Quantcast
The Force Awakens Box Office Thread: $1,73B

Forums - Movies Discussion - The Force Awakens Box Office Thread: $1,73B

Wonktonodi said:
DakonBlackblade said:
Wonktonodi said:

Resumed to avoid taking the whole page with 1 quote

The entire USA list is dominated by stuf from before the 80s, and full of pre 60s movies, its very very unrealistic to think any of these movies released today, with current ticket prices, multitude of entertainement avaliable and the fact ppl has less spare money because the amount ppl make did not follow how much stuf got more expensive and also the fact ppl have more bills to pay than they used to 30-40 years ago, would make anywhere near the million/billions they suposed would do with the adjustment to inflation. In fact the top 10 has only 1 movie from the 90s the rest is pre 90. Even Avatar wich was a absolute phenomenom, that had multiple re-releases is  only 14 on the domestic box office adjusted to inflation list and 3rd on the worldwide one, considering that in the past movies would only release years after theyre American release on some select few markets worldwide, the Chinese market wasnt even a thing, the fact that Gone With the Wind with its inflation adjusted budget still made amost 3.9 billion (ye I was wrong about the 5 billion, big deal, 3.9 bil is so much more realistic...) is beyond retarded, adjusting anything to inflation dont work thinks sels as well or as bad as they sell cause they release on the time they released, if you change the context the result would also be very different.



One last time. World wide adjusted for inflation GWTW is 3.4 billion. The number 2 movie for world wide is Avatar.  

So no need for excuses, or calling the comparison retarded. 

Not acording with this list wich is what I saw http://calculatorgames.info/mogul/, wich might be wrong but than again worldwide gross adjusted for inflation varys depending on source, specialy on older movies where worldwide revenue wasnt tracked like it is today, still 3.4 billion is more than Avatar and still retarded to think that movie would come anywhere close to that on todays context. The American numbers ar emuch more reliable however and you didnt even comment the fact the top 10 American box offices adjusted are all pre 90 with the exception of Titanic wich is pre 2000, theres are movies from 1920 there that made like 200M tops when they released for crying out loud. Adjusting anything to inflation in any scenario is retarded, Im sorry the context change, the results do to. 50 years form now Avatar "will have grossed" 5 billion and gone With the Wind well be reaching 6... super plausible, ye. Releasin today Gone With the Wind wouldnt have sold half as much and wouldnt have screened for over 3 years with multiple re releases either, adjusting to inflation makes 0 sense, so Avatar is the Box Office King and Force Awakens may or may not take its post.



Around the Network

UPDATED OP.



DakonBlackblade said:
Wonktonodi said:
DakonBlackblade said:
Wonktonodi said:

Resumed to avoid taking the whole page with 1 quote

The entire USA list is dominated by stuf from before the 80s, and full of pre 60s movies, its very very unrealistic to think any of these movies released today, with current ticket prices, multitude of entertainement avaliable and the fact ppl has less spare money because the amount ppl make did not follow how much stuf got more expensive and also the fact ppl have more bills to pay than they used to 30-40 years ago, would make anywhere near the million/billions they suposed would do with the adjustment to inflation. In fact the top 10 has only 1 movie from the 90s the rest is pre 90. Even Avatar wich was a absolute phenomenom, that had multiple re-releases is  only 14 on the domestic box office adjusted to inflation list and 3rd on the worldwide one, considering that in the past movies would only release years after theyre American release on some select few markets worldwide, the Chinese market wasnt even a thing, the fact that Gone With the Wind with its inflation adjusted budget still made amost 3.9 billion (ye I was wrong about the 5 billion, big deal, 3.9 bil is so much more realistic...) is beyond retarded, adjusting anything to inflation dont work thinks sels as well or as bad as they sell cause they release on the time they released, if you change the context the result would also be very different.



One last time. World wide adjusted for inflation GWTW is 3.4 billion. The number 2 movie for world wide is Avatar.  

So no need for excuses, or calling the comparison retarded. 

