 24fps looking like a big movie and looking "better", whether they actually understand the why/how of it or not. But regular gameplay is not usually comparable to a movie, so people don't judge it as such. Therefore simply faster is better. Cutscenes are different of course, but modern cutscenes often do simulate a movie in that regard.
There's also motion blur. Traditionally, video games didn't employ motion blur, so a game at 24fps does not look like film at 24fps, which is why a video game running at less than 50-60fps can look jerky, while 24fps looks smooth despite the low frame rate. Modern games do also often utilize motion blur, but often only when they run natively at 30fps rather than 60fps. So higher framerates than film are usually needed to look as smooth.
VR is a different context again, but interactivity again is the major difference. Because VR is simulating/replacing an entire sense and includes realtime positional/rotational feedback, the higher framerate (and low input lag) is simply necessary to avoid a conflict of sensory information in the brain which leads to motion sickness etc. And again because of the context of simulating reality directly as we see it rather than being compared to film, the higher framerate is more desirable.
We view real life at the equivalent of a much higher framerate than film (the humans eyes don't have a framerate per se, but it equates to being able to resolve individual images at around 200fps or so from what I recall). 90fps has been determined as the approximate minimum figure necessary for VR "presence", because you're trying to trick human vision directly, unlike staring at a static screen.
Short answer, there isn't any technical reason that higher framerates are worse, it's all about overcoming a lifetime of movie viewing and expectation. It's likely something people will adjust to given enough time, but as a unique movie experience, it's not one people react to positively, unlike 3D for a lot of people.
-
Even though Star Wars has a ton of fans, there's always gonna be those people who don't watch a new SW-movie because their opinion is "Eww Star Wars". With Avatar, they managed to catch just about everyone's curiosity, because it was a brand new thing. I don't think Avatar 2 is gonna make more than 1.5 billion at most (probably closer to 1 billion) mainly because people have now seen it, and opinions were mixed. But that initial curiosity and getting even the skeptics to see it once was a big key to the success.
Also, for Avatar, the disproportionately high number of 3D and IMAX tickets, which are generally more expensive than normal tickets.
I'm not baiting, I'm actually curious. Why do people prefer higher FRs on video games then? I've read a lot about VR over the last few years, and the getting a high frame rate seems to be the toughest obstacle. Why do people like watching video games at 60fps and movies at 24fps?
One of the main reasons; even at their most realistic, video games are an animated medium. Animation doesn't typically look "off" at higher framerates the way live action does.
-
I saw Hobbit in 48 fps and I didn't even notice any difference. So I'm all for 60 I guess.
-
For me it's like ano association thing. The only time in the past I'd see 60fps live action videos are on a home camcorder. So when I see movies like that, my brain thinks it looks cheap for some reason. That's probably something that can be unlearned, but I bet that's a problem for other people as well.
-
Even though Star Wars has a ton of fans, there's always gonna be those people who don't watch a new SW-movie because their opinion is "Eww Star Wars". With Avatar, they managed to catch just about everyone's curiosity, because it was a brand new thing. I don't think Avatar 2 is gonna make more than 1.5 billion at most (probably closer to 1 billion) mainly because people have now seen it, and opinions were mixed. But that initial curiosity and getting even the skeptics to see it once was a big key to the success.
Do you think so? I dunno, my instinct says that TFA probably actually reached a wider audience than Avatar, but Avatar somehow did better at getting people like Chino to go and see it 10+ times.
Yeah definitely. I know a few who had the reasoning, and similar to the Marvel films, some people feel a need to catch up and when there's so much to catch up on, some people just don't go. With something like Avatar, it was a brand new thing and I think the curiosity was there for most people to see it. With something like TFA, a lot of people aren't into Star Wars (for shame) and just ignored it.
-
I wouldn't be surprised if the Avatar sequels collectively made less than the first film.
I can see you being right. The 'hype' isn't the same...the technology really hasn't made leaps and bounds, it's been refined but the allure isn't there. I'll go see them but I imagine only once each.
This isn't entirely accurate. There have been three fairly large breakthroughs with the technology since the first movie.
Let me clarify a bit more. Certainly what you described has improved the technology and I didn't mean it'd stayed stagnate. I guess what I mean is that when AVATAR broke onto the scene the 3D technology Cameron used and 3D in general was 'new' and AVATAR was the first film that really utilized all the technology available to create an unbelievably awesome movie experience. I think nowdays....with all the Ultra HD TV's....the 3D movies....IMAX....so on and so on, I just don't see the 'hype' being there for the next batch of AVATAR as far as technology is concerned.
For the movies themselves? sure. Like you said there is a large community of folks waiting on pins and needles to see the upcoming sequels. I can see them duplicating what TFA has done meaning off to a fast start...strong for a month or so but then it just begins to steadily decline. Until the next barrier of technology is broken (i don't think it's here yet...whatever it is) I don't see a film doing what AVATAR did.
-
I can safely say that, right now, I have zero interest in paying money to see the sequels. :lol
-
SO...
The Force Awakens only made $25m worldwide this weekend. I think that wraps it up. Everyone and their dog has seen it 5 times already.
It still has to make over 900m to beat Avatar and even at $25m a week - that's another 10 months.
Not gonna happen.
???
https://variety.com/2016/film/box-office/box-office-star-wars-crosses-1-billion-overseas-1201681819/
The space opera racked up $47.3 million overseas this weekend, topping charts and driving its global haul to $1.86 billion
-
I can safely say that, right now, I have zero interest in paying money to see the sequels. :lol
I wouldn't have seen TFA if I was given free tickets.
-
SO...
The Force Awakens only made $25m worldwide this weekend. I think that wraps it up. Everyone and their dog has seen it 5 times already.
It still has to make over 900m to beat Avatar and even at $25m a week - that's another 10 months.
Not gonna happen.
???
https://variety.com/2016/film/box-office/box-office-star-wars-crosses-1-billion-overseas-1201681819/
The space opera racked up $47.3 million overseas this weekend, topping charts and driving its global haul to $1.86 billion
::) I can post links too. https://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/
-
I can safely say that, right now, I have zero interest in paying money to see the sequels. :lol
I wouldn't have seen TFA if I was given free tickets.
Relax :lol you didn't make Avatar. And Rich didn't make The Force Awakens.
-
SO...
The Force Awakens only made $25m worldwide this weekend. I think that wraps it up. Everyone and their dog has seen it 5 times already.
It still has to make over 900m to beat Avatar and even at $25m a week - that's another 10 months.
Not gonna happen.
???
https://variety.com/2016/film/box-office/box-office-star-wars-crosses-1-billion-overseas-1201681819/
The space opera racked up $47.3 million overseas this weekend, topping charts and driving its global haul to $1.86 billion
::) I can post links too. https://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/
Looks like the domestic numbers, not not foreign or global.
-
Either way it still has around 900m worldwide to make. . .
-
Either way it still has around 900m worldwide to make. . .
I wasn't arguing with your larger point. Definitely a long way to go, probably insurmountable.
-
I can safely say that, right now, I have zero interest in paying money to see the sequels. :lol
I wouldn't have seen TFA if I was given free tickets.
Relax :lol you didn't make Avatar. And Rich didn't make The Force Awakens.
I wasn't even slagging off Avatar, I enjoyed it. :lol It was a good spectacle and pretty entertaining. But I didn't really find the story and characters very interesting and these days it takes a bit to get me to want to watch a film in theatres. I'll probably check it out when it hits Netflix or whatever.
-
George Lucas be like
(https://www.adventuresinpoortaste.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/lucas_money.jpg)
-
3) Cameron has said the sequels will play at a minimum of 45fps, and he's hoping to get 60fps. That will make the movie all the more pretty.
Avatar: The VHS Home Video.
-
I can safely say that, right now, I have zero interest in paying money to see the sequels. :lol
I wouldn't have seen TFA if I was given free tickets.
Haha. Oh Chino.
But I still haven't seen Avatar despite how many times it's been on TV, and never plan to.
-
But I still haven't seen Avatar despite how many times it's been on TV, and never plan to.
Ditto - people have even given me the DVD to borrow and by the time it came to give it back I still couldn't be stuffed :lol I have never seen a movie more than once at the movies either - didn't really know it was such a "thing" until this thread.
Having said that I may need to make TFA the first as it's the first time I have been to a movie that interests me with a 7yo son asking me questions the whole way through (thus missing half of it) :)
-
Are you guys not seeing the movie (Avatar or TFA) just so you can say you haven't seen it? Almost comes off that way. Both are movies worth seeing at least once IMO and that's from a non movie buff.
-
Are you guys not seeing the movie (Avatar or TFA) just so you can say you haven't seen it? Almost comes off that way. Both are movies worth seeing at least once IMO and that's from a non movie buff.
I'm not seeing TFA because I watched episodes IV and V and was bored out of my mind. Maybe once it comes to one of my streaming services, I'll give it a go.
-
Are you guys not seeing the movie (Avatar or TFA) just so you can say you haven't seen it? Almost comes off that way. Both are movies worth seeing at least once IMO and that's from a non movie buff.
You do realise it's possible just not to care for a particular style/genre/concept/movie without it being some sort of psychological game , right? Even though it 's considered a classic by many/most. I haven't seen any Jurassic park movies either......the whole idea just doesn't get me interested and neither does what I have heard re Avatar.
I am not what you would call a movie buff either and rarely talk about movies with family/friends , so I must be going to a lot of trouble just so I can not talk to them about why I didn't go see Avatar :lol I really don't give Avatar a second thought - the only reason I mentioned it is because of the discussion here (re Star Wars) and the fact that people seem to think my life isn't complete without seeing it and tend to like reminding me about that from time to time.
So it's more a case of me being curious as to why some seem to have an interest in me seeing it than the other way around.
-
Are you guys not seeing the movie (Avatar or TFA) just so you can say you haven't seen it? Almost comes off that way. Both are movies worth seeing at least once IMO and that's from a non movie buff.
What gain is there from not seeing a movie I'd be interested in to say I haven't seen it? If I wanted to see it, I'd see it!
I haven't seen Avatar because I see movies based on my actual interest in them, not based on how many other people saw it or thought it was good. I need justification to watch a movie, I don't need justification not to. I never saw anything about Avatar that appealed to me in any way, so I didn't watch it.
I generally don't watch a lot of movies, and the cliche Hollywood types are usually off-putting to me. I could name a ton of popular movies I haven't seen, or saw and hated. I don't abstain from them to tell people I haven't seen them or to earn hipster points, I abstain from them because I know what I like and don't like based on everything else I've seen, and because I know my tastes don't line up with the average movie-goer. I'm picky, and don't watch a movie just because. There are many other forms of entertainment I tend to favour, so I stick to movies that I think I'll enjoy enough to justify 2-3 hours of my time.
bl5150, we should start a movie night or something. :lol
-
Are you guys not seeing the movie (Avatar or TFA) just so you can say you haven't seen it? Almost comes off that way. Both are movies worth seeing at least once IMO and that's from a non movie buff.
You do realise it's possible just not to care for a particular style/genre/concept/movie without it being some sort of psychological game , right? Even though it 's considered a classic by many/most. I haven't seen any Jurassic park movies either......the whole idea just doesn't get me interested and neither does what I have heard re Avatar.
Of course, hence why I said "almost comes off that way" because of the wording and because of the thread the discussion is in although it's not relevant to have seen either movie to speculate/discuss the money made. I think you hit the nail though, these movies are considered classics by many, hence my surprise.
I haven't seen Avatar because I see movies based on my actual interest in them, not based on how many other people saw it or thought it was good. I need justification to watch a movie, I don't need justification not to. I never saw anything about Avatar that appealed to me in any way, so I didn't watch it.
I would have thought someone who is artistic and does animations to think the technology used for the visuals would be worth seeing. For me, that was enough reason to see it. It's the story that did not have me coming back. TFA also had very good visuals, but obviously was not know for being the visual spectacle that Avatar was.
