Inflation adjustments for films are done on the basis of number of tickets sold. They simply show how much an older movie would have made at today's prices if they had sold the same.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
So why don't "they" count by the tickets sold instead of allowing someone tickets to be sold for 5$, or 10$ or even 50$ Obviously, as the years pass, the USD gets weaker and more amount is given out. That means tickets will cost 13, or 15, and later go 17. That wont be fair
He talks about motion capture cgi. here's an exceprt from the article:
"Seriously. If this is true, could this mean Star Wars episodes 7, 8 and 9 can be done with the original cast looking how they did in the early 80's? What about the return of the Joker for Batman 3?"
i'd like to add, imagine a peak humphrey bogart a 90's Robert Dinero doing a cops and robber movie. my god. or a george washington or abe lincoln epic with the characters looking as real as they really did did at that point in time. i mean looking so real that it's impossible to distingush the real and the photorealistic cgi version of him. i so believe this will happen. and avatar is the real start of it all.
the future for film tech is gonna be amazing. i knew it. i've always felt it. i've always talked about how photorealilsm would come after cgi just after cgi is practically perfected. Avatar pushed the tech even closer to the dream.
__________________ "The darkside, Sidious, is an illness no true Sith wishes to be cured of, my young apprentice .."
They do count the tickets sold. But as most people don't generally know how many tickets modern day movies sell- only the takings- the data is presented as takings form comparison. But the same data has the tickets sold as well, if you just look.
It's still entirely fair- I don't know how people don't get this. The value of the dollar is irrelevant, as the data only depends on one thing- the number of tickets sold. That's the only relevant figure.
For example, the current leader in US cinema- Gone with the Wind- has sold over 200 million tickets. All you do is show how much it would make if it sold 200 million at 2010 prices and you have a direct comparison.
Likewise, you could just say "Nothing will beat GWTW unless it sells more than 200 million tickets" and you would be right. Just, as I say, people don't actually tend to think about modern movies in terms of tickets sold. The two calculations- inflation adjusted intake and tickets sold- produce the exact same relative result for comparison, within certain trivial margins for error.
Titanic sold about 130 million in the US, incidentally.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
"You've never had any TINY bit of sex, have you?"
BtVS
Last edited by Ushgarak on Jan 5th, 2010 at 05:02 PM
"If we had put the same energy into creating a human as we put into creating the Na'vi, it would have been 100% indistinguishable from reality. The question is, why the hell would you do that? Why not just photograph the actor? Well, let's say Clint Eastwood really wanted to do one last Dirty Harry movie, looking the way he did in 1975. He could absolutely do it now. And that would be cool."
- James Cameron of photorealistic cgi
__________________ "The darkside, Sidious, is an illness no true Sith wishes to be cured of, my young apprentice .."
i understand what you are saying.
Then they should just simply show the number of tickets sold and that is all, cause the dollar is always changing and same with ticket prices. Just do the comparision between tickets sold and then you have a good comparision too.
ha. i'm not hysterical, dude. And i don't think i'll be dissapointed. I'm prepared for a medeocre or generic movie plot since i keep hearing that about the story, which is too bad cause you need a good tale overall. But i really want to see the work put into it.
Avatar's a technologically advanced movie. i marks the start of something very special in history in filmmaking and the way a story's told from a visual spectrum.
__________________ "The darkside, Sidious, is an illness no true Sith wishes to be cured of, my young apprentice .."
yea but avatar's taking it to a whole new higher level. much more grander than what the sw new trilogy has done.
and the new trilogy didn't really experiment with real-like human-like facial expressions and skin textures and emotion as profoundly as avatar does.
and we're talking about Weta Digital here which is in my opinion a better cgi house that ILM is. And more innovative. Look at their recent track record from about the past 10 years compared to ilm's and Weta wins.
basically, and anyway, sw cgi is subpar compared to avatars' cgi.
__________________ "The darkside, Sidious, is an illness no true Sith wishes to be cured of, my young apprentice .."
I was refering to the fact that star wars tells the stories visually (even 4 5 and 6) and not only with CGI, but since you bring up the CGI, i still feel the CGI in 1 2 and 3 (look at dex in 2) and in LOTR are better IMO. Don't get me wrong the CGI in Avatar is great but i think for me it is the fact that they are blue and it's such a drastic difference that it doesn't look as good. imagine if the oliphants in ROTK were blue it wouldn't look real.
KMC Community Forums
Jan 5th, 2010 04:29 PM
