The only reason people went to see the original was because of how hyped up the 3D technology was at the time. When was the last time you heard someone talk about Avatar? This is going to underperform hard at the box office and become a potential flop.
shareI think it will make good money but I don't think it will be the next BO juggernaut like the first one was.
shareThis is the most likely scenario. The original wasn't just a huge moneymaker, it was probably the last time people were wowed by special effects in a movie rather than taking it for granted. That selling point isn't there anymore. And in general, sequels never tend to make as much bank as the originals, though you never know...
shareAre you on drugs, sequels very often make more than the original. Cameron's own Terminator 2 made more than the original, Aliens made more than the original, the Marvel movies made more than the originals more often than not. Endless examples of sequels outperforming the originals.
shareElectric Boogaloo made more than Breakin'
Doesn't matter, there are way more sequels that made less money than the original. He is stating a fact. Cherry picking a few success stories out of over 100 years of film means nothing really.
And you can't really compare the MCU anymore as it's a franchise. It's serialised. Like James Bond, you can't compare the box office of the original Casino Royalle or Dr. No to the latest James Bond movies, eventually one of the series will topple another in the box office even if it take 10 films to do it.
Let's hear some examples that are relevant. I gave relevant examples since this is a Cameron movie. His sequels always out perform the originals.
Nice attempt at trying to avoid including MCU movies. They absolutely count. Iron Man 2 is a sequel to Iron Man. Iron Man 3 is a sequel to Iron Man 2. They came out within a few years of eachother and out performed the previous, not comparable to James Bond movies with different actors/stories and decades in between. Ditto with Captain America, Thor and Spider-Man. They are the exact definition of sequels. How does it feel to be wrong? Now run along.
The majority of sequels make less money than the originals.
Pointless cherry picking the odd ones that do from over 100 years of film. We're talking all films since film began.
You cherry picked a few from serials in a recent franchise, and that's the basis of your whole argument? It's like saying the 10th Universal Frankenstein film beat the original, or Abbot and Costello 5 beat their first movie. Forgetting the countless other sequels each year that failed to beat the original on box office. You're forgetting 1000s of other sequels that didn't to cherry pick the ones that did.
It's a well known fact in the industry. You can't argue with it.
I didn't say whether it's majority or minority, I said it happens very often and that's indisputable. You've given no examples or statistics to back up your statement.
I don't need to cherry pick buddy, there's endless examples -
The Dark Knight
Toy Story 2
Finding Dory
The Matrix Reloaded
Rush Hour 2
Top Gun: Maverick
Incredibles 2
Iron Man 2
Iron Man 3
Transformers 2
Transformers 3
Captain America: The Winter Soldier
Captain America: Civil War
Thor: The Dark World
Don't need to cherry pick buddy, it's incredibly common especially with big budget movies like Avatar. Like I said, quit while you're behind and run along.
Wow over a hundred years of film, 1000s of sequels, and all you could muster was 14 films.
Without links, without box office numbers, without being adjusted for inflation, I may add.
Give me your whole list of cherry picked success stories, and I'll produce a bigger list.
I could pick a few horror franchises and blow your list out of the water. Sequels from Tremors, Friday the 13th, Halloween, Hellraiser, Childs Play, Nightmare on Elm Street, Universal Soldier and I've quadrupled on your paltry list.
But to bolster my point on the whole of movie history I'll pick a random year and go through the sequels in that year, and go to the next year, so on and so forth until your list is obliterated.
I'm guessing it'll only take 3 years worth of movies to do then I'll remind you again, the whole of movie history the large majority of sequels make less than the original. You're cherry picking the success stories forgetting about the other hundred sequels released that year, that made less, or even went straight to DVD.
I'll probably start in 1984, or even 1989, or I could go with 1995.
I'll even help you out and not go adjusted for inflation.
So, deliver your master list. With box office numbers, box office comparison to the original adjusted for inflation. And links to back it up.
Your move. I'll beat you within 3 years worth of films.
