Support NeoGAF

[bathala]

Holmes total gross makes the sequel a done deal.

 

[threenote]

 

[StoOgE]

Looks like the only movie which can take down the two towers by James Cameron is a 9/11 movie by James Cameron

Maybe you should add the funny before adding the controversial.

 

[ClearCELL]

Cameron is king.
King is Cameron.

 

[Vic]

Cameron is king.
King is Cameron.

J.C.

 

[Hours Left]

Holmes total gross makes the sequel a done deal.

It's performance both domestic and worldwide is quite admirable, especially considering Avatar. And RDJ's Golden Globe win will only help boost its profile. (I think it will have a strong Blu-Ray/DVD presence too.)

Many sites are are saying it's already being fast tracked through, though it's still unofficial so far.

 

[ryutaro's mama]

I'll repeat it again, since you clearly have selective reading...
3 critically acclaimed award-winning films, two of which made big bank.

Cameron's last two movies were critically AND commercially successful AND have won major awards for direction and picture.

Reitman can't say all those things.

Please don't throw around tropes you don't even know the meaning of.

Reitman generally releases all his films around the Awards season. He is looking to get a nod from the Academy and whatnot. Juno and Up in the Air come to mind.

 

[koam]

You cant get them all .. (records). Right now, as per the number of total records:
1. TDK (27)
2. Titanic (10)
4. Avatar (7)

What a stupid way to measure success. That's like a sports team winning a bunch of games but not winning the cup in the end.

TDK defence force is so fucking annoying "3D TICKETS", "INFLATION" blah blah. Who gives a fuck? TDK had Heath Ledger's death that helped boost sales.

P.S I liked TDK more than Avatar but the defense force is beyond retarded.

 

[vatstep]

It's funny how whenever the weekly box office thread is posted, all the Avatards come post in here and the official thread drops off the first page or two. :lol

I did love Avatar, though; more than I was even expecting. Finally saw it this past week.

 

[Johnny Utah]

Cameron's last two movies were critically AND commercially successful AND have won major awards for direction and picture.

Reitman can't say all those things.



Reitman generally releases all his films around the Awards season. He is looking to get a nod from the Academy and whatnot. Juno and Up in the Air come to mind.

Movies like Up in the Air need the oscar season to make bank. Some of these movies depend on it, unlike something as big as Avatar.

 

[Dead]

What a stupid way to measure success. That's like a sports team winning a bunch of games but not winning the cup in the end.

TDK defence force is so fucking annoying "3D TICKETS", "INFLATION" blah blah. Who gives a fuck? TDK had Heath Ledger's death that helped boost sales.

Pretty much

TDK had the filmed for IMAX factor and the hype around Heath Ledgers Death

Avatar has the 3D. Both had their advantages.

But, then take into consideration the fact that TDK opened in at least 1000 more theaters than Avatar, and that strips away pretty much any so called advantage Avatar might have had before.

The BO run is astonishing no matter how you look at it.

Also, for what its worth, around here, regular 3D prices arent that much more than a normal 2D showing. Its IMAX 3D that really hikes up the price, and IMAX 3D is the same price as regular IMAX, so TDK had a price hike advantage as well.

 

[Vic]

Cameron's last two movies were critically AND commercially successful AND have won major awards for direction and picture.

Commercially successful might be an understatement you know when we're speaking about those two movies...

 

[PhoncipleBone]

But i have to say, the only reason it's such, it's because dozens of posters like GhaleonEB have made their full time job at GAF of telling everybody just how much money Avatar is making and how impressive it is. That also does get a bit exhausting for people who read.

And most of the hype is in either the Avatar thread, or the box office threads. Which usually are about how well a movie is doing. It is not like he is trolling the gaming side with all these stats. (is he?)

 

[ryutaro's mama]

Movies like Up in the Air need the oscar season to make bank. Some of these movies depend on it, unlike something as big as Avatar.

I'm not so sure a film like Juno needs an awards season release to be successful.

But hey...

 

[OriginalThinking]

I wonder what the odds on Avatar making $2 billion at the box office worldwide pre-release were? Cos it's looking like a dead cert now. Glad to see Holmes doing well, critics might not have liked but i really enjoyed it - even if it did seem to be the longest trailer for a sequel i've ever watched.

 

[Johnny Utah]

And most of the hype is in either the Avatar thread, or the box office threads. Which usually are about how well a movie is doing. It is not like he is trolling the gaming side with all these stats. (is he?)