Not acording with this list wich is what I saw http://calculatorgames.info/mogul/, wich might be wrong but than again worldwide gross adjusted for inflation varys depending on source, specialy on older movies where worldwide revenue wasnt tracked like it is today, still 3.4 billion is more than Avatar and still retarded to think that movie would come anywhere close to that on todays context. The American numbers ar emuch more reliable however and you didnt even comment the fact the top 10 American box offices adjusted are all pre 90 with the exception of Titanic wich is pre 2000, theres are movies from 1920 there that made like 200M tops when they released for crying out loud. Adjusting anything to inflation in any scenario is retarded, Im sorry the context change, the results do to. 50 years form now Avatar "will have grossed" 5 billion and gone With the Wind well be reaching 6... super plausible, ye. Releasin today Gone With the Wind wouldnt have sold half as much and wouldnt have screened for over 3 years with multiple re releases either, adjusting to inflation makes 0 sense, so Avatar is the Box Office King and Force Awakens may or may not take its post.

 

Calling it retarded, again and again and again means nothing.

People use inflation to compare movies as well as total value. Insulting it won't change that.

 

Total ticket sales avatar is not king, nor any recent movie. Even with billions of more people in the world.

 

Maybe you didn't notice but in the American top 10. There are movies from 7 different decades on the list, showing movies that really stood out.

Compare that with the top value total and it's 4 with only 3 from before 2004, soon to be only 3 that weren't from the last 8 years. 

Or how about WW in the top 100 movies only 9 are from before 2000 and only 2 before 1993. 

Only comparing with total values and ignoring the inflation comparison as well is literally retarding yourself since you are holding back your ability to make a full comparison. So enough calling it that, thanks :)



Wonktonodi said:

Calling it retarded, again and again and again means nothing.

People use inflation to compare movies as well as total value. Insulting it won't change that.

 

Total ticket sales avatar is not king, nor any recent movie. Even with billions of more people in the world.

 

Maybe you didn't notice but in the American top 10. There are movies from 7 different decades on the list, showing movies that really stood out.

Compare that with the top value total and it's 4 with only 3 from before 2004, soon to be only 3 that weren't from the last 8 years. 

Or how about WW in the top 100 movies only 9 are from before 2000 and only 2 before 1993. 

Only comparing with total values and ignoring the inflation comparison as well is literally retarding yourself since you are holding back your ability to make a full comparison. So enough calling it that, thanks :)

 

If inflation should be taking into consideration, then what about the cultural differences of the decades? Inflation is a broken model for ranking the movies.



hershel_layton said:
I don't see why people hate on Avatar for making 2 billion. It was a good movie.

I havent seen Star Wars yet(in fact, I haven't seen any in a while), so I'm not sure which one will be better

A lot of people hate on Avatar because it was a repacking of an overused story plot that was dressed up in glitter and sequins.

More to the point, they don't mind the movie, they just don't think it deserved the insane ticket sales it amassed.





Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Around the Network
LordLichtenstein said:
Wonktonodi said:

Calling it retarded, again and again and again means nothing.

People use inflation to compare movies as well as total value. Insulting it won't change that.

 

Total ticket sales avatar is not king, nor any recent movie. Even with billions of more people in the world.

 

Maybe you didn't notice but in the American top 10. There are movies from 7 different decades on the list, showing movies that really stood out.

Compare that with the top value total and it's 4 with only 3 from before 2004, soon to be only 3 that weren't from the last 8 years. 

Or how about WW in the top 100 movies only 9 are from before 2000 and only 2 before 1993. 

Only comparing with total values and ignoring the inflation comparison as well is literally retarding yourself since you are holding back your ability to make a full comparison. So enough calling it that, thanks :)

 

If inflation should be taking into consideration, then what about the cultural differences of the decades? Inflation is a broken model for ranking the movies.


What do cultural difference between decades, or countries if you really want to go that far, have to do with dollar amounts? 

With movies there are the two comparisons, total box office and adjusted for inflation. The only one really missing that I could see being added is total tickets but the studios don't give those numbers most the time.

Comparing things monetarily over the span of years and only using the dollar amounts and not taking into account inflation, people today are making fortunes compare people back in the day, but with inflation things cost more as well. The dollar alone isn't a good unit of measure, like an inch, mile second or once. inches 80 years ago don't become miles today. Second don't become hours, but pennies turn to dollars. 