Without links, without box office numbers, without being adjusted for inflation, I may add.
Give me your whole list of cherry picked success stories, and I'll produce a bigger list.
I could pick a few horror franchises and blow your list out of the water. Sequels from Tremors, Friday the 13th, Halloween, Hellraiser
>How are B-movie horror films relevant to high budget movies like Avatar?
Well, your argument started when you replied to this "And in general, sequels never tend to make as much bank as the originals"
Note the words "in general".
You responded with.....
>Are you on drugs, sequels very often make more than the original. Endless examples of sequels outperforming the originals.
Now you're attempting to put up the goal posts and only include recent big budget franchises? It was quite clear what you responded to.
A very large majority of sequels make less money than the original. FACT
It's an outlier when a sequel makes more money. Like I said, it's well known in the industry.
ElizabethJoestar (663) stated a FACT. You decided to argue against it. I backed up her statement, and noted that in over 100 years of movies sequels are more likely to make less money than the originals, and you continued to argue against it.
In your list I noticed you didn't bother to include box office $ compared to the originals, no sign of adjusted numbers, and no links to back yourself up. Very lazy.
So you've cherry picked 30 sequels (most of which are incorrect, shown below or have other films in the series making less money). "these are all relevant examples of blockbuster movies." Alien quite was succesful and spawned a franchise. It came 5th at the box office in 1979 with $78,944,891 Wordwide, Steve Martins the Jerk wasn't far behind with $73,691,419, is The Jerk classed as a blockbuster?
Aliens came 7th wordwide in 1986, and made $85,160,248, coming behind Back to School, Crocodile Dundee, The Karate Kid Part II. Would you call Back to School with Rodney Dangerfield, a blockbuster movie? So the logic you're basing your argument on is flawed. You're just cherry picking film series to suit.
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/year/world/1986/
Adjusted for inflation, Alien has beaten ALL of the other films in the franchise, 5 sequels, 2 Alien vs Predator. So there's 7 films which say sequels are more likely to make LESS money than the original.
$420 million for the first Alien film in 1979 (directed by Ridley Scott), and $343 million for the Cameron-directed sequel Aliens in 1986.
https://qz.com/2164593/avatar-2-will-need-to-break-sequel-records-to-justify-its-budget/
http://www.thecinessential.com/aliens-terminator-2-facts-and-figures#:~:text=Aliens%20total%20lifetime%20gross%3A%20%2485%2C160%2C248,by%20David%20Cronenberg's%20The%20Fly.
Finding Nemo made more than Dory adjusted for inflation
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/chart/top_lifetime_gross_adjusted/?adjust_gross_to=2016
Iron Man beats Iron Man 2 adjusted for inflation.
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/chart/top_lifetime_gross_adjusted/?adjust_gross_to=2008
"Deadpool 2"
Please stop lying!
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/search/?q=Deadpool
Deadpool (2016) $782,612,155
Deadpool 2 (2018) $734,546,611 original run
Deadpool 1 beat 2 in domestic as well. And I asked for adjusted for inflation, you failed to provide. Deadpool 1 wins on all counts.
Deadpool 2 didn't even make it into the top 200 adjusted for inflation list. Deadpool 1 did.
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/chart/top_lifetime_gross_adjusted/?adjust_gross_to=2022&ref_=bo_cso_ac
"Mission Impossible II"= You don't have the international numbers for Mission Impossible 1, so you're comparing IM 2 worldwide, to IM 1 domestic only. Are you just guessing on this one? Because quite a few of your "guesses" have been incorrect. I'm just supposed to trust you on this one....right?
"Rush Hour"
In one breath, you're gatekeeping what movies I can choose, in the next you're picking films 16th in the box office for 1998? And Rush Hour 2 is 11th in 2001.
Pick a lane dude.
And ignoring the vast amount of sequels in those years that made LESS money than the originals LMAO
OK I'll start with sequels from random years until I beat you with 31 films, then I'll wait for your new additions, as you said "you can keep going", and like I said over 100 years of film say you're very, very wrong, I can keep going and going and going.