I guess i spend too much time reading the Avatar thread then. My bad.

I'm not so sure a film like Juno needs an awards season release to be successful.

But hey...

Maybe maybe not, but it helps.

 

[skyfinch]

Titanic didn't do well because it featured a sinking boat. It did well because of Leo. The guy made panties moist.

 

[Rindain]

Imagine what is must feel like to be Cameron right now. I love how he has the two biggest movies worldwide by such a huge margin.

It's like no other director really gets how to make a movie click with audiences to this degree.

 

[Gary Whitta]

FUAAAAACK! I should have caught that.

And as for the pioneer comment, I strictly remember Two Towers' Gollum being the springboard for James Cameron to start up work on Avatar.

Jackson is the true genius behind Avatar confirmed!

 

[WillyFive]

He directed Juno. Juno

That's something to brag about.

 

[See You Next Wednesday]

 

[MIMIC]

God, I thought these threads were bad enough, then a new flock of juniors come in with so much angst and hatred built up from their time lurking that they can't wait to just throw it all out there and shit on everyone.

Avatar is going to make more than $2 billion worldwide. Does it matter how it does that? No. Did 3D factor into it? Yes. But there have been plenty of other 3D movies out long before the first trailer for Avatar hit, and they didn't make near the amount of money it did. So obviously, it's doing something right, and you cannot pin its entire success on the fact that it was 3D.

Of course inflation matters. That's exactly why charts exist to account for this sort of thing. Was Titanic in 3D? Was ET in 3D? Were all of those other old, high-grossing movies in 3D? No, yet we are still comparing their box office grosses as if they could all be viewed (and rake in money) in the same manner.

If video games were tracked in the same manner, something like a $174 Guitar Hero bundle would be the highest selling video game of all time.

 

[idwl]

Are there sales figures for dvds? Are those included in the final gross

 

[J2 Cool]

Well The Dark Knight is a movie for boys. Avatar is a movie for boys and girls. Avatar is a love story with shooting, Titanic was a love story with a disaster at the end.

See the pattern? You can give stuff to the boys but if the girls aren't at the forefront of the movie you can forget those records.

Batman is the most money a geek, all boys movie will haver make. Cameron has the not so secret ingredient, but studios don't listen apparently.

Twilight New Moon made over 700 million at the box office. Now image if that shit had some good stuff for the boys, and was in 3D.

Still wouldn't make as much money as Titanic or Avatar, but it would probably would've doubled its intake to 1.4 billion. I'm not kidding.

Probably not doubled, but 1 billion. Ticket prices are about $8.50-9.50 at some of my local theaters. 3D in one was $3 more at one, $5 more at another. That's a damn good amount of money added on. Everyone I know was seeing it in 3D one way or another. Meanwhile, Imax is about double theater price. There's no way to calculate it, but I would say ticket prices are probably at 35-40% a jump over what it would have been non-3D.

I would just say it gives en embellished sense of Avatar's dominance on cinema - which is massive, one of the biggest we've seen in the last few decades, but not alone in it's own stratosphere of popularity. But then again, it will be making $2 billion+, and money talks more than anything on influencing a business like the movie business.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Of course inflation matters. That's exactly why charts exist to account for this sort of thing. Was Titanic in 3D? Was ET in 3D? Were all of those other old, high-grossing movies in 3D? No, yet we are still comparing their box office grosses as if they could all be viewed (and rake in money) in the same manner.

This statement would be correct if you were just talking about consumer price inflation. Adjusting for ticket price inflation distorts the picture more than it clarifies it.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Of course inflation matters. That's exactly why charts exist to account for this sort of thing. Was Titanic in 3D? Was ET in 3D? Were all of those other old, high-grossing movies in 3D? No, yet we are still comparing their box office grosses as if they could all be viewed (and rake in money) in the same manner.

If video games were tracked in the same manner, something like a $174 Guitar Hero bundle would be the highest selling video game of all time.

It depends. For one thing, the home video market has replaced the market for consistent re-release, which is where a lot of older movies were able to make a ton of money. For another, the entertainment market is much more diverse these days; consumers have a lot more choice than they did when a lot of older movies were released. Also, the higher price of 3D ticket sales should drive down demand, but Avatar is still selling scads of tickets in spite of that.

As Ghaleon said, adjusting for inflation gives a fairly relative view of the matter (Though it fails to take the other points into account), but in the end, its real world applicability is minimal.

