PlaystaionGamer said:
Reasonable said:
PlaystaionGamer said:
Slimebeast said:
Titanic is the highest grossing move of all time worldwide. Someone posted the numbers in another thread not so long ago. Gone with the wind is 2nd highest.
Avatar will get close though. Maybe $2,400,000,000 worlwide when all is said and done (Titanic's worldwide gross revenue is $2,900,000,000 adjusted for inflation. And as a reference, LOTR The Return of the King is $1,350,000,000).
Why the hate towards Titanic BTW? I haven't seen Avatar yet but I have a strong feeling it is just as clichéd and melodramatic as Titanic.
|
your actually de-railing the thread so please stop
Avatar will be at number 1 next week as it brought in THE MOST MONEY
simple
|
Ah youth... you don't understand that money value changes over time and you can't make any comparison past a certain point without adjusting all values to a level field, do you? Avatar is 'number one' of all time in the same way Phelps is the greatest Olympian of all time because today we happen to have more swimming events than anything else (and he's good at swimming). But how would Mike have fared in Ancient Greece? Or how would they fare now?
We're conditioned by market forces to go 'of all time' but it's meaningless.
The way I look at it Avatar is the biggest grosser of probably the last ten years (maybe more). You start going back much past that and the value of money has changed comparison becomes silly.
Remember Dr Evil... 'One million dollars'. Just a million, oh, okay then, here you go Dr Evil. A million dollars is nothing these days...
|
you have already been proven wrong.
now. like the movie and celebrate it being THE NUMBER ONE MOVIE OF ALL TIME
or get the hell out of my thread
we understand inflation thanks. bye
|
You want to explain how I can be wrong about inflation?
Clue, I can't as it's an economic reality of the very monetary system upon which Avatar's revenue rests.
I actually liked Avatar, but taking revenue as the metric of number one when films have been around a long time - i.e. long enough to make monetary comparson over extended periods silly - is just plain silly.
Also, if you understand inflation then how come you don't get it impacts simply taking a 2010 value and comparing it to, for example, a 1960 value?