Will the new Star Wars movie top Avatar at the box office?

[ThatOneGuy2112]

It's a smart move honestly. Disney's got the rights to all these films anyways so it's just more money in their pockets really. I'm sure it would mean more to the Russos and the rest of the Marvel team, and truthfully I wouldn't mind seeing it top Avatar (Endgame is such a far better film it's not even funny).

And besides, it's not like Avatar and Titanic never got a theatrical re-release as well.

[Chino]

Avatar's rerelease at least had 9 minutes of new footage, and Titanic's was converted to 3D for the 100th anniversary of the sinking, 16 years after the original release.

[bosk1]

Avatar's rerelease at least had 9 minutes of new footage

And it STILL wasn't a very good movie. 

Honestly, this is just a huge win for Disney.  They will make sure Endgame passes Avatar for the #1 spot.  And then they will re-release Avatar either in anticipation of the release of pt. 2 or shortly afterwards when it has the momentum of pt. 2 to build off of, and all the angry Avatar fanboys will go out and see it multiple times to make sure it re-takes the #1 spot.  End result for Disney?  $$$$$$$$$$$$   For both franchises.  They can't lose.

[gmillerdrake]

It's a smart move honestly. Disney's got the rights to all these films anyways so it's just more money in their pockets really. I'm sure it would mean more to the Russos and the rest of the Marvel team, and truthfully I wouldn't mind seeing it top Avatar (Endgame is such a far better film it's not even funny).

That's debatable for sure....but...I Endgame isn't even the best Marvel film. Infinity War alone is better than EG. Records were made to be broken, AVATAR had a nice run and will still be the bench mark IMO even if Endgame overtakes it because AVATAR changed the game. Much like the Matrix it forced every movie made after it to reach a level of excellence.....like Tiger did for golf. AVATAR may not be 'that good' of a story or whatever but it changed the way movies were made...and approached.

[Adami]

I'm not sure Avatar changed the way movies were made, at least not like that.

They upped the game, definitely. But things like Star Wars were changing the game (even though they were awful) before Avatar did. Avatar's impact on 3D was really huge....for a while, but even 3D has essentially died off to the point of just kind of being there. I don't think much modern 3D is a huge success because of Avatar.

It was a very different experience, but didn't really change movies outside of itself.

[gmillerdrake]

I'm not sure Avatar changed the way movies were made, at least not like that.

They upped the game, definitely. But things like Star Wars were changing the game (even though they were awful) before Avatar did. Avatar's impact on 3D was really huge....for a while, but even 3D has essentially died off to the point of just kind of being there. I don't think much modern 3D is a huge success because of Avatar.

It was a very different experience, but didn't really change movies outside of itself.

I'm speaking more towards the technology side.....the application of the way those actors were filmed. I think Cameron improved that system of the actors being suited up and filmed then having the characters in the movie 'painted' on to them. The Planet of the Apes trilogy and a lot of these characters like Snoke and so on looked the way they did/do thanks to Cameron pioneering and improving that technology.

[Adami]

True, but also thanks to Peter Jackson and George Lucas before that.

I'm not saying Avatar didn't improve on stuff, but I just don't see it as the massive game changer people say they were. I think that, even without Avatar, we'd still get to where we did with motion capture since it had already been in use and the man himself (Andy Serkis) was already using it before Avatar.

[The Walrus]

The Andy Serkis thing is a good point and part of why I've never understood the furor and hype over Avatar and its filmmaking technology. It was done before. There was a nice level of polish on Avatar but... uh... I just don't think it's anywhere near as monumental as people have made it out to be. I also think it's a shame that THAT'S the most noteworthy thing about the movie, 'cause the plot certainly isn't that.

[Adami]

The Andy Serkis thing is a good point and part of why I've never understood the furor and hype over Avatar and its filmmaking technology. It was done before. There was a nice level of polish on Avatar but... uh... I just don't think it's anywhere near as monumental as people have made it out to be. I also think it's a shame that THAT'S the most noteworthy thing about the movie, 'cause the plot certainly isn't that.

I think Avatar, at the time, did those things (tech wise, specifically 3D) better than anyone else was doing it. But it was just a step on the road to where we are now. It did a good job being a visual spectacle and was in a situation to make all the money, but again, did not reinvent anything aside from 3D stuff, which did not greatly influence the film industry as a whole.

[The Walrus]

Yeah. It's similar to me in how people made a big deal over the 60fps camera technology on The Hobbit. Neat trivia and was talked about being 'the future' but doesn't seem to have been nearly as influential as some made it out to be.

[bosk1]

Yeah, I agree with Adami as well.  At the time, Avatar did what it did with visuals better than any film before it.  But nothing about that was revolutionary or had not been done. 