-
For me it's like ano association thing. The only time in the past I'd see 60fps live action videos are on a home camcorder. So when I see movies like that, my brain thinks it looks cheap for some reason. That's probably something that can be unlearned, but I bet that's a problem for other people as well.
In addition to this, there is actually a difference in the way the brain processes visuals at different framerates.
While things were originally filmed at 24fps, and other low frame rates, entirely due to technical limitations, it was a very lucky accident. At a lower frame rate like that (it doesn't have to be 24, but 24 strikes a really good balance between not being 'too fast' or 'too slow'), your brain actually interprets what it's seeing differently than, say, something you're seeing in person. It's subtle, but it really does make a difference. Because of this, your brain accepts most shows and movies as something different than real life, and so things (costumes, sets, effects, etc) are less likely to look "off".
Once the frame rate gets high enough (and 48fps seems to set this off for a lot of people), the brain interprets it as more like real life. Because of this, any little thing that can stand out does. That's why sets look like sets, and everything looks more 'fake' and 'cheap'.
It's not jarring when used for things like newscasts or live broadcasts, because they're not typically trying to get away with anything 'unreal' visually. It's also one of several reasons why live versions of things that are usually pre-recorded tend to look 'different'.
Higher frame rates also tend to have less of an impact on how we view animated content, or video games, because the brain doesn't typically confuse those with reality, regardless of frame rate.
-
That might explain why The Hobbit at 60fps looked incredibly fake
Yet, my fake video games at 60fps look incredibly real :lol
-
I would have thought someone who is artistic and does animations to think the technology used for the visuals would be worth seeing. For me, that was enough reason to see it. It's the story that did not have me coming back. TFA also had very good visuals, but obviously was not know for being the visual spectacle that Avatar was.
It's funny you say that, because everyone thinks that I'd be more interested in seeing CG movies because of that. :lol
If anything, I think it's worked in the opposite direction for me. Because it's my interest and work and I'm constantly exposed to it, it doesn't excite me so much, and I judge it differently to most people, more critically.
I am very interested in the technology side, but it's not a motivating factor for me watching a new movie, like Avatar. The visuals for Avatar looked very good, but not "this is the best thing ever and I need to see this solely for the CGI" good. The 3D tech doesn't appeal to me either, because I think it's a fundamentally flawed implementation of stereo vision.
-
I would have thought someone who is artistic and does animations to think the technology used for the visuals would be worth seeing. For me, that was enough reason to see it. It's the story that did not have me coming back. TFA also had very good visuals, but obviously was not know for being the visual spectacle that Avatar was.
It's funny you say that, because everyone thinks that I'd be more interested in seeing CG movies because of that. :lol
If anything, I think it's worked in the opposite direction for me. Because it's my interest and work and I'm constantly exposed to it, it doesn't excite me so much, and I judge it differently to most people, more critically.
I am very interested in the technology side, but it's not a motivating factor for me watching a new movie, like Avatar. The visuals for Avatar looked very good, but not "this is the best thing ever and I need to see this solely for the CGI" good. The 3D tech doesn't appeal to me either, because I think it's a fundamentally flawed implementation of stereo vision.
You'd probably really enjoy the behind the scenes stuff. They go into great detail about what had to be developed and how it was used to make the movie.
It was cool seeing the real world getting rendered into the Avatar world (crudely) in real time.
(https://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/medium_1x_/public/import/2013/images/2009/12/capturemotion.jpg?itok=rgds2CSg)
(https://spectrum.ieee.org/image/1560093)
-
The first pic doesn't like hotlinking so it's not showing up.
As I said, this stuff is my interest, so this is nothing new or exciting to me. I watch a ton of CG breakdowns and docos for movies.
-
Are you guys not seeing the movie (Avatar or TFA) just so you can say you haven't seen it? Almost comes off that way. Both are movies worth seeing at least once IMO and that's from a non movie buff.
What gain is there from not seeing a movie I'd be interested in to say I haven't seen it? If I wanted to see it, I'd see it!
I haven't seen Avatar because I see movies based on my actual interest in them, not based on how many other people saw it or thought it was good. I need justification to watch a movie, I don't need justification not to.
I would agree with this (except I did see Avatar, but I mean the principles). I'll check a lot more movies out on streaming services, but even then there are so many that I'd be interested in, I need to prioritise. I don't particularly do so by genre, but by what seems to appeal to me.
-
The full making-of Avatar is really interesting though.
-
I wouldn't be surprised if Chino didn't see TFA just because he doesn't want to give any money to TFA that could potentially dethrone Avatar, but in general I think some big films (like Star Wars or Avatar) will always have those people who don't see it for whatever reason. I don't think staying away from the movie itself if you aren't interested is any weird, but I'm always baffled when I hear people say stuff like "I've never seen any of the Star Wars movies" in the same way you would say "I've banged Natalie Portman". Like there's a sense of pride about being in the dark. There are a few people I've noticed who has done that with Star Wars.
-
I've never made it a secret that I'm not a Star Wars fan. But I went to see The Force Awakens and enjoyed it because I took it on its own merits.
-
I wouldn't be surprised if Chino didn't see TFA just because he doesn't want to give any money to TFA that could potentially dethrone Avatar, but in general I think some big films (like Star Wars or Avatar) will always have those people who don't see it for whatever reason. I don't think staying away from the movie itself if you aren't interested is any weird, but I'm always baffled when I hear people say stuff like "I've never seen any of the Star Wars movies" in the same way you would say "I've banged Natalie Portman". Like there's a sense of pride about being in the dark. There are a few people I've noticed who has done that with Star Wars.
I've joked about not seeing TFA for that reason, but that's not the reason (for serious). Truthfully, I've given Star Wars a chance, perhaps 20+ years too late, and it just simply didn't do anything for me. I'm not against watching TFA, but I'm certainly not going to spend extra money to make that happen. I'm too cheap.
-
Not cheap enough to see the same movie 10 times :biggrin:
-
That's because I wanted to see it. I have friends that will buy tickets to stuff they don't really want to go to all the time. I don't do that. For example, I was offered tickets to go to a UCONN football game last year with some buddies. I like hanging out with them, but I couldn't give two shits about football. I couldn't justify spending $40 on a ticket. If they said "hey dude. Come over. We're watching the game", I would have happily gone.
-
I wouldn't be surprised if Chino didn't see TFA just because he doesn't want to give any money to TFA that could potentially dethrone Avatar, but in general I think some big films (like Star Wars or Avatar) will always have those people who don't see it for whatever reason. I don't think staying away from the movie itself if you aren't interested is any weird, but I'm always baffled when I hear people say stuff like "I've never seen any of the Star Wars movies" in the same way you would say "I've banged Natalie Portman". Like there's a sense of pride about being in the dark. There are a few people I've noticed who has done that with Star Wars.
I've joked about not seeing TFA for that reason, but that's not the reason (for serious). Truthfully, I've given Star Wars a chance, perhaps 20+ years too late, and it just simply didn't do anything for me. I'm not against watching TFA, but I'm certainly not going to spend extra money to make that happen. I'm too cheap.
I don't think it's really a "you had to see them back then" kind of thing. I didn't see any of the Star Wars films until the late 90s.
That said, if you've given them a shot and they're not really your thing, that's fine.
I will say, I think TFA, while better if a person is into the original films too, can absolutely be entertaining in its own right. I know people who either aren't into Star Wars, or who haven't even seen the originals, who enjoyed TFA. Even if you wait for it to be on netflix/on demand, I'd recommend checking it out eventually.
-
Not cheap enough to see the same movie 10 times :biggrin:
Honestly, I don't get spending the money to see a movie 10 times. It seems silly to me. But then I have to remind myself that humans are silly creatures, and whatever that thing is that really does it for us, whether it is a sports team, or a movie, or a band, or whatever, we are easily driven to excess and do similar things. So even though I personally don't get why someone would want to see any movie 10 times in a theater, and especially a movie that I personally don't feel rates even a second in-theater viewing, I do get it on the level that Avatar was one of "those things" for Chino, and some of his repeat viewings were (if I'm not mistaken) going along with others who wanted to go see it. So if I'm honest with myself, I can't really criticize too much.
-
Most i've been to see a film is 4 times.
The 4th times were mainly " it's still in cinemas - i'm not gonna see it on a big screen again and I can afford it ".
With Into Darkness - i'd already *won* my IMAX ticket for the BFI in London. Then my local cineplex in my town was showing at midnight the same day so I went to that too.
Both of those were in 3D so I went one more time in 2D then it was in cinemas for a while and I thought " one more time - what the hell. "
But 5 or more ? nah thanks.
-
Most i've been to see a film is 4 times.
Yeah, I think that is the case with me as well. There are a handful of films I have seen twice in theaters. The only one that comes to mind that I saw more than that is T2, which I saw 4 or 5 times. After the first time, I knew I wanted to see it again. And the other viewings were a result of others wanting to see it and asking me along--compounded by the fact that it was during the time I was in the military, and I was one of the guys who had a car that could drive people off base, so it was a case of, "Hey, give us a ride and we'll pay for your ticket." For a movie as good as T2, who is going to turn that deal down? :lol Shoot, truth be told, I'd probably still do it for a much lesser film.
-
There's a guy in my office that has seen TFA 15 times already.....and he just told me he's going to see it again on Thursday.
-
Okay, well that seems excessive by any measure. I mean, good for him for supporting something he likes, but still.
-
That's like $150 he's spent.
-
Not cheap enough to see the same movie 10 times :biggrin:
Honestly, I don't get spending the money to see a movie 10 times. It seems silly to me. But then I have to remind myself that humans are silly creatures, and whatever that thing is that really does it for us, whether it is a sports team, or a movie, or a band, or whatever, we are easily driven to excess and do similar things. So even though I personally don't get why someone would want to see any movie 10 times in a theater, and especially a movie that I personally don't feel rates even a second in-theater viewing, I do get it on the level that Avatar was one of "those things" for Chino, and some of his repeat viewings were (if I'm not mistaken) going along with others who wanted to go see it. So if I'm honest with myself, I can't really criticize too much.
Ditto. For the record, three of those viewings were dates (though I may have used one of the girls as an excuse to see the movie again), and several of the other times were just going out with friends. Viewings 8 and 9 were at a mom and pop theater and only cost $3.00 a ticket (less than a small popcorn at the nearby nice theater). Though I did obtain a copy early and watched it at home probably a half dozen times before it was out of the theater.
As for doing the same thing that many times, I don't know. To me, Avatar wasn't a movie, it was a ride. It was a ride with a limited lifespan that I wanted to go on as many times as I could before the option was no longer there. I didn't really care at all about the story or the dialogue. Cameron could have released a movie that was just touring Pandora with the occasional explosion for three hours, and I would have loved it just the same.
-
The most I've seen movies in theaters is 5 times, and those two movies were Avatar and The Force Awakens, so I fully sympathize with both sides of the argument here.
There's a guy in my office that has seen TFA 15 times already.....and he just told me he's going to see it again on Thursday.
Although this is just crazy.
-
Hey Chino...Let's do something special tonight :-*
I know exactly the thing babe ;) x
Oh nice ! :laugh: Can't wait
AVATAR in IMAX 3D !!! :chino:
:'( :'(
-
Every year on my birthday I make Victoria watch it with me in 3D.
-
Do you make her watch it in an ice bath so she turns blue ?
-
Do you make her watch it in an ice bath so she turns blue ?
Nah. She voluntarily puts the paint on.
-
"voluntarily" at gun point :rollin
-
Every year on my birthday I make Victoria watch it with me in 3D.
Does she thoughtfully smile?
-
Is this why you want the Oculus Rift? So you can both put the VR sets on and pretend to be Navi?
-
Every year on my birthday I make Victoria watch it with me in 3D.
Does she thoughtfully smile?
She smile legitimately, but that might be due to the fact that she won't have to watch it again for another year.
Is this why you want the Oculus Rift? So you can both put the VR sets on and pretend to be Navi?