Now, you can look at movies and see why certain movies do well at various times, or what they did right to be popular, but that's discussing the reasons, not the results.



http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm



Wonktonodi said:
LordLichtenstein said:

 

If inflation should be taking into consideration, then what about the cultural differences of the decades? Inflation is a broken model for ranking the movies.


What do cultural difference between decades, or countries if you really want to go that far, have to do with dollar amounts? 

With movies there are the two comparisons, total box office and adjusted for inflation. The only one really missing that I could see being added is total tickets but the studios don't give those numbers most the time.

Comparing things monetarily over the span of years and only using the dollar amounts and not taking into account inflation, people today are making fortunes compare people back in the day, but with inflation things cost more as well. The dollar alone isn't a good unit of measure, like an inch, mile second or once. inches 80 years ago don't become miles today. Second don't become hours, but pennies turn to dollars. 

Now, you can look at movies and see why certain movies do well at various times, or what they did right to be popular, but that's discussing the reasons, not the results.

 

There are way more competition for your "entertaiment" dollars now, than there were 25-50 years ago.

Streaming servies.
Mobile gaming.
Console gaming.
PC gaming.
Internet.
More Movies than ever.
More Music than ever.
More Concerts than ever.

etc.





Comparing today's box office with 1940-80s box office is just dumb altogether, because we live in a different world. It's like comparing iPhone sales with how many home telephones there were back then; meaningless.



ninjapirate42 said:
Jumpin said:
Soundwave said:
LordLichtenstein said:

What do you guys think it did Tuesday?

I think $37.7M

Say bye bye to Avatar if that's that case at least domestically. 

I don't "hate" Avatar, it's a competent movie, that's just been done better like 3 or 4 times before (Dances With Wolves is far better) and I think it's honestly James Cameron's weakest film. 

Well that's BS, have you even seen Avatar? How is it the same story as Dances with Wolves? Is it because they both have some sort of a native in it that the protagonist befriends?

This is like saying that Force Awakens is the same story as Titanic because they both have a ship in it. Or that Force Awakens is the same as Sparticus because they're both about a resistance against an Empire.

Let's be real, Avatar is a totally different genre of film than than Dances with Wolves and also a much better film.

 

In all fairness there are many, many, many articles showing the similarities between Avatar and Dances with Wolves.

 

They're not even the same genre. One is a historical drama, the other is a sci-fi action.

One is about about a US civil war fighter who gets posted in some other part of the US, he gets waylaid by natives on the way to his post, and they kill the guy who can verify who he is. So because he can't go to his post, and he is in danger of being scalped, he chooses to go to a rival native tribe for protection. He helps the friendly native tribe against the enemy native tribe. When he goes back to civilization he gets attacked for looking native.

The other has a soldier, Sully blasting off to a moon on a foreign planet in order to pilot an avatar alongside a team of scientists who are documenting the natural wonders of the planet, which behaves as a giant super-organism. There are other corporate forces who employ the military, Sully's superior officers, and they are after unobtanium (a mcguffin for a valuable and desirable treasure). The military uses Sully as a spy in order to gather intel on the dominant species of alien inhabitants, the Na'vi. The avatar which Sully pilots looks just like a Na'vi, in fact, they don't realize he's a human. The military discovers a huge deposit of unobtanium, which just happens to be below the central nervous system of the super-organism planet. The military moves in for the attack in order to take the site, but Sully has fallen in love with the Na'Vi and the planet, and insteads works with the Na'vi and the scientists to help the planet defend itself. A huge battle takes place where mechs are sent in to fight against the forces of the planet (the planet itself, as mentioned, is like a giant super-organism). In the end, Jake's left an outcast with a dying human body, but the planet (implied that it is due to his aid) decides to take his mind, and put it into the body of a Na'vi so he can live on.

In addition to all of that. Avatar was a monumental breakthrough in special effects which has not been equaled to this day. It is a mix of real world and art, some of which is photo-realistic to the point that people can't tell what is live action and what is not. It also kicked off the transformation of movie theatres from an old fashioned 2D experience into the 3D experiences they are today. Some people resent this, as they are too stubborn to let the past go, and so there is a bias against Avatar.

Bottom line, saying the two are the same thing is a gigantic stretch. Inaccurate, in other words. Just bullshit biased and/or ignorant people believe.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.