All original release dollars (no cheating here, unlike you), and I'll even give you a chance by not using adjusted numbers. It would be over much, much sooner if I used adjusted figures on series that spanned decades.
"Sequels a more likely to make LESS money than the originals"......FACT.
---2019----
The majority of sequels released in 2019 made less money than the originals.
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/search/?q=Star+Wars
Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015) $2,069,521,700
Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (2019) $1,074,149,279
Goes without saying that Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope (1977) $307,263,857 Original run, domestic only. $1.36 billion in 2020.
Adjusted for inflation beats The Rise of Skywalker at the box office in it's original run only needing domestic takings to beat it.
https://writingcooperative.com/want-to-be-a-successful-writer-believe-in-yourself-bcec211e5c8f
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/search/?q=Jumanji
Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017) $962,542,945
Jumanji: The Next Level (2019) $800,059,707
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/search/?q=Maleficent
Maleficent (2014) $758,411,779
Maleficent: Mistress of Evil (2019) $491,730,089
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/search/?q=It+
It (2017) $701,842,551
It Chapter Two (2019) $473,122,525
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/search/?q=The+Secret+Life+of+Pets
The Secret Life of Pets (2016) $875,458,631
The Secret Life of Pets 2 (2019) $430,051,293
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/search/?q=%09Godzilla
Godzilla (2014) $524,976,069
Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019) $386,600,138
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt0119654/?ref_=bo_se_r_1
Men in Black (1997) $589,390,539
Men in Black: International (2019) $253,890,701
---2019---- continued.....
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/search/?q=X-Men
X-Men: First Class (2011) $352,616,690
X-Men (2000) $296,339,528
X-Men: Dark Phoenix (2019) $252,442,974
Unbreakable (2000) $248,118,121
Glass (2019) $246,999,039
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/search/?q=Annabelle
Annabelle (2014) $257,589,721
Annabelle Comes Home (2019) $231,252,591
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/search/?q=%09The+Lego+Movie
The Lego Movie (2014) $468,266,122
The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part (2019) $192,456,290
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/search/?q=%09The+Angry+Birds
The Angry Birds Movie (2016) $352,333,929
The Angry Birds Movie 2 (2019) $147,792,047
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/search/?q=Has+Fallen
London Has Fallen (2016) $205,754,447
Angel Has Fallen (2019) $146,661,977
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/search/?q=Rambo
First Blood (1982) $125,212,904
Rambo: Last Blood (2019) $91,490,353
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/search/?q=Charlie%27s+Angels
Charlie's Angels (2000) $264,105,545
Charlie's Angels (2019) $73,279,888
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/release/rl4244932097/?ref_=bo_gr_su
The Shining (1980) $44,017,374 -Domestic only, worldwide number unknown
Doctor Sleep (2019) $31,581,712 -Domestic only
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/search/?q=Happy+Death+Day
Happy Death Day (2017) $125,479,266
Happy Death Day 2U (2019) $64,600,152
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/search/?q=Little+White+Lies
Little White Lies (2010) $53,319,615
Little White Lies 2 (2019) $23,623,665
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/search/?q=Shaft
Shaft (2000) $107,626,125
Shaft (2019) $21,360,215
See response below loser. You just wasted 2 hours of your life for nothing.
And again, not once did I say the majority of sequels made more money than the originals, I just said it was common and proved it with RELEVANT examples. So you just wasted probably 2 hours of your life researching sequels that made less money than the original lol. Moron.
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/search/?q=X-Men
X-Men: First Class (2011) $352,616,690
X-Men (2000) $296,339,528
X-Men: Dark Phoenix (2019) $252,442,974
-----1984----- Not a single sequel in 1984 made more money than it's original.