More or less
-
I saw Monty Python & the Holy Grail probably 40 times in a theater.
Of course, it was while I was in college, and the arthouse theater on the main college thoroughfare showed it for $1.00 every Wednesday night at midnight. So it became a "thing".
-
Disney has pushed Episode 8 back to December 2017.
-
Disney has pushed Episode 8 back to December 2017.
Just read this.
:'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
-
I'm guessing it expects Rogue One to have the same legs as Episode 7 or doesn't want to release two major Star Wars movie 6 months apart.
-
Disney has pushed Episode 8 back to December 2017.
Fucking A. That's when Avatar 2 is getting released.
-
Disney has pushed Episode 8 back to December 2017.
Fucking A. That's when Avatar 2 is getting released.
I'll believe it when I see it.
-
Disney has pushed Episode 8 back to December 2017.
Fucking A. That's when Avatar 2 is getting released.
fight fight fight :lol
-
I would be much more concerned if I were Avatar than Star Wars. That being said, I think the nostalgia and quality of Episode VII had more to do with it's success than being released in December. Not sure if I agree with the logic unless they are trying to make it a yearly tradition that a new star wars film will be release in the middle of December.
-
If you think about it... the amount of free advertising it will give both movies will be insane. They might actually both benefit.
-
If you think about it... the amount of free advertising it will give both movies will be insane. They might actually both benefit.
Possible.
But I suspect that Avatar winds up moving.
If for no other reason than the delays it has already had make it more likely to be delayed again.
-
Actually, I'm willing to bet Avatar 2 gets delayed again. They are filming all three movies at once and as far as I know they haven't started shooting yet. I don't see how they'll have a movie ready in two years time. Maybe Disney knows something we don't and knows there wont be competition due to Avatar's delay.
There won't be enough Imaxx screens for both movies. My money is definitely on an Avatar delay :(
-
Actually, I'm willing to bet Avatar 2 gets delayed again. They are filming all three movies at once and as far as I know they haven't started shooting yet. I don't see how they'll have a movie ready in two years time. Maybe Disney knows something we don't and knows there wont be competition due to Avatar's delay.
If it does get moved, Disney should troll them by moving SW VIII to coincide with the new date, and keep doing that every time Avatar II gets moved.
-
lol
-
Well shit.
https://www.slashfilm.com/avatar-2-delayed-again-wont-meet-christmas-2017-window/
There was already speculation that Avatar 2 wasn’t going to meet the estimated release when Star Wars: Episode VIII moved to December 15th, 2017, a full seven months after the previously planned May 2017 release date. Disney clearly knew they weren’t going to have any major competition at the box office and also wanted that Christmas money for their merchandise release. Plus, there’s no way Disney would willingly take on Avatar 2 with the chance of having a smaller IMAX screen count, especially when there’s an Avatar installment planned for their theme parks.
-
It's only a matter of time before Cameron announces his ambitious "One film per decade" Avatar release schedule, which he totally planned from the start and it was his vision and not a series of comically long production delays. :lol
-
I can just imagine how the push-back of Avatar happened. After the announcement about Star Wars moving to Christmas, some studio-guy went to Cameron and the conversation looked something like this:
"So, how's Avatar going.. maybe you need some more time?"
-"It's on schedule and everything is good"
"We can give you more time if you feel pressured"
-"No it's fine, everything is coming along nicely"
"But what about this creature design, maybe another month and you can make it even cooler?"
-"Maybe.. I guess"
"Good, we're moving it away then!"
-
There's no way Disney moved Star Wars to Decenmber without already knowing before hand that Avatar had been pushed back. Disney wouldn't want the competition, regardless how great the movie may be. And Avatar is getting it's own land in a Disney park that they were trying to coincide the opening of with the sequel's release. Disney was probably made aware Avatar would be being delayed for weeks now, maybe months.
-
If Episode 8 does the same business as 7 - it'll plateau by early January. Avatar 2 could come out on January 18 instead.
-
Episode 8 won't make the same business as 7, but that kinda goes without saying. Whether Ep.7 ends up at 2.2 billion, 2.5 or whatever, it is the result of a lot of people being curious and the hype being as massive as it has been. Even though most people really liked the film, the box is open now. A lot of people won't rush out and see the next, especially not 4-5 times. It's the same fate that awaits Avatar 2. But the thing is, these sequels doesn't need to top, or make as much as the "first". Even if Avatar 2 or Star Wars 8 only makes 1.5 billion, that's still crazy money compared to the budget.
-
Like Chino said - I can see Avatar 2,3 & 4 making $1bn each.
-
TFA made about half this weekend what it did last weekend so it'll probably get $2bn but not much more.
-
I don't think ~15 million domestically is that bad considering this is the poorest weekend during the whole year. People just don't have the same money to go out to the cinema after the long month with Christmas and everything. Revenant won and it was only about a million higher. If you think next weekend is gonna be another 50% drop then you're crazy.
-
Not 50% but it's not gonna make another $50m weekend.
-
Definitely agreed that the Star Wars and Avatar sequels almost definitely won't make as much as TFA and Avatar 1. With TFA, there was an amount of hype and buildup there that we probably won't see for another film for a long time. With Avatar, a lot of the technical achievements, while impressive, won't be as novel as they were with the first film.
All of these films are going to make a ton of money, just not "holy shit that's more money than I thought there was money" money.
There's no way Disney moved Star Wars to Decenmber without already knowing before hand that Avatar had been pushed back. Disney wouldn't want the competition, regardless how great the movie may be. And Avatar is getting it's own land in a Disney park that they were trying to coincide the opening of with the sequel's release. Disney was probably made aware Avatar would be being delayed for weeks now, maybe months.
This. While it would be a fascinating box office match-up, neither series benefits from having another film of that scale in theaters at the same time.
If Episode 8 does the same business as 7 - it'll plateau by early January. Avatar 2 could come out on January 18 instead.
While certainly not impossible, I'd be very skeptical. January tends to be more of a dumping ground than a time to release a film in a prominent series.
-
So...
Disney paid $4bn for Lucasfilm.
The Force Awakens has made $2bn.
They still have five more star wars movies to come out and god knows how much merchandise. That $4bn is starting to look like an absolute steal.
'Star Wars: The Force Awakens' set to generate $5bn in merchandise sales in first year
All told - Disney might make 10x back what they paid George Lucas.
-
Everyone makes out with that deal
-
So...
Disney paid $4bn for Lucasfilm.
The Force Awakens has made $2bn.
They still have five more star wars movies to come out and god knows how much merchandise. That $4bn is starting to look like an absolute steal.
'Star Wars: The Force Awakens' set to generate $5bn in merchandise sales in first year
All told - Disney might make 10x back what they paid George Lucas.
Disney came out and admitted they got a steal and called STAR WARS a 'Gold Mine'....which it is. If done correctly, they can make STAR WARS movies until mankind goes extinct. There are so many possibilities....they really are endless, IF it's set up and done correctly.
-
The trouble is they will get greedy and will probably try to set up their own Cinematic Universe.
After 2020 they should maybe carry on with some more Anthology movies every couple of years...
But I don't think they should carry on with the "legacy" movies and do Episodes 10 - 12 right away.
Let people miss it again.
-
And, again, all we are talking about so far are box office sales. I am sure Disney has already made back MORE than the $4 billion in merchandising alone. When you take into account home video sales, increase park revenue once the new Star Wars stuff is done, ad revenues from other companies using Star Wars branding (which may perhaps be the biggest source of revenue of all), and other sources of revenue, the will make several times that $4 billion figure even if they never released another single film. Think about that.
-
Did Lucas sell it for $4B outright, or does he receive any kind of additional royalties?
-
Did Lucas sell it for $4B outright, or does he receive any kind of additional royalties?
I'd be surprised if he handed over EVERYTHING. Legally he is entitled to royalties from the name and the characters alone.
If he handed over EVERYTHING than $4bn really is super cheap...
....He said he had no control and was originally going to stay on as exec consultant. But obviously he thought he still had a modicum of control and wanted to write scripts and they turned him down.
-
Did Lucas sell it for $4B outright, or does he receive any kind of additional royalties?
Well, given how revolutionary and smart he was way back in the beginning to structure his contracts so that he retained sole right to merchandising in an age where NOBODY was doing that, and how he immediately turned Star Wars into a merchandising juggernaut, I would imagine he was smart enough to still retain some sort of income stream this time around. No idea what that looks like, but I would be surprised if he did not retain something.
-
The trouble is they will get greedy and will probably try to set up their own Cinematic Universe.
After 2020 they should maybe carry on with some more Anthology movies every couple of years...
But I don't think they should carry on with the "legacy" movies and do Episodes 10 - 12 right away.
Let people miss it again.
Yeah. I'm really hoping they ease off after the current planned slate (six movies in six years already feels like pushing it a bit).
That said, I'm not going to be the least bit surprised if they overdo it and just drive Star Wars into the ground before finally taking a break for a bit.
-
If they are stories people want to see/hear and they are done well, I'm not sure how it is "driving Star Wars into the ground," even if they were to do 100 movies.
-
That said, I'm not going to be the least bit surprised if they overdo it and just drive Star Wars into the ground before finally taking a break for a bit.
Then they'll reboot from Episode I all over again.
-
That said, I'm not going to be the least bit surprised if they overdo it and just drive Star Wars into the ground before finally taking a break for a bit.
Then they'll reboot from Episode I all over again.
Maybe doing that after episode 9 is not a bad idea.
-
I think just leave the prequels. We really don't need that story re told.
-
I agree. Let's just accept that Lucas botched it and move on.
-
I agree. Let's just accept that Lucas botched it and move on.
Plus all you need to know about the prequels was summed up in that one scene from A New Hope where Obi Wan tells Luke about Anakin.
-
Yeah. While there could have been an interesting story there if the prequels had been handled well, at this point, I think it's best to just accept that they happened and keep moving on to untold stories.
If they are stories people want to see/hear and they are done well, I'm not sure how it is "driving Star Wars into the ground," even if they were to do 100 movies.
I'll admit, "driving [it] into the ground" may be a bit dramatic.
If they can keep making great movies with compelling stories that people want to see, that will be great.
I think more than anything, I'd be concerned about people getting burnt out on the films a bit, even if the quality stays up. Even having just a year or two without a film would probably be a good idea eventually.
-
There could easily be a story line of Kylo Ren having knocked up some random chic on one of these planets.....then there's an 'evil' re-birth. Assuming that the outcome of the next two movies are good beats evil.
They could jump several generations ahead where maybe the Jedi are back in full force.....or have been corrupted and one 'good' one decides he/she has to take them on to reset the Jedi way.
who knows? Plenty of options....just has to be done well and CAST well. I think for as critiqued as the story and what not of the prequels has been the casting of those characters was atrocious. I didn't even care for McGregor as Obi Wan....obviously Christiansen was a joke....Portman, c'mon...she was brutal. All around bad casting.
-
Portman, c'mon...she was brutal. All around bad casting.
Well, that's what happens when you cast livestock as one of your main characters. :cow:
-
Is that supposed to mean she's ugly ?
Because...
(https://img.thesun.co.uk/aidemitlum/archive/02614/Jeremy_Kyle_guest__2614051n.jpg)
-
I don't think casting was as big of an issue with the prequels as the directing was.
Ewan McGregor, Liam Neeson, Natalie Portman, and Samuel Jackson have all shown themselves to be great actors when given decent material and direction. McGregor especially does a great job with what little he's given to work with in the prequels. There've been a number of stories that have come out from people who worked on those films, basically all saying that Lucas really doesn't know how to direct actors, and during the making of those films seemed to have very little interest in actually directing, focusing mostly on the technical side of the production.
-
I don't think casting was as big of an issue with the prequels as the directing was.
Ewan McGregor, Liam Neeson, Natalie Portman, and Samuel Jackson have all shown themselves to be great actors when given decent material and direction. McGregor especially does a great job with what little he's given to work with in the prequels. There've been a number of stories that have come out from people who worked on those films, basically all saying that Lucas really doesn't know how to direct actors, and during the making of those films seemed to have very little interest in actually directing, focusing mostly on the technical side of the production.