 

[Dead]

Of course inflation matters. That's exactly why charts exist to account for this sort of thing. Was Titanic in 3D? Was ET in 3D? Were all of those other old, high-grossing movies in 3D? No, yet we are still comparing their box office grosses as if they could all be viewed (and rake in money) in the same manner.

If video games were tracked in the same manner, something like a $174 Guitar Hero bundle would be the highest selling video game of all time.

No you can't. You have to take into consideration the differences in markets. Movies today didnt play for as long as they did back then (GWTW, and even Titanic), some movies were re-released after their original opening (Star Wars), There was no internet back then, no easy access to piracy, and there are just way more movies coming out today than before.

Avatar will have made 650+ million domestic, and coexisted with two other movies that made $200 million as well. No amount of nitpicking about inflation will make that any less impressive

Edit: And then there is also the overseas gross, which will end up at around 1.4-1.5 Billion, which is nothing less than obscene. And overseas, 3D screens account for half, if even that, of the number of screens.

 

[Trurl]

Titanic wouldn't have sold nearly as many seats if its tickets were more expensive. I think we should cut Titanic's ticket sales in half just to be fair when comparing it to Avatar.

 

[PhoncipleBone]

Titanic wouldn't have sold nearly as many seats if its tickets were more expensive. I think we should cut Titanic's ticket sales in half just to be fair when comparing it to Avatar.

huh? Where is the logic in that?

 

[GhaleonEB]

huh? Where is the logic in that?

Reads like sarcasm mocking people arguing Avatar's earnings don't count because of 3D.

 

[PhoncipleBone]

All this talk of discrediting how much money Avatar has made because of inflation and 3d makes me think of a great line by David Mamet:
"Of course people want money. That's why they call it money."

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Is it possible to have any middle ground for this film? All I hear is that it's a piece of shit pocahontas ripoff, or that it's an amazing film unlike any other.

I loved the film, and I would probably put it up as Cameron's 4th best film. But I've seen better this year and possibly every year this decade. It is extravagant that's for sure, I think I could liken it to when I saw Return of the King in theaters (though I didn't enjoy it as much as I enjoyed the LOTR trilogy). But, eh I don't really see this film winning any awards other than best director (which he certainly earned) and best visual effects.

I'm with you. I liked it well enough, and it was amazing to look at, but it's not even in my top 5 for the year (in part because it was such a good year). I will probably see it again, but it's more or a ride than a movie.

I know the story here is Avatar, but dang, Holmes has pretty darned good legs and I'm glad it's doing well.

 

[Trurl]

Reads like sarcasm mocking people arguing Avatar's earnings don't count because of 3D.

Yes, it was sarcasm. Of course ticket prices have helped, but that isn't some scandal, it's one of the reasons Cameron is smart.

If people want to talk about number of tickets sold they can, but complaining about Avatar's premium price putting it a disadvantage would be just as fair as people complaining about 3D in this thread.

 

[Solo]

You cant get them all .. (records). Right now, as per the number of total records:
1. TDK (27)
2. Titanic (10)
4. Avatar (7)

You posted this exact same thing more or less last week, and its as dumb now as it was then. The person who made the superbowl analogy last week was spot on.

 

[Canova]

Cameron used voodoo for his movies. He made a deal with satan. None of them deserve to be 1 & 2 at the top of b.o records.

TDK

 

[Vic]

Cameron used voodoo for his movies. He made a deal with satan. None of them deserve to be 1 & 2 at the top of b.o records.

TDK

lol

 

[Fafalada]

Is it possible to have any middle ground for this film? All I hear is that it's a piece of shit pocahontas ripoff, or that it's an amazing film unlike any other.

Personally I found it closer to Battlefield Earth storywise. But yea, outside of visuals it's just a forgettable affair.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Cameron used voodoo for his movies. He made a deal with satan. None of them deserve to be 1 & 2 at the top of b.o records.

TDK

Nor does TDK then. Box Office merit is not the same as artistic merit.

Regardless, I can see why Avatar has bigger audiences than TDK.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

You posted this exact same thing more or less last week, and its as dumb now as it was then. The person who made the superbowl analogy last week was spot on.

What was the analogy?

 

[artist]

What a stupid way to measure success. That's like a sports team winning a bunch of games but not winning the cup in the end.

