-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
AVATAR surpasses Titanic to become the highest-grossing movie OF ALL TIME
- Thread starter jett
- Start date
- Status
Sorry for the nerd rage but..
You realize that that list: http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm is only DOMESTIC, right? Avatar made 1.3 billion in the markets outside of the US.Anticitizen One said:
Jesus people atleast read the links you post before you post them. domestic != worldwide.JeTmAn81 said:
:|crazy monkey said:
sigh. Haters gotta hate I guess, even with bullshit.Anticitizen One said:
Well I guess not pretending the world doesn't exist for one, considering the other quotes above this one. Avatar isn't #1 adjusted, but it isn't #26 worldwide either.X26 said:
They've stepped up their game. Now its Inflation adjusted domestic only, the rest of the world is out!Belfast said:
Count Dookkake
Member
It's only selling to casuals and soccer moms.
Count Dookkake said:
What's so funny? Do you not believe that Avatar is a better movie than the "other 3D movies" you referenced? Am I missing something?
GhaleonEB said:
People who don't know that 80% of Avatar's gross comes from higher priced 3D admissions and think that it's just from regular tickets.
silverbullet1080
Banned
Oh sh-Vyer said:
ahoyhoy said:
The use of the unobtanium material is no importance to the movie, but if you must know it's a superconductor essential for the development of space travel and the maglev transportation of Earth.
It's already being used in Earth's economy, like I said.
There's only one RDA base on the planet, with limited resources. This is also a private company, maximizing profits ftw, yo. They didn't move because they didn't give a fuck about the Na'Vi people, period.
The last one is either all in the movie, or easily deduced from the information you're given.
Seems you're the one making that mistake then. I haven't seen a single person here say that Avatar is the most popular movie of all time, and everyone seems aware that 3D is one of the reasons it's making as much as it is (both because of the ticket price premium, and because 3D is a major draw). So you are talking to, literally, no one.MIMIC said:
I want you to know I made a Wiimote comparison in the weekly box office thread, and thought of you.Count Dookkake said:
Count Dookkake
Member
MIMIC said:
Yes, you are missing something(s).
1) Better needs to be defined.
2) There is a limit to how much extra can be charged for an allegedly "better" product. This shall henceforth be known as the "599 US DOLLARS" rule.
GhaleonEB said:
Thumbs up, dude.
The haters are still crying i see.
Get over yourselfs guys,i still don't understand how some people hate Avatar it never said it would have the world's best script. Is it just becasue it;'s popular now so some of you guys have to try to be outsiders and trash the movie at every opportunity constant declarations that the script was 'Generic' diversion talk about inflated ticket prices, has that what it's come to for the haters?
We should be happy that a filmmaker has delivered his own unique vision in a cinematic landscape made up of so many me 2 filmmakers.
Cameron took a chance and it's paid off handsomely but then if some of you guys had sense you would have seen that months ago.
Get over yourselfs guys,i still don't understand how some people hate Avatar it never said it would have the world's best script. Is it just becasue it;'s popular now so some of you guys have to try to be outsiders and trash the movie at every opportunity constant declarations that the script was 'Generic' diversion talk about inflated ticket prices, has that what it's come to for the haters?
We should be happy that a filmmaker has delivered his own unique vision in a cinematic landscape made up of so many me 2 filmmakers.
Cameron took a chance and it's paid off handsomely but then if some of you guys had sense you would have seen that months ago.
GoutPatrol
Forgotten in his cell
Kunan said:
And I'm pretty sure those inflation adjusted lists are just doing "number of tickets x cost of average ticket for years it was in theaters." Its not like they were counting Gone With The Wind's penny theater numbers separately from the super classy ones.
Count Dookkake
Member
MIMIC said:
Depends on too many variables for you to say anything worthwhile on the subject.
MIMIC said:
Err... the limit isn't obvious when you say something as stupidly open-ended as "If it's a better movie, people are going to see it regardless of price."
599 US DOLLARS!!!!
ryutaro's mama
Member
Solo said:
plus a $3 surcharge...amirite?
GhaleonEB said:So why are you posting about it on the Internet, as a means of arguing with people on the internet? Not an especially relevant point then.
Just to be clear, when I said "people I've talked to," I meant people that I've talked to face-to-face AND people on the Internet, just not necessarily this forum. Nonetheless, I get the very strong impression that even people here on this forum tend to scoff at those who bring up the 3D ticket price because it sheds light on how popular Avatar really is. Some people want to insinuate that Avatar is as popular as the other high-grossing movies (because back in the day, gross and popularity usually did go hand-in-hand...and in this case, it doesn't)
ryutaro's mama
Member
aznpxdd said:
Liar.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
aznpxdd said:
I think they mean over the regular screens, not the IMAX ones.