That's fair then....I'll let them have that 'out' because they are good actors. It just never 'felt' like McGregor was Obi Wan.....none of them seemed to be the people they were supposed to be portraying. The strength of the OT and especially TFA is those 'were' Luke, and Han and Rey and Finn. they weren't actors pretending to be them, which is what the Prequels felt like.
-
I agree that writing and directing were definitely the weak spots for those films.
But Hayden Christiansen gets no pass. He's just not very good.
-
(https://i63.tinypic.com/5ydfls.jpg)
-
But Hayden Christiansen gets no pass. He's just not very good.
I didn't notice all the other faults that get talked about with the PT ,as I couldn't drag myself away from his performance (in a trainwreck kinda way)
-
dat lip quiver doe
-
I can't really imagine someone in the PT sets (a room with a blue screen lol) saying 'that was a great shot, Hayden'.
-
I like to imagine that being like the 15th take and everyone saying just that in a way that sounds like they're about to explode with frustration and rage, facepalming and then moving on.
-
I like to imagine that being like the 15th take and everyone saying just that in a way that sounds like they're about to explode with frustration and rage, facepalming and then moving on.
Everyone except George Lucas. I can picture him applauding and saying 'yeah, we definitely need to have Darth Vader shout NOOO while he uses the force to destroy the robots that just performed surgery on him'.
-
I would like a movie focused on the history of the sith and how they became bitter enemies of the jedi.
-
I would like a movie focused on the history of the sith and how they became bitter enemies of the jedi.
this would be awesome. You know it would be something along the lines of there never were the Jedi or the Sith....they once were the "insert clever name of a group" and then a rift began to form as to which way they should use their power.
-
I would like a movie focused on the history of the sith and how they became bitter enemies of the jedi.
This, or something from the Old Republic. There are some pretty awesome storylines from those times portrayed in videogames that would totally rock the big screen.
-
I would like a movie focused on the history of the sith and how they became bitter enemies of the jedi.
This, or something from the Old Republic. There are some pretty awesome storylines from those times portrayed in videogames that would totally rock the big screen.
The KOTOR games are fantastic in terms of story and somewhat let down by clunky gameplay. Would love those sorts of ideas to be explored on screen.
-
How come when it comes to Avatar, many people say things like "why do you need 4 movies to explain a group of blue people?" and "Is there anything left to tell? Cameron just wants a cash grab", but when it comes to Star Wars, the world seems ready to accept as many stories as they could possibly come up with?
-
How come when it comes to Avatar, many people say things like "why do you need 4 movies to explain a group of blue people?" and "Is there anything left to tell? Cameron just wants a cash grab, but when it comes to Star Wars, the world seems ready to accept as many stories as they could possibly come up with?
I'm actually really curious to see what he's got up his sleeve. Say what you want about the guy but he produces 'winners'....shoot, ALIENS is one of my favorite movies of all time. I can't imagine he's going to put this much effort into something and it not be gold.
-
How come when it comes to Avatar, many people say things like "why do you need 4 movies to explain a group of blue people?" and "Is there anything left to tell? Cameron just wants a cash grab, but when it comes to Star Wars, the world seems ready to accept as many stories as they could possibly come up with?
I'm actually really curious to see what he's got up his sleeve. Say what you want about the guy but he produces 'winners'....shoot, ALIENS is one of my favorite movies of all time. I can't imagine he's going to put this much effort into something and it not be gold.
The story can be taken literally everywhere. It's a long shot, but this is what I'd LOVE to see end up happening with Pandora: I want to find out that Pandora is kind of at the point where Earth was in the 1700s or so. They'd have advanced Na'vi (think colonial Americans) in some areas, and the Na'vi we saw in the first film are the equivalent of our tribes in the Amazon. It'd be awesome to see Na'vi civilizations that were relatively advanced who built and shaped their surroundings. It would be cool to see them somehow come help the forest dwelling Na'vi in the final showdown with humans.
Also, I'd love to see the years leading up to the first film. The survival guide talks about first contact and the original mining operations (goes into detail about why humans just don't mine the floating mountains) that eventually lead to the conflicts with the Na'vi.
-
How come when it comes to Avatar, many people say things like "why do you need 4 movies to explain a group of blue people?" and "Is there anything left to tell? Cameron just wants a cash grab", but when it comes to Star Wars, the world seems ready to accept as many stories as they could possibly come up with?
I think it's because there is a long history of Star Wars movies/video games/books that explore the whole universe and the fans love this stuff. Avatar just doesn't have that history.
Cameron is great though, I'd be interested to see what he does because I would imagine the next Avatar movies will have more of an original plot.
-
How come when it comes to Avatar, many people say things like "why do you need 4 movies to explain a group of blue people?" and "Is there anything left to tell? Cameron just wants a cash grab", but when it comes to Star Wars, the world seems ready to accept as many stories as they could possibly come up with?
I think it's because there is a long history of Star Wars movies/video games/books that explore the whole universe and the fans love this stuff. Avatar just doesn't have that history.
Cameron is great though, I'd be interested to see what he does because I would imagine the next Avatar movies will have more of an original plot.
Avatar's universe is expanding. It's getting it's own theme park, there's the Cirque Du Soleil show, Toruk, that's touring all over the world, and Dark Horse has come on board and there will be an Avatar comic series (different story line and characters unrelated to the film). I can only hope that in the near future a game is developed for VR that allows me to really get into Pandora.
As for the plot, most definitely. I still argue that the first film did it's job perfectly. It proved the technology, introduced us to Pandora, and got us familiar with the Na'vi and their culture. All the introduction stuff is out of the way and now the official trilogy can hit the ground running with no time being wasted on what was covered in the first film.
(https://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/jamescameronsavatar/images/f/f8/Avatar_Full_25991.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20151215125741)
(https://indierevolver.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/wp-1449949975879-e1449950297244.jpg?w=800&h=427)
(https://www.actuabd.com/IMG/jpg/dark-horse.jpg)
-
You cannot seriously compare the scope of the Star Wars universe with Avatar. Whatever Avatar has, multiply it by literally 100. Literally. The literal definition of literally.
-
Chino, have you seen that Cirque show? I really like seeing those (seen around 5 of them), didn't even know there was an Avatar themed one.
-
Chino, have you seen that Cirque show? I really like seeing those (seen around 5 of them), didn't even know there was an Avatar themed one.
Negative. It hasn't come to the states yet. I believe it debuts in Texas the second week of February. So far 4 or 5 cities have been announced. I'll definitely check it out when it's in the North East.
You cannot seriously compare the scope of the Star Wars universe with Avatar. Whatever Avatar has, multiply it by literally 100. Literally. The literal definition of literally.
I'm definitely not. I'm just making the point that the universe is expanding and the potential for tons of future content is not out of the realm of reality. There was a time when the Star Wars universe consisted of a single movie, literally. And no, I don't believe Avatar will ever reach the level of fandom that we see in the Star Wars universe, but it can still be huge.
-
And this just came up on my facebook feed...
Cirque du Soleil
Sponsored ·
Experience Cirque du Soleil KURIOS & TORUK – The First Flight live in New York this fall!
-
And this just came up on my facebook feed...
Cirque du Soleil
Sponsored ·
Experience Cirque du Soleil KURIOS & TORUK – The First Flight live in New York this fall!
:lol :lol
It looks like a hell of a show.
(https://i0.wp.com/nerdbastards.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/toruk1.jpg?resize=601%2C338)
(https://cdn.abclocal.go.com/content/wls/images/cms/1132313_1280x720.jpg)
(https://palmbeachlink.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/635816651823352339-aDSC-9242.jpg)
(https://storage.torontosun.com/v1/dynamic_resize/sws_path/suns-prod-images/1297788953663_ORIGINAL.jpg?quality=80&size=650x)
(https://cdn.sandiegouniontrib.com/img/photos/2015/11/12/853cab43b5f97432870f6a7067004644_r900x493.JPEG?122770e84b36f1c039d5c4c2ca15c2d8bc4ecd52)
(https://images.bwwstatic.com/upload11/1206179/tn-500_23425_toruk_120515_allentownpa-9276_original.jpg)
(https://image.mlive.com/home/mlive-media/width960/img/detroit/photo/2016/01/21/toruk-809e84e41252f331.jpg)
I can't wait.
-
:lol That is so not my cup of tea in the slightest.
-
I loved the 1st movie but can't get excited for 3 sequels or a theme park or whatever else.
I just wish JC would move on to something else ASAP.
I'm way more excited about his proposed A Fantastic Voyage remake.
If it's anything like Innerspace but with modern graphics and James Cameron directing - holy crap.
Avatar but with only humans and instead of Pandora - it's the inside of a human body.
Fuck the Avatar sequels - I WANT THAT.
-
They are really cool to see, pictures cannot do it justice.
I would definitely like to see this since they are such cool shows. Also, the music is FANTASTIC (which is all live).
-
How come when it comes to Avatar, many people say things like "why do you need 4 movies to explain a group of blue people?" and "Is there anything left to tell? Cameron just wants a cash grab", but when it comes to Star Wars, the world seems ready to accept as many stories as they could possibly come up with?
Because the Avatar story had no substance.
-
While the story is clearly a recycled one from several other movies, I think saying that that story has no substace is a bit unfair.
-
How come when it comes to Avatar, many people say things like "why do you need 4 movies to explain a group of blue people?" and "Is there anything left to tell? Cameron just wants a cash grab", but when it comes to Star Wars, the world seems ready to accept as many stories as they could possibly come up with?
Because the Avatar story had no substance.
That's just incorrect.
-
The whole foundation of Star Wars is a Galactic Empire, which by definition opens itself up for an entire galaxy's worth of plot, intrigue, and conflict.
Avatar is one planet (two if you count Earth), with people from Earth as the evil colonialist pigs.
Like, I don't even see how you can ask the question.
-
But let's be clear. Disney didn't pay $4bn for Lucasfilm to tell stories.
-
The whole foundation of Star Wars is a Galactic Empire, which by definition opens itself up for an entire galaxy's worth of plot, intrigue, and conflict.
Avatar is one planet (two if you count Earth), with people from Earth as the evil colonialist pigs.
Like, I don't even see how you can ask the question.
Why was Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings so huge? Those were just as small in scope as Avatar.
-
The whole foundation of Star Wars is a Galactic Empire, which by definition opens itself up for an entire galaxy's worth of plot, intrigue, and conflict.
Avatar is one planet (two if you count Earth), with people from Earth as the evil colonialist pigs.
Like, I don't even see how you can ask the question.
Why was Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings so huge? Those were just as small in scope as Avatar.
Lord of the Rings small in scope / comparable to Avatar?
Excuse me while I LMAO
-
The whole foundation of Star Wars is a Galactic Empire, which by definition opens itself up for an entire galaxy's worth of plot, intrigue, and conflict.
Avatar is one planet (two if you count Earth), with people from Earth as the evil colonialist pigs.
Like, I don't even see how you can ask the question.
Why was Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings so huge? Those were just as small in scope as Avatar.
Lord of the Rings small in scope / comparable to Avatar?
Excuse me while I LMAO
It was three movies of people walking to a volcano.
-
It was three extremely tedious movies of people walking to a volcano.
FTFY
-
It was three movies of people walking to a volcano.
That's such an oversimplification that I wonder if you're just trolling popular franchises out of spite at this point.
-
People over simplify Avatar too.
" People ONLY went to see it because it was 3D. "
But :
Re: Will the new Star Wars movie top Avatar at the box office?
The answer is : No.
-
Based on what I've read in the past, I'm probably one of the few people on the forums who actually agrees with Chino in regards to Avatar. Great movie which I saw several times; awesome cinematic experience.
But the LOTR comparison is ridiculous. Even scope aside (I mean, really?), I think the all three of the LOTR are far superior films on every level.