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt0082971/?ref_=bo_se_r_2
Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) $212,222,025 -Domestic only, worldwide number unknown
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984) $179,870,271 -Domestic only, worldwide number unknown
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/search/?q=Star+Trek
Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) $82,258,456 -Domestic only, worldwide number unknown
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984) $76,471,046 -Domestic only, worldwide number unknown
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt0086837/?ref_=bo_se_r_1
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) $56,715,371 -Domestic only
2010: The Year We Make Contact (1984) $40,400,657 -Domestic only, worldwide number unknown
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/search/?q=Friday+the+13th
Friday the 13th (1980) $39,754,601 -Domestic only, worldwide number unknown
Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter (1984) $32,980,880 -Domestic only, worldwide number unknown
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/search/?q=Cannonball+Run
The Cannonball Run (1981) $72,179,579 -Domestic only, worldwide number unknown
Cannonball Run II (1984) $28,078,073 -Domestic only, worldwide number unknown
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/search/?q=Conan
Conan the Barbarian (1982) $68,851,475
Conan the Destroyer (1984) $31,042,035
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/search/?q=+The+Muppets
The Muppet Movie (1979) $65,200,000 -Domestic only, worldwide number unknown
The Muppets Take Manhattan (1984) $25,534,703 -Domestic only, worldwide number unknown
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/search/?q=Breakin%27
Breakin' (1984) $38,682,707
Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo (1984) $15,101,131
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/search/?q=Meatballs+
Meatballs (1979) $43,046,003
Meatballs Part II (1984) $5,410,972
------2010---------- The majority of sequels released in 2010 made less money than the originals.
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/search/?q=Harry+Potter
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001) $1,022,290,019
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010) $977,070,383
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/search/?q=The+Chronicles+of+Narnia
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005) $745,013,115
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (2010) $415,686,217
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/search/?q=+Sex+and+the+City
Sex and the City (2008) $418,765,519
Sex and the City 2 (2010) $290,745,055
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/search/?q=Paranormal+Activity
Paranormal Activity (2007) $193,355,800
Paranormal Activity 2 (2010) $177,512,032
------------------------------------------
I surprised myself. I predicted 3 years, but I didnt even need all of the 3rd year to beat your 31. Now do you have enough cherry picked success stories to go against the other 100+ years worth of movies?
I rest my case. Run along now.
Well, your argument started when you replied to this "And in general, sequels never tend to make as much bank as the originals" Note the words "in general".
"Deadpool 2"
Please stop lying!
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/search/?q=Deadpool
Deadpool (2016) $782,612,155
"Mission Impossible II"= You don't have the international numbers for Mission Impossible 1
you're gatekeeping what movies I can choose, in the next you're picking films 16th in the box office for 1998? And Rush Hour 2 is 11th in 2001.
So you couldn't muster any more examples after 'claiming' they were ENDLESS, and you can keep going and going. LMAO. Keep going then! I only touched 2 years and a bit and smashed your half-baked list full of lies.
When somebody states a FACT like "And in general, sequels never tend to make as much bank as the originals"
Don't barge into the thread insulting them and asking if they were on drugs, then argue against it for days. It's quite clear what you replied to. Crystal clear. You admitted it, now move along, no need for you to argue any more. Sequels are LESS likely to make MORE money than the original, no matter how many examples you can cherry-pick. This is a FACT. Run along now.
"Deadpool"
WRONG
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/chart/top_lifetime_gross_adjusted/?adjust_gross_to=2018
$384,866,300 (Domestic Adjusted for inflation to 2018) + $419,766,082 (International unadjusted) = Deadpool $804632382
Deadpool 2= $785,896,609
Same with Iron Man 2. Finding Dory. Alien. Adjusted they made LESS, you either lied or are really, really dumb. I suspect both are the case.
"Your list of cheap B-movie horror sequels is irrelevant"
Erm, from the years I presented; Star Wars, Star Trek, Harry Potter, Indiana Jones, Rambo, Chronicles of Narnia, Men in Black, Godzilla, X-Men, IT, Jumanji, Charlie's Angels, Lego movie etc are all irrelevant B-movie horrors? Like I said, I will go through each year until I find 31 sequels making less money, which I did. You can't, because your ENDLESS list of examples ENDED.