[Chino]

Yeah, I agree with Adami as well.  At the time, Avatar did what it did with visuals better than any film before it.  But nothing about that was revolutionary or had not been done.

The way in which we can map and generation CGI faces in real time has been forever changed because of Avatar. Like Gary said, movies like Planet of Apes would have never been feasible without it. Cameron was the first one to figure out how to convincingly get through the Uncanny Valley for more than just a couple of minutes at a time.

[bosk1]

Yeah, I agree with Adami as well.  At the time, Avatar did what it did with visuals better than any film before it.  But nothing about that was revolutionary or had not been done.

The way in which we can map and generation CGI faces in real time has been forever changed because of Avatar the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Like Gary said, movies like Planet of Apes would have never been feasible without it. Cameron Jackson was the first one to figure out how to convincingly get through the Uncanny Valley for more than just a couple of minutes at a time.

I agree.

[Lonk]

Yeah, I agree with Adami as well.  At the time, Avatar did what it did with visuals better than any film before it.  But nothing about that was revolutionary or had not been done.

The way in which we can map and generation CGI faces in real time has been forever changed because of Avatar the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Like Gary said, movies like Planet of Apes would have never been feasible without it. Cameron Jackson was the first one to figure out how to convincingly get through the Uncanny Valley for more than just a couple of minutes at a time.

I agree.

I see what you did there 

[Cool Chris]

Much like the Matrix it forced every movie made after it to reach a level of excellence.....

Sorry Gary, I can't say The Matrix and the word Excellence are anywhere near being on a first name basis.

[gmillerdrake]

Much like the Matrix it forced every movie made after it to reach a level of excellence.....

Sorry Gary, I can't say The Matrix and the word Excellence are anywhere near being on a first name basis.

Aw man....it's alright. I thought that movie shooting style was a great change of pace, that it was out of the box thinking at the time.

[TAC]

.

[cramx3]

Much like the Matrix it forced every movie made after it to reach a level of excellence.....

Sorry Gary, I can't say The Matrix and the word Excellence are anywhere near being on a first name basis.

Aw man....it's alright. I thought that movie shooting style was a great change of pace, that it was out of the box thinking at the time.

The original Matrix was a great change of pace at that time movie and it was a excellent movie as well.  What came after not so much, but that original one was fantastic as a movie and at that time as a kid it was so hot because of how well it was shot. 

[bosk1]

Only about $15M to go.  Now it's not even a question of "if," but simply "when." 

[Chino]

Nah. Avatar is safe.

[lordxizor]

It'll take several weeks to get the $12 million more that Endgame needs. Not sure theaters will bother to keep it around more than a couple more. We'll see. Part of me want to see it brat Avatar since it's a better movie, but ultimately I don't care which movie makes more.

[MinistroRaven]

As of today Avengers needs $5,628,199 USD to surpass Avatar

[jingle.boy]

So in two weeks it did $7M.

Unfortunately, home releases start on July 30th (streaming platforms); and Aug 13 (Blu Ray).  It's possible, but a longshot to beat Avatar.  If the 're-release' didn't put it over the edge, I'm not sure it'll get that amount with the home releases coming up shortly.  At this point, who's going to re-watch it for theater prices, when in a few weeks, 4K will be available for home theater viewing.

[MinistroRaven]

It still has almost 2 weekes before home releases. I think it will get there before that

[Chino]

Even if it tops Avatar, it won't be by much, and when Disney inevitably re-releases Avatar prior to the second movie coming out, it'll take the lead back again 

[Lonk]

Even if it tops Avatar, it won't be by much, and when Disney inevitably re-releases Avatar prior to the second movie coming out, it'll take the lead back again 

Exactly. It might beat avatar by $2-3 million, and then Avatar takes the leads by a much larger margin.

Honestly, what End Game has done is incredible, given that people who have not seen the other movies are less inclined to watch End Game, where as Avatar was able to attract new comers easily, specially with its pretty graphics and 3-D effects.

[bosk1]

It still has almost 2 weekes before home releases. I think it will get there before that

Easily.  And even though the theater numbers will suffer after that from the home release, they'll get a bit more of a boost if Marvel launches a series of ads reminding people that "the #1 selling film of all time is still in theaters for a limited time, so catch it while you can!"

Even if it tops Avatar, it won't be by much, and when Disney inevitably re-releases Avatar prior to the second movie coming out, it'll take the lead back again 

Oh, of course.  I think Disney is banking on that.  I think they wanted Endgame to top it to give it even more of a boost on re-release.  It's a win-win for them.  The only people who lose are the fans. 

[Chino]

Even if it tops Avatar, it won't be by much, and when Disney inevitably re-releases Avatar prior to the second movie coming out, it'll take the lead back again 

Exactly. It might beat avatar by $2-3 million, and then Avatar takes the leads by a much larger margin.