-
It was three movies of people walking to a volcano.
That's such an oversimplification that I wonder if you're just trolling popular franchises out of spite at this point.
Now you know how I feel when I hear "It's just Pochahontas in space"
-
"It's just Pochahontas in space"
"It's just Dance With Wolves in space"
"It's just Ferngully in space"
"It's just Smurfs in space"
-
It was three movies of people walking to a volcano.
That's such an oversimplification that I wonder if you're just trolling popular franchises out of spite at this point.
Now you know how I feel when I hear "It's just Pochahontas in space"
So I'm right then. :lol
Except that the simplification is much more honest in the case of Avatar than LOTR. Avatar is a simple and familiar story. Nothing in particular wrong with that, but it is what it is. Given your apparent lack of general movie viewing it's probably less of an issue for you than others, but the main appeal of the movie is the visuals, not its scope or depth. Some movies tell a simple story, but tell it very well.
LOTR is a very rich and fleshed out world, and that 3 movie walk to a volcano interweaved with a lot of subplots that all played an important part to the story. I don't even see grounds for comparison in that regard.
-
I'll say it over and over again but - Avatar's simple story sold it for me.
A movie can be very enjoyable if you know exactly what's coming.
The pacing was also great. it just kept building towards the climax.
-
As I said, nothing in particular wrong with it, as long as it's told well. A lot of modern movies have a tendency to over-plot and move too fast imo, and end up making no sense in the process. I'd rather a simple story told well, which leaves room for character moments.
-
Titanic had a very simple plot. very similar to Avatar.
Cameron has a knack for making simple stories into enjoyable movies.
-
A movie can be very enjoyable if you know exactly what's coming.
That does not work for me when seeing a movie for the first time since I expect more from something of this scale. The predictability made the movie utterly boring.
-
For you.
(https://gp3.googleusercontent.com/-JoORUaVgnXg/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/X4QSEjMwGWs/s48-c-k-no/photo.jpg?sz=50)
-
Orcus has a point. With something as big as Avatar you expect some kind of originality. We will probably get that from the sequels, or at least I hope so. I only saw the original Avatar twice back when it came out. The first time it was alright, because despite a very predictable story, the visuals looked good in 3D and as a movie-going experience it was enjoyable enough. But on the second viewing (home video), it didn't have that same experience, the visuals looked fine (but let's face it, always worse at home like all films) and it didn't have an interesting story or good characters to fall back on, so it just became a fairly average film.
-
The Force Awakens has officially made $2bn worldwide.
It has over $180m to even equal Titanic let alone Avatar at another $800m.
It had a good run though. Only the third ever movie to make $2bn .
Plus the first movie ever to make $900m domestically.
-
It's worth noting, in its original run, Titanic made 1.8 billion. Its current total includes a large scale re-release a few years ago that made about 300 million.
Now, a re-release making $300 million is impressive, I'm not disputing that. I'm just saying, for an accurate comparison, TFA is already past Titanic.
Avatar's spot on the list is definitely safe for now though.
Edit: Also, there's a chance that TFA's domestic total could pass the original worldwide run of The Phantom Menace ($924 million). :lol
-
It needs to.
-
So...
End game?
-
Doubtful. Star Wars doesn't do as well in places like China, which is a major spot now.
Honestly, one of the main reasons why Avatar is at 2.7 billion or whatever...well 2 of the reasons are...
1) It played for a really long time at a time when it didn't have as much competition as modern blockbusters do
2) You HAD to see it in 3D, which was considerably more expensive. If everyone saw Avatar in 2D instead, the box office would likely be much lower. Still well over a billion, maybe even over 2 billion, but not 2.7.
I see Star Wars making maybe 1.8 or 1.9 billion. The Last Jedi didn't do it any favors.
Edit: Didn't realize this was an old thread haha.
Endgame probably won't top Avatar either. Like I said, very different circumstances. However, if you compare tickets sold, as opposed to money made, it might be much much closer.
-
So...
End game?
It's got a decent chance. We'll see what the drop off is for weekend 2. I was looking at showings near me on Friday and it's slim pickings for seats.
-
So...
End game?
It's got a decent chance. We'll see what the drop off is for weekend 2. I was looking at showings near me on Friday and it's slim pickings for seats.
I've got a bet going with a few buddies of mine. I don't think it'll break 3/4 of what Avatar earned. The bet is as follws:
- If it fails to break 3/4, they owe me a six pack
- If it breaks the 3/4 mark but still falls short, it's a wash.
- If it breaks the full amount, I owe them six packs
-
Yeah it will easily pass it Avatar. It's already the 10th highest grossing movie of all time after 5 days.....
Most big films take a 3rd of the final totals over the first week. If that is a trend the continues with Endgame it'll take 3.7 Billion worldwide - which is a cool billion higher than Avatar. This film is going to smash records.
-
Yeah it will easily pass it Avatar. It's already nearly halfway there after just 4 days. I suspect it'll pass 2 billion fairly easily after this second weekend.
Most big films take a 3rd of the final totals over the first week. If that is a trend the continues with Endgame it'll take 3.7 Billion worldwide - which is a cool billion higher than Avatar. This film is going to smash records.
Yea, that's not going to happen. It'll probably pass Titanic, but not Avatar. Like I pointed out, there were just certain circumstances for that movie that won't be replicated for this.
-
I would love to see Endgame whoop Avatar's ass at the box office but I agree with Adami. Avatar cheesed its way to the top because the planets aligned just right. Endgame might not match it but boy it's smashed records in such an extraordinary way I can't even come up with an idea of what might do better in the future.
-
Yeah it will easily pass it Avatar. It's already nearly halfway there after just 4 days. I suspect it'll pass 2 billion fairly easily after this second weekend.
Most big films take a 3rd of the final totals over the first week. If that is a trend the continues with Endgame it'll take 3.7 Billion worldwide - which is a cool billion higher than Avatar. This film is going to smash records.
Yea, that's not going to happen. It'll probably pass Titanic, but not Avatar. Like I pointed out, there were just certain circumstances for that movie that won't be replicated for this.
It will probably pass Titanic's total by next Monday. It will pass Avatar I believe, it would have to pull Batman vs Superman dropoff levels to fail to break Avatar's record - and this film is getting much better reviews/word of mouth than BvS did. Also the fact it's making so much money means it becomes a event movie - much like Titanic and Avatar did.
-
Yeah it will easily pass it Avatar. It's already the 10th highest grossing movie of all time after 5 days.....
Most big films take a 3rd of the final totals over the first week. If that is a trend the continues with Endgame it'll take 3.7 Billion worldwide - which is a cool billion higher than Avatar. This film is going to smash records.
Yeah. Not a chance it gets anywhere near $3.7B.
Avatar spent almost 9 months in theaters. People of all types saw it. The majority of the people that want to see End Game already have, and I don't see many people going 4+ times like a lot of people did for Avatar over those 9 months. End Game will most likely hit a wall very quickly and run out of new demographics to appeal to.
My mom and grandma, who hate pretty much anything sci-fi, finally went out and saw Avatar like three months in. That was the case for a lot of people. You're not going to see that with End Game.
-
Chino's right. I think Avatar was a pretty dumb movie, and I loved Endgame, but no way it beats it.
Endgame requires quite some knowledge of the MCU for repeated viewings. Avatar didn't even require an understanding of the plot or story. People mostly just went to see the pretty pictures. As much as I look down on that, it speaks across countries/cultures/languages etc. Endgame doesn't do that.
-
I suspect you may be wrong.
I think Endgame has a chance to edge out Avatar.
-
Space Smurfs is going down.
-
I suspect you may be wrong.
I think Endgame has a chance to edge out Avatar.
I have no idea how to respond to you disagreeing with me. Do I just capitulate? Do I commit Seppuku? So many feelings.
-
I suspect you may be wrong.
I think Endgame has a chance to edge out Avatar.
I have no idea how to respond to you disagreeing with me. Do I just capitulate? Do I commit Seppuku? So many feelings.
I recommend going and eating worms. That's usually what I do when Hef disagrees with me.
-
Chino's right. I think Avatar was a pretty dumb movie, and I loved Endgame, but no way it beats it.
Endgame requires quite some knowledge of the MCU for repeated viewings. Avatar didn't even require an understanding of the plot or story. People mostly just went to see the pretty pictures. As much as I look down on that, it speaks across countries/cultures/languages etc. Endgame doesn't do that.
That's all well and good.....but Endgame has taken 1.35 Billion after 5 days. That's half of Avatar already, that's more than 'The Last Jedi' took in it's lifetime. Tomorrow Endgame will most likely pass Ultron's total, by Friday it'll probably pass Assembles total. After the weekend it'll pass 2 billion - and be around Infinity Wars total - in 12 days.
-
Chino's right. I think Avatar was a pretty dumb movie, and I loved Endgame, but no way it beats it.
Endgame requires quite some knowledge of the MCU for repeated viewings. Avatar didn't even require an understanding of the plot or story. People mostly just went to see the pretty pictures. As much as I look down on that, it speaks across countries/cultures/languages etc. Endgame doesn't do that.
That's all well and good.....but Endgame has taken 1.35 Billion after 5 days. That's half of Avatar already, that's more than 'The Last Jedi' took in it's lifetime. Tomorrow Endgame will most likely pass Ultron's total, by Friday it'll probably pass Assembles total. After the weekend it'll pass 2 billion - and be around Infinity Wars total - in 12 days.
I think Endgame will likely surpass Avatar as well. But your predictions are WAY too aggressive. It cannot reach those numbers that quickly. It's just an impossibility. Yes, it does mindblowing numbers these first five days. But remember--a VERY large percentage of the first 5 day totals comes from advance ticket sales that started months ago. That will slow down. You also had a number of theaters opening for extended hours, and even some that did 24-hour showings. That also will not continue (although it is cool that something so unprecedented happened). So all that said, while the early numbers are just astounding, I think the numbers WILL start to fall off sharply for those two reasons. They have to.
The flipside to that, however, is that I think it will still do monster dollars from repeat viewings. And it will pick up a ton of less-die-hard fans who didn't want to buy in advance or who didn't want to deal with the opening week to two-week crowds. But those two groups may keep this in theaters for awhile once it gets down to being shown on just one or two screens per theater. I wouldn't be surprised to see it stay longer than any other Marvel film.
-
I suspect you may be wrong.
I think Endgame has a chance to edge out Avatar.
I have no idea how to respond to you disagreeing with me. Do I just capitulate? Do I commit Seppuku? So many feelings.
I encourage you to find your own path.
-
Chino's right. I think Avatar was a pretty dumb movie, and I loved Endgame, but no way it beats it.
Endgame requires quite some knowledge of the MCU for repeated viewings. Avatar didn't even require an understanding of the plot or story. People mostly just went to see the pretty pictures. As much as I look down on that, it speaks across countries/cultures/languages etc. Endgame doesn't do that.
That's all well and good.....but Endgame has taken 1.35 Billion after 5 days. That's half of Avatar already, that's more than 'The Last Jedi' took in it's lifetime. Tomorrow Endgame will most likely pass Ultron's total, by Friday it'll probably pass Assembles total. After the weekend it'll pass 2 billion - and be around Infinity Wars total - in 12 days.
I think Endgame will likely surpass Avatar as well. But your predictions are WAY too aggressive.
Tuesdays takings have just been added it's now upto 1,448m. Taking it past Ultron (and becoming the 8th highest grossing movie of all time). If it takes a modest 100m -150m in the next two days, it will only need to take over 400m over the friday + weekend to be at 2 billion. I'd say that's well within reach.
Just to clarify - Endgame added a staggering 230m to it's worldwide total this Monday and Tuesday.
-
Yeah, and you know, on second thought, I guess here is where I am partially wrong: I don't know that advance sales and additional theater hours are factors that will change much in a lot of countries outside the U.S. I still think you are too aggressive on your timeline, but not as much as I was originally thinking.