I'm guessing the only sequels you deem relevant are the ones YOU cherry-pick?
You can't muster any more, so you're faltering, and scrambling around for excuses.
Sequels are LESS likely to make MORE money than the original. FACT. 100+ years of film proves this no matter how many you cherry pick.
Now run along.
Lol this asswipe is back for more, clearly a glutton for punishment.
So you couldn't muster any more examples after 'claiming' they were ENDLESS, and you can keep going and going. LMAO Keep going then!
When somebody states a FACT like "And in general, sequels never tend to make as much bank as the originals"
Same with Iron Man 2
Erm, from the years I presented; Star Wars, Star Trek, Harry Potter, Indiana Jones, Rambo...
You can't muster any more, so you're faltering, and scrambling around for excuses.
haa haaaa
I love how you intentionally left out the date for Jumanji 1995, and compared a 1995 kids film to the 2017 soft-reboot, sequel only by novelty, start of a completely new series, never mentions the old movie. haa haaa Next you'll be comparing the Andrew Garfield Spiderman vs the latest one because they both have Andrew Garfield in them.
It shows how much you're trying to rig the game, also doubling down on the rigging, refusing to take any kind of inflation into account.
The new series for Jumanji made less money with each instalment. -_-
The 2017 series starter made the most, the 2019 sequel made LESS.
So you've repeated the same ones and added a couple more, so much for ENDLESS examples, probably bodged the numbers again like you did with Alien, Deadpool (are you going to take a 3rd shot at Deadpool?), Finding Dory. You keep repeating Rush Hour as a gold standard, but Rush Hour cancelled itself out with an underperforming 3rd movie then the series get's canned. Not to mention that Rush Hour 1 was only 14th place at the box office in 1998, and Rush Hour 2 was 11th. You set the logic here buddy, 14th and 11th place is "relevant".
No inflation whatsoever taken into account, intentionally. No links to back it up, intentionally. No box office numbers for comparison, intentionally.
Let's have a total count on yours, please. In film history, how many sequels (adjusted for inflation) made more than the original? How many made more than the predecessor? The majority of sequels make less money than the originals. It's a Cold Hard FACT from over 100 years of film history. You've only managed to cherry-pick a few in over 100 years of film history!
https://www.the-numbers.com/box-office-records/domestic/all-movies/cumulative/all-time-inflation-adjusted
>""And in general, sequels never tend to make as much bank as the originals"" That is not a fact. A fact would be - 'The majority of sequels make less money than the original'. Using the word 'never' in that sentence doesn't even make sense.
aaah so your grasp on the English language and its intricacies is not so strong.
Don't worry, my very first responses to you cleared it up. Which you fought against. I've repeated the below lines many, many times. You still keep arguing against it.
My first response to you "there are way more sequels that made less money than the original."
It's quite clear. I repeated this many, many times with different wording, but your grasp on the English language seems to be quite poor, and you kept arguing against it.
"Sequels are LESS likely to make MORE money than the original. "
"The majority of sequels make less money than the originals."
I even reminded you multiple times....... -_-
"I'll remind you again, the whole of movie history the large majority of sequels make less than the original. "
It's quite clear. You keep arguing against it with walls of text, and delivering bodged, unadjusted for inflation lists of films.
"the whole of movie history the large majority of sequels make less than the original."
This is a FACT. You admitted that it was a FACT, now run along.
I love how you intentionally left out the date for Jumanji 1995
The new series for Jumanji made less money with each instalment. -_-
The 2017 series starter made the most, the 2019 sequel made LESS.
Don't worry, my very first responses to you cleared it up. Which you fought against.
