EPTJames Cameron's AVATAR series - Page 53
| Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
|
NeVeR
1352 Posts
| ||
|
dukethegold
Canada5645 Posts
| ||
|
PeT[uK]
United States412 Posts
| ||
|
canucks12
Canada812 Posts
| ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
| ||
|
piratebay
United States399 Posts
| ||
|
ShcShc
Canada912 Posts
Avatar and Titanic are the only non-sequel movie to have crossed this line. The other movies are "The Dark Knight", "LOTR: Return of the King" and "Pirates of the Caribbean" (the 3rd movie) | ||
|
Dave[9]
United States2365 Posts
| ||
|
Phantom
Canada2151 Posts
On January 04 2010 05:33 ShcShc wrote: The movie has just crossed the 1 billion $ line. Avatar and Titanic are the only non-sequel movie to have crossed this line. The other movies are "The Dark Knight", "LOTR: Return of the King" and "Pirates of the Caribbean" (the 3rd movie) James Cameron does not fuck around when making movies...lol...damn. I guess we can expect another great movie from him in...13 years? haha... | ||
|
reincremate
China2210 Posts
On January 04 2010 05:49 Dave[9] wrote: Holy crap...it just hit the billion dollar line and its only like 3 weeks into release? It might just bump Titanic out of it's throne.. It probably will surpass the amount Titanic grossed in the box office, but adjusted for inflation it might not have made as much. | ||
|
ShcShc
Canada912 Posts
| ||
|
reincremate
China2210 Posts
On January 04 2010 06:29 ShcShc wrote: Adjusting for inflation is pretty meaningless. It shows how many people actually went to see a movie relative to another by comparing the number of tickets sold. Of course not too many people care how many people saw whatever movie. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On January 04 2010 06:29 ShcShc wrote: Adjusting for inflation is pretty meaningless. yeah, Gone with the Wind was only moderately successful | ||
|
zergpower123
United States197 Posts
| ||
|
Ideas
United States8055 Posts
| ||
|
ShcShc
Canada912 Posts
On January 04 2010 06:35 Mindcrime wrote: yeah, Gone with the Wind was only moderately successful Its meaningless in the sense that as you go further back in years, the adjusting for inflation gets more and more inaccurate. Worse, worldwide boxoffice adjustment would actually become even more distorted. If you want to measure how many people watched the movie, then it should at least be based on tickets sales rather than adjusting it on inflation. And even then, it would be difficult to measure a movie's success based on tickets because then the question comes: how do you account things like VHS/DVDs/Blu-Ray sales? Television sales? Do we just ignore them? and then there's the question of piracy/television/internet, etc... ...I have no idea where you brought the "Gone with the Wind is only moderately successful".. I'm saying that adjusting for inflation is pretty meaningless as a measurement of ranking. | ||
|
ShcShc
Canada912 Posts
(for official confirmation of 1 billion $) | ||
|
Dave[9]
United States2365 Posts
On January 04 2010 06:44 ShcShc wrote: Its meaningless in the sense that as you go further back in years, the adjusting for inflation gets more and more inaccurate. Worse, worldwide boxoffice adjustment would actually become even more distorted. If you want to measure how many people watched the movie, then it should at least be based on tickets sales rather than adjusting it on inflation. And even then, it would be difficult to measure a movie's success based on tickets because then the question comes: how do you account things like VHS/DVDs/Blu-Ray sales? Television sales? Do we just ignore them? and then there's the question of piracy/television/internet, etc... ...I have no idea where you brought the "Gone with the Wind is only moderately successful".. I'm saying that adjusting for inflation is pretty meaningless as a measurement of ranking. he probably got it from this http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm | ||
|
ShcShc
Canada912 Posts
| ||
|
iloahz
United States964 Posts
| ||
| ||