-
I'm interested what this upcoming weekend will do for Endgame. I know I'm seeing it at least two more times between Friday and Sunday myself.
-
I'm interested what this upcoming weekend will do for Endgame. I know I'm seeing it at least two more times between Friday and Sunday myself.
Well, that should get it MUCH closer to the $2.7 billion mark.
-
I'm interested what this upcoming weekend will do for Endgame. I know I'm seeing it at least two more times between Friday and Sunday myself.
Well, that should get it MUCH closer to the $2.7 billion mark.
I'm going millions in debt per showing. :metal
-
Just curious...are all these numbers being thrown around adjusted for inflation? Isn't Gone with the Wind still the highest grossing movie of all time when the numbers are adjusted for inflation?
-
Just curious...are all these numbers being thrown around adjusted for inflation? Isn't Gone with the Wind still the highest grossing movie of all time when the numbers are adjusted for inflation?
No and yes. Respectively.
-
It's tricky. Gone with the Wind was in theaters for a little over 4 years and made $500M in that span of time. I think that would be something like $3.4B today, but it took four years of non-stop showing to achieve that. On the flippy flip, the population in the 40s was like half of what it was today. If there were 7B people on the planet back then, would it have made $6B+ in today's money? Who knows.
Even comparing End Game to Avatar is tough. On one had, movie tickets cost something like 25% more today than they did in 2009, but I was paying $16+ for 3D Imaxx viewings which were definitely factored into that $2.7B total. 3D ticket sales in general were more than a standard ticket, and correct me if I'm wrong, but End Game was 2D only, right? I haven't been to a movie in ages, but I'd suspect a standard 2D ticket is about what a 3D ticket cost back then.
-
On the subject of the box office record, here are the top few films for both Worldwide box office and Domestic (i.e. USA) box office, with their total gross (in millions) as well as how they compare to Avatar's gross in that market (so Avatar's gross is 100%, a film that makes half as much is 50%, etc.):
Worldwide
1. Avatar - $2,788m (100%)
2. Titanic - $2,186.8m (78.4%)
3. Jurassic World - $1,665.8 (59.7%)
4. Marvel's The Avengers - $1,519.6 (54.5%)
5. Furious 7 - $1,514.8 (54.3%)
6. Avengers: Age Of Ultron - $1,402.8 (50.3%)
7. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 - $1,341.5 (48.1%)
Domestic
1. Avatar - $760.5m (100%)
2. Titanic - $658.7m (86.6%)
3. Jurassic World - $651.8m (85.7%)
4. Marvel's The Avengers - $623.4m (82.0%)
5. The Dark Knight - $524.9m (69.2%)
6. Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace - $474.5m (62.4%)
7. Star Wars (A New Hope) - $461.0m (60.1%)
The thing worth noting here imo is how much further ahead the James Cameron duo is in the worldwide box office compared to the USA. For example Jurassic World's domestic gross is over 85% of Avatar's domestic gross, and it almost overtook Titanic. Yet on the worldwide level, Jurassic World (which by no means did badly with global audiences) didn't even reach 60% of Avatar's total. So while other big films are regularly grossing quite close to Avatar in the USA, none are coming close worldwide.
Also worth mentioning that there are different films on those lists - a film being near the top of the overall chart in the USA doesn't necessarily mean it will make the same position worldwide. And notice a couple of films that appear on the US list but not worldwide? Star Wars. You have to go down to #20 on the overall worldwide box office chart to find Episode I, and the original Star Wars doesn't even crack the top 50, despite them being #6 and #7 on the domestic chart.
So seeing those numbers (Avatar not being quite as far ahead of the chasing pack in the domestic box office, and the Star Wars franchise historically doing much better in the US than globally), am I really the only person here that thinks Star Wars 7 might take #1 all time in the domestic box office but not make #1 all time worldwide? I mean, it could be that the market has changed enough and this is the Star Wars film the global box office is ready to really embrace making it #1 in both, or Star Wars could "fail" to pass Avatar's domestic haul and not be #1 in either, but to me it seems as though there is a pretty gaping space in the middle for Star Wars to become #1 domestic but #3 or #2 worldwide, and that might just be the sweet spot for it.
Just seeing this thread bumped again, pretty shameless gloating post from me here but how often do you get to look back and see your prediction played out quite so nicely? :p I see another couple of people picked the same option in the poll since I made that post, but Star Wars overperforming in the USA relative to the rest of the world held true so #1 domestic #3 worldwide turned out to be right.
As for Endgame one, it's an interesting one as the opening weekend Box Office is just, so far ahead of anything else it's hard to even make the comparison (it was almost double Infinity War's worldwide opening weekend, and Infinity War was the previous record holder almost $100m ahead of the next one down). But for something so unprecedentedly huge, it's possible things could go pretty differently. I could see some of that opening weekend being more about people wanting to make sure to see this one even earlier than usual rather than purely just more people wanting to see it. So we could see it drop a lot and play more like a "normal" huge movie by the second weekend rather than maintain this pace.
But, looking at it this way: Infinity War made $640m opening weekend, and ended with $2,048m at the box office, so it's total gross after the opening weekend was around $1,408m. Endgame made $1,223m (!!!) on it's opening weekend. Even if it were to add the same amount as Infinity War made after it's opening weekend, it would reach $2,631m - second behind Avatar at $2,788m. That's the stat that makes me think it has good chance.
But the main question is if, as I said above, it just will have roughly the same audience as Infinity War except they went to see it even earlier (in which case it will drop off steeply since there's not as many people left to go and see it), or if it will actually have a bigger audience than Infinity War (including repeat viewings). From what I read it held decently on Monday and added a fine amount on Tuesday - the second weekend will probably be the first indication of whether it has a much bigger drop than predicted.
-
Considering Avatar is mediocre at best, it would be nice to see it dethroned. However with that said, the stars aligned and the movie was the perfect mix of something new, 3D hype, spectacle, James Cameron, and so on. There's always a lot of talk how companies keep milking known IPs because a new Star Wars movie or a new Spider-Man movie or anything that is recognized by the mainstream has a head start, but to me part of why Avatar was so successful was because it was something new. I think the fact that you could go see that movie in the cinema and be 100% caught up appealed to a lot of people. Endgame will make loads of money and could potentially earn more, but I think the downside is that a lot of people won't see it because they have 21 movies to catch up on before they see it. Avatar didn't have that baggage. On the flip side, I think superhero fans will go see Endgame several times in cinemas so we'll see.
-
Considering Avatar is mediocre at best, it would be nice to see it dethroned. However with that said, the stars aligned and the movie was the perfect mix of something new, 3D hype, spectacle, James Cameron, and so on. There's always a lot of talk how companies keep milking known IPs because a new Star Wars movie or a new Spider-Man movie or anything that is recognized by the mainstream has a head start, but to me part of why Avatar was so successful was because it was something new. I think the fact that you could go see that movie in the cinema and be 100% caught up appealed to a lot of people. Endgame will make loads of money and could potentially earn more, but I think the downside is that a lot of people won't see it because they have 21 movies to catch up on before they see it. Avatar didn't have that baggage. On the flip side, I think superhero fans will go see Endgame several times in cinemas so we'll see.
I saw Avatar 10 times before it was out of theaters.
-
and correct me if I'm wrong, but End Game was 2D only, right?
No, Endgame is out in 3D as well. I saw it on Imax 3D since it was the most convenient Imax showing for me. I thought I saw something that 20% of Engame's opening weekend revenue was for 3D showings. I would guess Avatars were over 50%.
For Avatar, modern 3D was a new thing and everyone wanted to see it in 3D since that was part of the appeal. Since then, pretty much everyone has come to agree that 3D movies aren't that great and don't want to pay the premium.
Not that any of that means much, just that it's incredibly difficult to meaningfully compare the box office receipts of movies from different eras.
-
and correct me if I'm wrong, but End Game was 2D only, right?
No, Endgame is out in 3D as well. I saw it on Imax 3D since it was the most convenient Imax showing for me. I thought I saw something that 20% of Engame's opening weekend revenue was for 3D showings. I would guess Avatars were over 50%.
For Avatar, modern 3D was a new thing and everyone wanted to see it in 3D since that was part of the appeal. Since then, pretty much everyone has come to agree that 3D movies aren't that great and don't want to pay the premium.
Not that any of that means much, just that it's incredibly difficult to meaningfully compare the box office receipts of movies from different eras.
I stand corrected.
As for the "3D movies aren't that great" comment, I blame that on the movie studios. Avatar was amazing in 3D because it was done right. It was filmed in 3D, and every scene was directed with 3D in mind. This applies to movies like Hugo and Life of Pi (which used James Cameron's cameras) as well. 3D got a shit reputation because of crap like Alice in Wonderland that filmed the movie as they would any other, and then spent $12M in post production having a team choose which objects to make come out of the screen.
It's a damn shame if you ask me. When done properly, 3D can be amazing.
-
On the worldwide chart, that gap between Avatar and #2 never ceases to astound me. That's like Bonds breaking Aaron's HR record of 755 by hitting 963 (or however the math shakes out).
-
Yeah, and you know, on second thought, I guess here is where I am partially wrong: I don't know that advance sales and additional theater hours are factors that will change much in a lot of countries outside the U.S. I still think you are too aggressive on your timeline, but not as much as I was originally thinking.
I'm actually starting to think I may have underestimated, rather than been aggressive. It appears now that it will overtake Assemble a day early than I predicted (once Wednesday's totals are in).
The big thing will be this weekend. MCU films tend to drop off around the 50% - 60% for their second weekends (IW was 55%). If Endgame can stay within those figures then it will pass 2 billion by Monday.
-
Ok this is getting stupid now 1.638 Billion taken with Wednesdays added - it's just sailed past Assemble and into 6th place all time.
-
The hell is Assemble?
-
My guess it that's an autocorrect to "Avengers"
-
Probably just a way of specifying the first Avengers film rather than just saying The Avengers - it was titled Avengers Assemble in the UK.
-
Probably just a way of specifying the first Avengers film rather than just saying The Avengers - it was titled Avengers Assemble in the UK.
Ohhhhhh, gotcha.
-
Probably just a way of specifying the first Avengers film rather than just saying The Avengers - it was titled Avengers Assemble in the UK.
Yup. And I'm from the UK. :)
-
Yeah, in the UK we have a completely separate franchise called The Avengers that's decades old (and starred Diana Rigg aka Olenna Tyrell for a large chunk of it): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Avengers_(TV_series)
-
After one week: 1.664 billion for Endgame. 6th highest grossing film of all time (up from 8th yesterday) and it's only 7 million from overtaking Jurassic World. Crazy.
-
1,785b. Not including Friday.
The drop off this weekend will be the key to what to expect next. Worst case is the film is blown out already and it takes a 75% drop (300m) - Best case is it's stillpacking cinema's and drops 50% (600m). As there is a slowdown starting to happen in the foreign market, it's gone from 3* US domestic to just above 2* I think I'd predict somewhere around the 400m - 450m mark, that'll finish the weekend with 2.2b +.
-
Well damn. 2nd weekend and it’s 2nd highest of all time (not adjusted for inflation) passing Titanic. Still don’t know if it’ll pass Avatar (though I’d be happy to be wrong) but damn it’s insane.
-
It's smashing every time-based record so far so it's definitely in with a shout.
-
Absolutely insane. I was checking the box office totals every day because this thing is fascinating to watch. Didn't expect it to already pass Titanic, I thought maybe after the weekend sure, but holy crap. If this thing passes Avatar, that'll be incredible.
Also James Cameron now no longer has the top 2 spots. :P I know, Gone with the Wind and inflation, but still...
-
Endgame passed 2 billion in 11 days. Fastest ever.
Old record was Avatar, which took 47 days to hit that mark.
At this point, I'm not sure why anyone would doubt that Endgame will pass Avatar's final number.
-
Yeah, not a matter of if but when as far as I'm concerned.