Oh how cute, you managed to amass a little list, to PROVE what? Mainly banking on a few outliers. Disney/Pixar, Marvel/DC, Fast & Furious. Dining out on Disney! Well, how about a couple of hundred fails. In film history, the majority of sequels make less money, and preceding sequels make less and less. So much so that most sequels don't get to start a franchise and end canned on 2 or 3 sequels. It's well known in the industry, maybe you're unaware of this FACT? There's still more to come, the list truly is ENDLESS. Unlike your list that ENDED. LMOA
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/chart/top_lifetime_gross_adjusted/?adjust_gross_to=2022&ref_=bo_cso_ac
All time grossing (relevant) movies with sequels, based on domestic box office adjusted for inflation + unadjusted International.
Star Wars = 11 films. 0 outgrossing original
Jaws = 4 films. 0 outgrossing original
Jurassic Park = 6 films. 0 outgrossing original
Indiana Jones = 4 films. 0 outgrossing original
Harry Potter+Fantastic Beasts = 14 films. 1 outgrossing original based on no adjusted international box office for Philosopher's Stone
Alien = 8 films in series. 0 outgrossing original
Star Trek: The Motion Picture = 7 films in Shatner series. 0 outgrossing original
Star Trek TNG = 4 films in Picard series. 1 outgrossing original
The Exorcist = 5 films. 0 outgrossing original
The Godfather = 3 films. 0 outgrossing original
Ghostbusters = 4 films in series. 0 outgrossing original
Spider-Man (2002) = 3 films. 0 outgrossing original
The Amazing Spider-Man = 2 films. 0 outgrossing original
Independence Day = 2 films. 0 outgrossing original
Men in Black = 4 films. 0 outgrossing original
Home Alone = 3 films. 0 outgrossing original
Beverly Hills Cop = 3 films. 0 outgrossing original
Batman (1989) = 4 films. 0 outgrossing original
Finding Nemo = 2 films. 0 outgrossing original
Back to the Future = 3 films. 0 outgrossing original
Superman (1978) = 4 films. 0 outgrossing original
Robocop = 3 films. 0 out grossing original
Rocky = 8 films. 1 outgrossing original
Godzilla (2014) = 3 films. 0 outgrossing original
Kong: Skull Island = 2 films. 0 outgrossing original
Jack Ryan: The Hunt for Red October = 5 films in series. 0 outgrossing original
Smokey and the Bandit = 3 films. 0 outgrossing original
Airport 1970 = 4 films. 0 outgrossing original
Rambo = 5 films. = 1 outgrossing original
Peter Jacksons Lord of the Rings = 6 films. 2 outgrossing original
Monsters, Inc. = 2 films. 0 outgrossing original
Wonder Woman (2017) = 2 films. 0 outgrossing original
Gremlins = 2 films. 0 outgrossing original
It (2017) = 2 films. 0 outgrossing original
The Adams Family = 3 films. 0 out grossing original
Ocean's Eleven = 4 films. 0 outgrossing original
Karate Kid = 4 films. 0 outgrossing original
The Chronicles of Narnia = 3 films. 0 outgrossing original
Venom = 2 films. 0 outgrossing original
Fantastic Four = 3 films. 0 outgrossing original
Planet of the Apes (1968) = 5 films. 0 outgrossing original
Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle = 2 films in new series. 0 outgrossing original
2001: A Space Odyssey = 2 films. 0 outgrossing original
Crocodile Dundee = 2 films. 0 outgrossing original
Grease = 2 films. = 0 outgrossing original
The Sting = 2 films. = 0 outgrossing original
One Hundred and One Dalmatians. = 2 films. 0 outgrossing original
The Secret Life of Pets = 2 films. 0 outgrossing original
Three Men and a Baby = 2 films. 0 outgrossing original
Look Who's Talking = 3 films. 0 out grossing original
Saturday Night Fever = 2 films. 0 outgrossing original
Bruce Almighty = 2 films. 0 outgrossing original
Deadpool = 2 films. 0 outgrossing original
The Mummy (1999) = 4 films. 1 outgrossing original
The Hobbit = 3 film series. 0 outgrossing original
Police Academy = 7 films. 0 outgrossing original
The Da Vinci Code = 3 films. 0 outgrossing original
The Silence of the Lambs = 4 films. 1 outgrossing original
Speed = 2 films. 0 outgrossing original
Analyze This = 2 films. 0 outgrossing original
