[trebleshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Optimus Vader

Yeah, but with ticket prices these days that means about 40 people went to see it.

A few more than that, but I get your point. Maybe it will have a grassroots/cult following. Worked for Titanic.

Quote:

This is kind of off topic, but something that always bothered me was ranking the success of a movie based on how much money they make. Why do they not count actual ticket sales?? When Star Wars (original trilogy) was out it probably cost a nickel to go to the movies... I paid $10 for a friggin' matinee last Sat. (I'm not really looking for an answer.. just venting)

It also has a lot to do with how many theaters that the movie opens on, too. Some movies make millions more than others because they were shown on an extra 500-1000 theaters than the other films.

I think the ranking system for successful theatrical films should be based on the number of tickets sold divided by the number of theaters it was shown on. That way, smaller debuts won't be overshadowed by summer blockbusters and there's no more adjusting for inflation, either. A movie ticket in 1930 is still a movie ticket today.

Also it would help resolve the issue about a movie having multiple theatrical releases (Gone With The Wind, Star Wars). Some movies, even if they are excellent films, may only get one theatrical release ever. Others may have several.

Home video should have a similar ranking system to music album sales. Just go by the number of units sold, rather than how much money the home release made. You could still break it down into DVD, BD, 3D, Combo and 3D Combo releases (or VHS/Laser-disc/Beta-max for the older films).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shin Densetsu

Avatar, while it had a cliche premise, was a much more epic movie. The visuals from John Carter can't compete.

Haven't seen Carter yet, so I can't say. But I will say I wasn't nearly as impressed with Avatar as others have been. I felt the "Save the Environment" message and allegory was heavy-handed and its advocation of non-violent protest was rendered pointless considering how the film ended.

But I digress.

Quote:

Avatar's toyline did bad because the toys were bad. Same thing with Star Trek, movie was phenomenal but the toys were disappointing. Cheap and underwhelming, hyped for their iTags which really, no one was going to use. Neat but come on, if that's where the budget went, that was a mistake.

Definitely agreed. Unfortunately, for a toy line to be really successful, the source material has to be successful AND the toys have to be good. IMHO, Avatar and Trek didn't have that synchronicity.

Quote:

Prior to Carter I had only watched 1 trailer that randomly came on TV. Definitely could've used more promotion.

Even Disney's marketing department admits they dropped the ball when it came to promotion for John Carter. I was able to see two trailers a couple different times., but not nearly as much advertising as I've seen for Avengers already.