Count Dookkake said:
I asked your opinion. Nevermind then.
So you HONESTLY believe that I was saying that even if a movie ticket was $500, people would see it because it's good?
Seriously?
Common sense would indicate that I wasn't being THAT open-ended :-/ I obviously meant WITHIN REASON
Lifejumper
Member
JCreasy said:
Where is that from? Sorry for the off-topic
On topic: Well deserved James Cameron, going to see it for a 2nd time soon
ryutaro's mama
Member
BobLoblaw said:I've never seen Titanic and I haven't see Avatar. Does that mean I'm unique?
I never saw Kindergarten Cop until 2 nights ago even though I was aware of all the one-liners in it.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
MIMIC said:
I read it as "within reason." Otherwise, why make the argument?
There is a premium on the tickets to see this in 3D and IMAX as compared to normal screens, but the premium being charged is not obscene. Now if the tickets were twice as much or had a premium of $10, then I think it would negatively affect the attendance. But with a $1-$3 premium, most people see that as a small price to pay for a unique experience that cannot be replicated (yet) at home. And a unique experience is what the theater going experience is supposed to be about.
Gary Whitta said:
I think the Academy has to give him the nod for best director based on his dedication to this movie and the fact that is has now brought 3D into the mainstream. Basically, this is the Super Mario 64 of new era of 3d Hollywood if you wanted to look for a comparison.
I'm a little lost here, so I want to recap how we got here. You made a broadside about "some people" equating the "highest grossing movie of all time" with "most popular movie of all time". I asked who, and you said, "I'm not talking about here on the Internet. People who I've spoken to."MIMIC said:
Well, okay. Upon my pointing out that that doesn't make it a relevant point since no one here is making that mistake, you said these people may in fact be on the Internet, but are also in real life (but apparently not on GAF), as if that somehow makes your claim more relevant.
I guess where I'm going with this is when you make a bullshit strawman argument like you did, and upon getting called out on it resort to anecdotal experience with people you know (who may or may not have been on the internet but are clearly NOT on GAF), you've failed at making said argument.
You should make that argument with the bozos you know who said that, and probably not haul it into a conversation where no one is actually saying that.
aka, this. :loljett said:
aznpxdd said:
i'm not mad at all, but to try and discredit something that pulled in almost 200 million dollars in 1939 as "only making 200 million dollars" is a little ... wrong... gone with the wind made enough to pretty much buy a freaking country in 1939.
I wasnt speaking of their place on the list, just that someone said "hey, not really" and then the usual follow up of but the rest of the world! in a thread that has an OP specifically speaking of US
Count Dookkake
Member
gcubed said:
If we are going to compare this film in anyway to video games then let me dust off my patented analogy.
The people who doubted Avatar's success in the wake of Titanic, are about as short-sighted and ignorant of their field of interest as the so-called 'experts' who predicted gloom-and-doom for the Wii in the wake of the DS.
Get a brain, morans.
While it's absolutely true that Gone with the Wind made mad bank for it's time, it also took decades and several re-releases to do it; the lack of home video market kept it playing and playing.gcubed said:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0031381/releaseinfo
USA 15 December 1939 (Atlanta, Georgia) (premiere)
USA 31 March 1942 (re-release)
USA 21 August 1947 (re-release)
USA 3 June 1954 (re-release)
USA 10 March 1961 (Atlanta, Georgia) (re-release)
USA 10 October 1967 (New York City, New York) (re-release)
USA 14 October 1967 (re-release)
USA 18 September 1974 (re-release)
USA 3 February 1989 (re-release)
USA 26 June 1998 (re-release)
gcubed said:
There was also no other way of seeing that movie. Unlike the inevitable DVD/Blu-ray versions of Avatar. Plus Gone With the Wind was out for years and years. Why aren't these brought up during these ridiculous inflation arguments?
Anyway, it doesn't really matter whether you adjust for inflation or not, Avatar did this in friggin seven weeks. Eat it.
Count Dookkake
Member
TheBranca18 said:
For the same reason that people seem to forget that other companies could try to copy Nintendo's success with the Wii Play when they shed tears about its sales dominance.
Bu-bu-bu-but free controller!!!!
TheBranca18 said:
I don't know either, but I am not sure that it is relevant.
Best director is not (or at least, should not be) a lifetime achievement or a technical innovation award, the Academy has both at their disposal and I'm sure Cameron will win a bunch of them.Mashing said:
The Academy should award the Oscar to whoever they think did the best job directing a movie the passing year.
Gamer @ Heart
Member
Weapxn said:
Totally agree. But im one of those people that read mediocre as plain or average, not bad.
- Status