-
I know the numbers were REALLY frontloaded for Endgame with all the advance ticket sale and around the clock showings. But I'm still surprised by how fast it has slowed down. I got to see it for a second time on Friday, and the theater I went to was less than half full.
-
I know the numbers were REALLY frontloaded for Endgame with all the advance ticket sale and around the clock showings. But I'm still surprised by how fast it has slowed down. I got to see it for a second time on Friday, and the theater I went to was less than half full.
Yeah, I've been checking the box office totals on it just about every day and I'm surprised it still apparently hasn't broken 2.5 bill. I'm wondering now if it actually will beat Avatar.
-
It's just shy of 2.5 right now. I think it easily gets there. But I know many were predicting it would have gotten there already.
-
I was reading an article the other day that was talking about how the average ticket price when Titanic was in theaters was something like $4.71 per ticket. It's pretty crazy to think about how much money it made for the time.
-
I was reading an article the other day that was talking about how the average ticket price when Titanic was in theaters was something like $4.71 per ticket. It's pretty crazy to think about how much money it made for the time.
It was a huge achievement, but not really comparable, because we didn't have 80-inch 4K home cinemas in our houses (I mean, I don't now, but you know what I mean) and incredibly cheap streaming platforms to be able to watch almost infinite content whenever we want. Frankly to entice so many people to go to the cinema now with all the other options we have available is a huge achievement as well.
-
I was reading an article the other day that was talking about how the average ticket price when Titanic was in theaters was something like $4.71 per ticket. It's pretty crazy to think about how much money it made for the time.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think Titanic's 2.1B is the adjusted profit.
-
I was reading an article the other day that was talking about how the average ticket price when Titanic was in theaters was something like $4.71 per ticket. It's pretty crazy to think about how much money it made for the time.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think Titanic's 2.1B is the adjusted profit.
Nope.
-
1 Gone with the Wind $3,728,000,000 1939
2 Avatar $3,273,000,000 2009
3 Titanic $3,099,000,000 1997
4 Star Wars $3,061,000,000 1977
5 The Sound of Music $2,564,000,000 1965
6 E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial $2,503,000,000 1982
7 Avengers: Endgame film $2,489,371,188 2019
8 The Ten Commandments $2,370,000,000 1956
9 Doctor Zhivago $2,246,000,000 1965
10 Star Wars: The Force Awakens $2,215,000,000 2015
-
alrighty then, never mind.
-
I'm gonna make some vague predictions:
2.5bn: Day 19-20 (Tomorrow or Wednesday, I'd say tomorrow)
Passing Avatar: Day ~40
3.0bn: Day ~60
3.1bn: Day ~120
3.5bn: Unless we discover alien life, decide to invite them to see Endgame, and they love it, this isn't going to happen.
800m US: Day 26
850m US: Day ~40
900m US: Unlikely.
I think it's going to finish at just shy of 900m (let's say 896m) domestic and just over 3bn (3.06bn) global. For a more conservative estimate, I'm going to say 863m as the lowball for the domestic and 2.98bn as the lowball for the global. I don't doubt that it's going to crush Avatar and 850m domestic, the only questions are 900m domestic and #3 adjusted all time. I'd wager 3bn is also likely, as getting 500m globally in 120 days or so is fairly feasible.
-
I don't know if it's going to beat Avatar. It's still 160m shy.
-
There's a chance it gets a bump right before Spidey, if it stays in theaters that long.
That's worked in the past. Black Panther and Captain Marvel both got decent bumps right before Infinity War and Endgame.
It probably still won't pass it, but it might get closer.
-
I don't know if it's going to beat Avatar. It's still 160m shy.
Meaning it would have to sustain $25M/week for the next 6 weeks. Unlikely. Though, I did my part and went and saw it a third time earlier this week.
It blew it's load, and gave it a good run.
-
As I stated earlier, this and Avatar had VERY different schedules.
I checked out the movies released in the 2-3 months after Avatar's release. It had maybe 1-2 movies of competition in that time.
Endgame has TONS of summer competition. It never stood a chance of having the kind of long haul that Avatar did.
-
Yeah, and even if it doesn't beat it, it doesn't matter. The records it set are insane. I'm still gobsmacked at how it almost doubled Infinity War's weekend haul record, at over 1.220 billion. And Infinity War smashed the record itself. Looking at the Wikipedia entry for the records it set says it all. Hell I bet it'll still pull in decent money even with the competition, just not enough to pass Avatar.
Dark Phoenix is coming out very soon, and I looked at the total gross of X-Men Apocalypse for comparison. Didn't even break 600 million. Endgame doubled that in its first weekend, lawl.
-
There's a chance it gets a bump right before Spidey, if it stays in theaters that long.
That's worked in the past. Black Panther and Captain Marvel both got decent bumps right before Infinity War and Endgame.
It probably still won't pass it, but it might get closer.
Infinity War was in theaters for 140 days/20 weeks I think. Endgame has been only been around for 4 so far. They both got most of their run from the first three weeks, but that's normal for a summer movie afaik. $160m in 16 weeks seems fairly manageable. Just needs to make about ~$10m a week on average, and I think the next two-three weeks will still have it earning that and more on the weekends alone. It made about $70m globally last weekend.
-
A funny thing I saw some speculation about in early articles, and since it looks like Endgame being neck and neck just under or over Avatar seems possible now: there's a question of whether Disney would definitely want Endgame to overtake Avatar, due to the fact it is now going to be distribution of Avatar sequels. I'm not talking some conspiracy theory about them not wanting Endgame to be successful - money is money and if it made $2.8bn I'm sure Disney would be happy. But in a scenario where Endgame ends just short of Avatar, there's the option of the studio to do something like an award season reissue with the aim of getting an extra amount to put it over the edge. And in that case maybe Disney wouldn't be motivated to make any extra push for it to be the highest grossing movie, since when it comes to marketing the Avatar sequels being the sequel to the "Biggest Movie Ever" is one of the franchises biggest selling points. Endgame making basically as much as Avatar but not knocking it off that perch and muddying the waters for marketing might be the best outcome for Disney.
-
Just saw this article that says Endgame has passed Avatar in the US and Canada. Not worldwide though....yet.
https://www.cnet.com/news/avengers-endgame-hurtles-past-avatar-in-us-now-no-2-movie-of-all-time/?ftag=COS-05-10aaa0h&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_content=5ce3b3a5a78c46000109153d&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook
-
Still $67 million away. Who knows if it'll catch it. Aquaman is apparently still playing in theaters 6 months after release so you never know...
-
Still $67 million away. Who knows if it'll catch it. Aquaman is apparently still playing in theaters 6 months after release so you never know...
Doubt it.
Marvel could potentially do a re-release within the year for an Oscar push, but I dunno.
I looked up how much Avatar's re-release added to the total, and it's only 10 million dollars.
-
Something just occurred to me.
Let's just say hypothetically that Endgame gets a re-release and another big "push" that just barely gets it over Avatar.
I would be willing to bet nearly anything that *IF* that happened......Cameron would push to re-release Avatar in Dec 2020, one year before the release of the sequel. Just to, you know, "refresh everyone's memory" before the sequels come out 11 years later.
Come to think of it, that might not be a bad move anyway.
-
Something just occurred to me.
Let's just say hypothetically that Endgame gets a re-release and another big "push" that just barely gets it over Avatar.
I would be willing to bet nearly anything that *IF* that happened......Cameron would push to re-release Avatar in Dec 2020, one year before the release of the sequel. Just to, you know, "refresh everyone's memory" before the sequels come out 11 years later.
Come to think of it, that might not be a bad move anyway.
I fully expect that regardless of whether End Game does or not. Avatar's last re-release had 9 minutes of additional footage, and there's still a whole bunch more that went unused and deserved to be in the film. It'd be awesome if we got even more of that.
-
https://mcucosmic.com/2019/06/19/avengers-endgame-being-re-released-next-week-with-new-footage/
“There will be a version going into theaters… w/a few new things… If you stay & watch the movie, after the credits, there’ll be a deleted scene, a little tribute, & a few surprises”
A re-release for no new footage, just some crap after the credits?
-
I saw some speculation that it might be some of the stuff we will see in the Blu-ray extras.
I think that's one possiblity. At this point they just want to beat avatar by the looks of it.
-
It's a smart move honestly. Disney's got the rights to all these films anyways so it's just more money in their pockets really. I'm sure it would mean more to the Russos and the rest of the Marvel team, and truthfully I wouldn't mind seeing it top Avatar (Endgame is such a far better film it's not even funny).
And besides, it's not like Avatar and Titanic never got a theatrical re-release as well. :lol
-
Avatar's rerelease at least had 9 minutes of new footage, and Titanic's was converted to 3D for the 100th anniversary of the sinking, 16 years after the original release.
-
Avatar's rerelease at least had 9 minutes of new footage
And it STILL wasn't a very good movie. :lol
Honestly, this is just a huge win for Disney. They will make sure Endgame passes Avatar for the #1 spot. And then they will re-release Avatar either in anticipation of the release of pt. 2 or shortly afterwards when it has the momentum of pt. 2 to build off of, and all the angry Avatar fanboys will go out and see it multiple times to make sure it re-takes the #1 spot. End result for Disney? $$$$$$$$$$$$ For both franchises. They can't lose.
-
It's a smart move honestly. Disney's got the rights to all these films anyways so it's just more money in their pockets really. I'm sure it would mean more to the Russos and the rest of the Marvel team, and truthfully I wouldn't mind seeing it top Avatar (Endgame is such a far better film it's not even funny).
That's debatable for sure....but...I Endgame isn't even the best Marvel film. Infinity War alone is better than EG. Records were made to be broken, AVATAR had a nice run and will still be the bench mark IMO even if Endgame overtakes it because AVATAR changed the game. Much like the Matrix it forced every movie made after it to reach a level of excellence.....like Tiger did for golf. AVATAR may not be 'that good' of a story or whatever but it changed the way movies were made...and approached.
-
I'm not sure Avatar changed the way movies were made, at least not like that.
They upped the game, definitely. But things like Star Wars were changing the game (even though they were awful) before Avatar did. Avatar's impact on 3D was really huge....for a while, but even 3D has essentially died off to the point of just kind of being there. I don't think much modern 3D is a huge success because of Avatar.
It was a very different experience, but didn't really change movies outside of itself.
-
I'm not sure Avatar changed the way movies were made, at least not like that.
They upped the game, definitely. But things like Star Wars were changing the game (even though they were awful) before Avatar did. Avatar's impact on 3D was really huge....for a while, but even 3D has essentially died off to the point of just kind of being there. I don't think much modern 3D is a huge success because of Avatar.
It was a very different experience, but didn't really change movies outside of itself.
I'm speaking more towards the technology side.....the application of the way those actors were filmed. I think Cameron improved that system of the actors being suited up and filmed then having the characters in the movie 'painted' on to them. The Planet of the Apes trilogy and a lot of these characters like Snoke and so on looked the way they did/do thanks to Cameron pioneering and improving that technology.
-
True, but also thanks to Peter Jackson and George Lucas before that.
I'm not saying Avatar didn't improve on stuff, but I just don't see it as the massive game changer people say they were. I think that, even without Avatar, we'd still get to where we did with motion capture since it had already been in use and the man himself (Andy Serkis) was already using it before Avatar.
-
The Andy Serkis thing is a good point and part of why I've never understood the furor and hype over Avatar and its filmmaking technology. It was done before. There was a nice level of polish on Avatar but... uh... I just don't think it's anywhere near as monumental as people have made it out to be. I also think it's a shame that THAT'S the most noteworthy thing about the movie, 'cause the plot certainly isn't that.
-
The Andy Serkis thing is a good point and part of why I've never understood the furor and hype over Avatar and its filmmaking technology. It was done before. There was a nice level of polish on Avatar but... uh... I just don't think it's anywhere near as monumental as people have made it out to be. I also think it's a shame that THAT'S the most noteworthy thing about the movie, 'cause the plot certainly isn't that.