Honestly, what End Game has done is incredible, given that people who have not seen the other movies are less inclined to watch End Game, where as Avatar was able to attract new comers easily, specially with its pretty graphics and 3-D effects.

I think China played a large role as well. Their cinema industry has really taken off in the last 7 years or so. Last I read, Endgame was closing in on $650M in just that country alone.

[MinistroRaven]

ENDGAME it's officially the highest grossing film ever

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/

[Zantera]

Not to bash on either movie but I kinda wish the battle for the box office was between two better movies. Nice for MCU though but I also agree once Avatar 2 comes out (if it ever does) they'll just put out the original Avatar for like a week or two and it will get #1 again.

[gmillerdrake]

And 'Endgame' isn't even the best MCU film by a long shot. Shoot, Infinity War was 'better'.

[Chino]

Not to bash on either movie but I kinda wish the battle for the box office was between two better movies. Nice for MCU though but I also agree once Avatar 2 comes out (if it ever does) they'll just put out the original Avatar for like a week or two and it will get #1 again.

I had a great conversation over the weekend about this very topic.

For one, what makes a movie "better" is 100% subjective, and what someone gets out of actually going to a cinema varies. It's no secret that Avatar is my favorite movie, but do I think it's the "best" movie? I'm not really sure. I think Contact is a far better story, and it's a great movie, but a theater adds nothing to that experience. Whether I see it in my living room of on the big screen, my feelings are exactly the same. But a movie like Avatar, or any of the MCU movies, the theater viewing becomes integral to the experience (in addition to the story). I didn't see Avatar 10 times in theaters because it was the greatest story every told. I went because it was one of the most awesome rides I had ever been on. The theater delivered big time.

So I don't really think box office numbers should be tied to how good a movie is, or whether or not a movie is better than another. I mean, I think Back to the Future is one of the greatest films ever made and to date has made less than $400M at the box office.

[Zantera]

What makes a movie good or bad is indeed subjective, to clarify my point a bit, whether you like or dislike these movies, I find it kind of a bummer that the top battle is between a re-telling of Pocahontas in CGI and the 49th movie in the MCU which in the long run will be yet another Marvel movie in a long line of good Marvel movies. I thought Avatar was okay, I thought Endgame was pretty good but ultimately neither are really super interesting on their own.

But hey they've both made a crap load of money so.

[Chino]

What makes a movie good or bad is indeed subjective, to clarify my point a bit, whether you like or dislike these movies, I find it kind of a bummer that the top battle is between a re-telling of Pocahontas in CGI and the 49th movie in the MCU which in the long run will be yet another Marvel movie in a long line of good Marvel movies. I thought Avatar was okay, I thought Endgame was pretty good but ultimately neither are really super interesting on their own.

But hey they've both made a crap load of money so.

I guess that's the point I was trying to make though... The fact that it's a retelling is irrelevant. When it came to Avatar, the theater created an experience that couldn't be matched outside of it, which IMO is the sole reason for ever spending a cent at a movie theater to begin with. 

And even though I couldn't care less about super hero franchises, the fact that there were 48 previous movies (is that a real figure or just hyperbole?) must be some kind of testament to the quality of those films and to some extent the story they're telling. If you could make that many movies in a franchise and your viewing numbers increase with each release, you must be doing something right.


Genuinely curious because I was way too young... but Dances With Wolves came out 5 years before Pocahontas. Were people back then complaining that Pocahontas was just a cartoon version of Dances With Wolves with a female lead instead?

[The Walrus]

What makes a movie good or bad is indeed subjective, to clarify my point a bit, whether you like or dislike these movies, I find it kind of a bummer that the top battle is between a re-telling of Pocahontas in CGI and the 49th movie in the MCU which in the long run will be yet another Marvel movie in a long line of good Marvel movies. I thought Avatar was okay, I thought Endgame was pretty good but ultimately neither are really super interesting on their own.

But hey they've both made a crap load of money so.

Y'know, there's a great YouTube clip addressing this complaint and I strongly urge you to watch it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPtZHIQJpxI

There are only a relatively small number of superhero flicks coming out in any year, even nowadays. It is on the consumer to seek out films they want to see, that appeal to them, if the flavor of the generation isn't your cup of tea. It's just like someone who watches the Grammys or the top 40 charts and complains about all the top artists being rap/pop/nothing super deep or complex or sophisticated. You have to seek out what you like, but I don't see the point of complaining about what tops the box office. Those blockbusters help fund all the other movies a studio finances that won't get that level of commercial success. Those blockbusters are also what the majority of people happen to find entertaining. What's the problem? Plenty of original movies are still getting success and recognition. It's just that comic book films finally have the means to come to life and the audiences to justify continue making them.

Literally the video points out that 5% of movies that you could've theoretically watched in 2018 were superhero films. Only 5%.