TDK defence force is so fucking annoying "3D TICKETS", "INFLATION" blah blah. Who gives a fuck? TDK had Heath Ledger's death that helped boost sales.

P.S I liked TDK more than Avatar but the defense force is beyond retarded.

Woah there buddy, YOU brought the fact up that Avatar will not be #1 for 15 weekends like Titanic. If you didnt care for such records, why bring it up? I was only responding to your fucking stupid post that Avatar has one strange run that it wont get ALL the records. Now please untwist your panties and breathe in and out slowly. MMkay?

You posted this exact same thing more or less last week, and its as dumb now as it was then. The person who made the superbowl analogy last week was spot on.

Read the post I was responding to, my post was spot on in reply to koam's post. Now go cry yourself in a little corner that no Bond movie ever will even come close to TDK in terms of quality and BO office success.

 

[Canova]

Nor does TDK then. Box Office merit is not the same as artistic merit.

Regardless, I can see why Avatar has bigger audiences than TDK.

huh? TDK is actually a great movie, great story, great performances by top notch actors, zero visual effect.

if Avatar was made by any other director, it would never touch 300M mark. This movie is carried by hype, Cameron's name ....and voodoo

 

[aznpxdd]

Every week since release I see the same ol' same ol'.

People trying their damnest to discredit Avatar's success. Its hilarious.

huh? TDK is actually a great movie, great story, great performances by top notch actors, zero visual effect.

if Avatar was made by any other director, it would never touch 300M mark. This movie is carried by hype, Cameron's name ....and voodoo

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

 

[Trickster]

huh? TDK is actually a great movie, great story, great performances by top notch actors, zero visual effect.

 

[artist]

Holmes total gross makes the sequel a done deal.

Holmes' opening weekend was enough to guarantee the sequel.

 

[LevelNth]

Why are people going to see The Lovely Bones? Movie is so, so bad, and not even in a popcorn-muncher way.

And yet as a film it's still much better than Avatar. Guess not everyone is 3D crazy?

 

[GloveSlap]

Avatar only really started getting hyped after people started seeing it. That is earned hype, as in word of mouth. As far as Cameron's name goes, im sure it helped, but i don't think it had a huge impact.

 

[Johnny Utah]

Avatar is a better film than Lovely Bones. Lovely Bones is all over the place, crappy movie imo, don't know what Jackson was thinking.

 

[Canova]

Every week since release I see the same ol' same ol'.

People trying their damnest to discredit Avatar's success. Its hilarious.



:lol

ok maybe not zero (though I can't recall which part of the dark knight is digital or FX) but my point is that the movie is an old style, classic detective/action story, not some digital-world galore

 

[MIMIC]

It depends. For one thing, the home video market has replaced the market for consistent re-release, which is where a lot of older movies were able to make a ton of money. For another, the entertainment market is much more diverse these days; consumers have a lot more choice than they did when a lot of older movies were released. Also, the higher price of 3D ticket sales should drive down demand, but Avatar is still selling scads of tickets in spite of that.

Higher prices don't deter demand (if you can't get it cheaper anywhere else for the same quality). If it's good, people are going to buy it, no matter how much it costs. I'll stick with my video game example. Video games years ago were at least $10-$15 cheaper than they were today and yet they're still selling more copies these days.

Highest selling video games on particular platforms (non bundles):

Nintendo
Nintendo Entertainment System: Super Mario Bros. 3 (18 million copies) vs. Wii: Wii Play (24.43 million copies)
Sony
PSX: Gran Turismo (10.85 million copies) vs. PS2: GTA: San Andreas (17.33 million copies)
Microsoft
Xbox: Halo 2 (8 million copies) vs. Xbox 360: Halo 3 (8.1 million)
Wikipedia

If the quality is critically-acclaimed, the price of the product usually is not going to matter (unless it's ridiculously unreasonable, of course). In the examples above, the latest products made more money AND sold more copies than the older products (despite today's market having more variety in entertainment options). With Avatar, it definitely made more money, yet didn't sale as many tickets as a movie such as Titanic or Jaws or Jurassic Park.

Avatar DID sale more tickets than The Dark Knight, so at least it has that. Avatar is definitely a mega blockbuster.

I'm more interested in how many people wanted it, rather than how much money it made.

 

[jett]

ok maybe not zero (though I can't recall which part of the dark knight is digital or FX) but my point is that the movie is an old style, classic detective/action story, not some digital-world galore

So what? Both movies achieve magnificently what they're trying to do.