I think Avatar, at the time, did those things (tech wise, specifically 3D) better than anyone else was doing it. But it was just a step on the road to where we are now. It did a good job being a visual spectacle and was in a situation to make all the money, but again, did not reinvent anything aside from 3D stuff, which did not greatly influence the film industry as a whole.
-
Yeah. It's similar to me in how people made a big deal over the 60fps camera technology on The Hobbit. Neat trivia and was talked about being 'the future' but doesn't seem to have been nearly as influential as some made it out to be.
-
Yeah, I agree with Adami as well. At the time, Avatar did what it did with visuals better than any film before it. But nothing about that was revolutionary or had not been done.
-
Yeah, I agree with Adami as well. At the time, Avatar did what it did with visuals better than any film before it. But nothing about that was revolutionary or had not been done.
The way in which we can map and generation CGI faces in real time has been forever changed because of Avatar. Like Gary said, movies like Planet of Apes would have never been feasible without it. Cameron was the first one to figure out how to convincingly get through the Uncanny Valley for more than just a couple of minutes at a time.
-
Yeah, I agree with Adami as well. At the time, Avatar did what it did with visuals better than any film before it. But nothing about that was revolutionary or had not been done.
The way in which we can map and generation CGI faces in real time has been forever changed because of Avatar the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Like Gary said, movies like Planet of Apes would have never been feasible without it. Cameron Jackson was the first one to figure out how to convincingly get through the Uncanny Valley for more than just a couple of minutes at a time.
I agree.
-
Yeah, I agree with Adami as well. At the time, Avatar did what it did with visuals better than any film before it. But nothing about that was revolutionary or had not been done.
The way in which we can map and generation CGI faces in real time has been forever changed because of Avatar the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Like Gary said, movies like Planet of Apes would have never been feasible without it. Cameron Jackson was the first one to figure out how to convincingly get through the Uncanny Valley for more than just a couple of minutes at a time.
I agree.
I see what you did there :)
-
Much like the Matrix it forced every movie made after it to reach a level of excellence.....
Sorry Gary, I can't say The Matrix and the word Excellence are anywhere near being on a first name basis.
-
Much like the Matrix it forced every movie made after it to reach a level of excellence.....
Sorry Gary, I can't say The Matrix and the word Excellence are anywhere near being on a first name basis.
Aw man....it’s alright. I thought that movie shooting style was a great change of pace, that it was out of the box thinking at the time.
-
.
-
Much like the Matrix it forced every movie made after it to reach a level of excellence.....
Sorry Gary, I can't say The Matrix and the word Excellence are anywhere near being on a first name basis.
Aw man....it’s alright. I thought that movie shooting style was a great change of pace, that it was out of the box thinking at the time.
The original Matrix was a great change of pace at that time movie and it was a excellent movie as well. What came after not so much, but that original one was fantastic as a movie and at that time as a kid it was so hot because of how well it was shot.
-
Only about $15M to go. Now it's not even a question of "if," but simply "when."
-
Nah. Avatar is safe.
-
It'll take several weeks to get the $12 million more that Endgame needs. Not sure theaters will bother to keep it around more than a couple more. We'll see. Part of me want to see it brat Avatar since it's a better movie, but ultimately I don't care which movie makes more.
-
As of today Avengers needs $5,628,199 USD to surpass Avatar
:metal
-
So in two weeks it did $7M.
Unfortunately, home releases start on July 30th (streaming platforms); and Aug 13 (Blu Ray). It's possible, but a longshot to beat Avatar. If the 're-release' didn't put it over the edge, I'm not sure it'll get that amount with the home releases coming up shortly. At this point, who's going to re-watch it for theater prices, when in a few weeks, 4K will be available for home theater viewing.
-
It still has almost 2 weekes before home releases. I think it will get there before that
-
Even if it tops Avatar, it won't be by much, and when Disney inevitably re-releases Avatar prior to the second movie coming out, it'll take the lead back again :lol
-
Even if it tops Avatar, it won't be by much, and when Disney inevitably re-releases Avatar prior to the second movie coming out, it'll take the lead back again :lol
Exactly. It might beat avatar by $2-3 million, and then Avatar takes the leads by a much larger margin.
Honestly, what End Game has done is incredible, given that people who have not seen the other movies are less inclined to watch End Game, where as Avatar was able to attract new comers easily, specially with its pretty graphics and 3-D effects.
-
It still has almost 2 weekes before home releases. I think it will get there before that
Easily. And even though the theater numbers will suffer after that from the home release, they'll get a bit more of a boost if Marvel launches a series of ads reminding people that "the #1 selling film of all time is still in theaters for a limited time, so catch it while you can!"
Even if it tops Avatar, it won't be by much, and when Disney inevitably re-releases Avatar prior to the second movie coming out, it'll take the lead back again :lol
Oh, of course. I think Disney is banking on that. I think they wanted Endgame to top it to give it even more of a boost on re-release. It's a win-win for them. The only people who lose are the fans.
-
Even if it tops Avatar, it won't be by much, and when Disney inevitably re-releases Avatar prior to the second movie coming out, it'll take the lead back again :lol
Exactly. It might beat avatar by $2-3 million, and then Avatar takes the leads by a much larger margin.
Honestly, what End Game has done is incredible, given that people who have not seen the other movies are less inclined to watch End Game, where as Avatar was able to attract new comers easily, specially with its pretty graphics and 3-D effects.
I think China played a large role as well. Their cinema industry has really taken off in the last 7 years or so. Last I read, Endgame was closing in on $650M in just that country alone.
-
ENDGAME it’s officially the highest grossing film ever
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/
-
Not to bash on either movie but I kinda wish the battle for the box office was between two better movies. Nice for MCU though but I also agree once Avatar 2 comes out (if it ever does) they'll just put out the original Avatar for like a week or two and it will get #1 again.
-
And ‘Endgame’ isn’t even the best MCU film by a long shot. Shoot, Infinity War was ‘better’.
-
Not to bash on either movie but I kinda wish the battle for the box office was between two better movies. Nice for MCU though but I also agree once Avatar 2 comes out (if it ever does) they'll just put out the original Avatar for like a week or two and it will get #1 again.
I had a great conversation over the weekend about this very topic.
For one, what makes a movie "better" is 100% subjective, and what someone gets out of actually going to a cinema varies. It's no secret that Avatar is my favorite movie, but do I think it's the "best" movie? I'm not really sure. I think Contact is a far better story, and it's a great movie, but a theater adds nothing to that experience. Whether I see it in my living room of on the big screen, my feelings are exactly the same. But a movie like Avatar, or any of the MCU movies, the theater viewing becomes integral to the experience (in addition to the story). I didn't see Avatar 10 times in theaters because it was the greatest story every told. I went because it was one of the most awesome rides I had ever been on. The theater delivered big time.
So I don't really think box office numbers should be tied to how good a movie is, or whether or not a movie is better than another. I mean, I think Back to the Future is one of the greatest films ever made and to date has made less than $400M at the box office.
(https://preview.redd.it/jz8vtp3i7ub31.jpg?width=597&auto=webp&s=adab5fc4fdd12049e6101c4dda5d763819aaf096)
-
What makes a movie good or bad is indeed subjective, to clarify my point a bit, whether you like or dislike these movies, I find it kind of a bummer that the top battle is between a re-telling of Pocahontas in CGI and the 49th movie in the MCU which in the long run will be yet another Marvel movie in a long line of good Marvel movies. I thought Avatar was okay, I thought Endgame was pretty good but ultimately neither are really super interesting on their own.
But hey they've both made a crap load of money so. :P
-
What makes a movie good or bad is indeed subjective, to clarify my point a bit, whether you like or dislike these movies, I find it kind of a bummer that the top battle is between a re-telling of Pocahontas in CGI and the 49th movie in the MCU which in the long run will be yet another Marvel movie in a long line of good Marvel movies. I thought Avatar was okay, I thought Endgame was pretty good but ultimately neither are really super interesting on their own.
But hey they've both made a crap load of money so. :P
I guess that's the point I was trying to make though... The fact that it's a retelling is irrelevant. When it came to Avatar, the theater created an experience that couldn't be matched outside of it, which IMO is the sole reason for ever spending a cent at a movie theater to begin with.
And even though I couldn't care less about super hero franchises, the fact that there were 48 previous movies (is that a real figure or just hyperbole?) must be some kind of testament to the quality of those films and to some extent the story they're telling. If you could make that many movies in a franchise and your viewing numbers increase with each release, you must be doing something right.
Genuinely curious because I was way too young... but Dances With Wolves came out 5 years before Pocahontas. Were people back then complaining that Pocahontas was just a cartoon version of Dances With Wolves with a female lead instead?
-
What makes a movie good or bad is indeed subjective, to clarify my point a bit, whether you like or dislike these movies, I find it kind of a bummer that the top battle is between a re-telling of Pocahontas in CGI and the 49th movie in the MCU which in the long run will be yet another Marvel movie in a long line of good Marvel movies. I thought Avatar was okay, I thought Endgame was pretty good but ultimately neither are really super interesting on their own.
But hey they've both made a crap load of money so. :P
Y'know, there's a great YouTube clip addressing this complaint and I strongly urge you to watch it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPtZHIQJpxI
There are only a relatively small number of superhero flicks coming out in any year, even nowadays. It is on the consumer to seek out films they want to see, that appeal to them, if the flavor of the generation isn't your cup of tea. It's just like someone who watches the Grammys or the top 40 charts and complains about all the top artists being rap/pop/nothing super deep or complex or sophisticated. You have to seek out what you like, but I don't see the point of complaining about what tops the box office. Those blockbusters help fund all the other movies a studio finances that won't get that level of commercial success. Those blockbusters are also what the majority of people happen to find entertaining. What's the problem? Plenty of original movies are still getting success and recognition. It's just that comic book films finally have the means to come to life and the audiences to justify continue making them.
Literally the video points out that 5% of movies that you could've theoretically watched in 2018 were superhero films. Only 5%.
-
What makes a movie good or bad is indeed subjective, to clarify my point a bit, whether you like or dislike these movies, I find it kind of a bummer that the top battle is between a re-telling of Pocahontas in CGI and the 49th movie in the MCU which in the long run will be yet another Marvel movie in a long line of good Marvel movies. I thought Avatar was okay, I thought Endgame was pretty good but ultimately neither are really super interesting on their own.
But hey they've both made a crap load of money so. :P
Y'know, there's a great YouTube clip addressing this complaint and I strongly urge you to watch it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPtZHIQJpxI
There are only a relatively small number of superhero flicks coming out in any year, even nowadays. It is on the consumer to seek out films they want to see, that appeal to them, if the flavor of the generation isn't your cup of tea. It's just like someone who watches the Grammys or the top 40 charts and complains about all the top artists being rap/pop/nothing super deep or complex or sophisticated. You have to seek out what you like, but I don't see the point of complaining about what tops the box office. Those blockbusters help fund all the other movies a studio finances that won't get that level of commercial success. Those blockbusters are also what the majority of people happen to find entertaining. What's the problem? Plenty of original movies are still getting success and recognition. It's just that comic book films finally have the means to come to life and the audiences to justify continue making them.
Literally the video points out that 5% of movies that you could've theoretically watched in 2018 were superhero films. Only 5%.
That wasn't really my complaint as I agree with the statement of the video and I'm one of the people who've seen pretty much all superhero movies in the cinema since the craze started (I think Dark Phoenix is the only one I've skipped in the cinema in the last 10 years or so). So yeah I don't think there's too many superhero movies or that they ruin the cinema for other movies. I'm getting slightly sour on Disney but that's more on them and certain choices/movies they've put out (and I don't like the idea of them owning every property but thats a different story) but I'll still go watch these movies, it's solid popcorn entertainment. :P
-
Oh, my bad then. I misinterpreted your post :lol
I'm kind of with you, though - I don't like how Disney owns everything. On the other hand, Disney+ will basically be the only streaming source I need once it comes out... dilemma!