The Omen = 3 films. 0 outgrossing original
The Amityville Horror = 5 films. = 0 outgrossing original
Fifty Shades of Grey = 3 films. 0 outgrossing original
Poltergeist = 5 films. = 0 outgrossing original
The Cannonball Run = 2 films. 0 outgrossing original
48 Hrs. = 2 films. 0 outgrossing original
Romancing the Stone = 2 films. 0 outgrossing original
Night at the Museum = 3 films. 0 outgrossing original
Charlie's Angels = 3 films. 0 outgrossing original
Scream = 5 films. = 0 outgrossing original
Maleficent = 2 films. 0 outgrossing original
Sex and the City = 2 films. 0 outgrossing original
Predator = 6 films. 1 outgrossing original
Unbreakable = 3 films. 0 out grossing
The Shining = 2 films. 0 outgrossing
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1991) = 3 films. 0 outgrossing original
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014) = 2 films. 0 outgrossing original
Scary Movie = 5 films. = 0 outgrossing original
Honey I Shrunk the Kids = 3 films. 0 outgrossing original
Conan the Barbarian = 3 films. 0 outgrossing original
Wayne's World = 2 films. 0 outgrossing original
Halloween = 12 films. = 0 outgrossing original (Halloween 10th in 1978 box office, higher box office spot as Rush Hour in 1998, 14th, and Rush Hour 2 11th in 2001, you cannot argue against it LMAO your logic matey, low budget just like Twilight, YOUR LOGIC matey cherry-pick your way out of your own logic mateeey!)
Most films with an original in the top 200 all time box office. If not, the top 1000. High in the box office for that year compared to your picks, using your cherry-picking "logic". You cannot argue against their "relevancy" based on your own "logic".
And make sure you get your adjusted for inflation grosses correct, and a full, detailed explanation as to why you reject each case. Adjusted for inflation seems to be your Kryptonite LMAO
"I'll remind you again, the whole of movie history the large majority of sequels make less than the original. "
You just wasted another 2 hours of your life having an argument with yourself.
I'll say it again - at no point did anyone say the majority of sequels made more money than the original. You are literally having an argument with yourself.
Halloween = 12 films. = 0 outgrossing original (Halloween 10th in 1978 box office, higher box office spot as Rush Hour in 1998, 14th, and Rush Hour 2 11th in 2001, you cannot argue against it LMAO your logic matey, low budget just like Twilight, YOUR LOGIC matey cherry-pick your way out of your own logic mateeey!)
"I'll remind you again, the whole of movie history the large majority of sequels make less than the original. "
You have no answer. Your own logic stalemated any argument you had.
You presented Rush Hour, 14th in the box office as "relevant" because 1 of its sequels made a tiny bit more money and scraped in at 11th at the box office, the 3rd Rush Hour made LESS, cancelling it out, is this your GOLD STANDARD?
You also presented a low budget teen romance as "relevant".
The majority of sequels make less money than the original. FACT.
100+ years of movies proves this. The majority of sequels end at 2 or 3 then they get canned. Outliers get to have more.
I'm glad you're on board with that. AT least you agree on one thing.
You presented 14th in the box office as "relevant".
The majority of sequels make less money than the original. FACT.
>Rush Hour 2 made more money than Rush Hour,
wowweeee! DO you want a medal? The 3rd made less than either, so what.
>It was a more successful movie at the box office
Rush Hour 2 only came in at 11th at the box office. You present this as a relevant big earner? You were asking for "relevant" films. Is this relevant?
wowweeee! DO you want a medal?
Oh how cute, you managed to amass a little list, to PROVE what?
>Keep in mind the vast majority of these movies are all released around the same decade as Avatar
Aaaah here comes the gatekeeping, and goalposts.
>with similarly huge budgets
lol Teen romance film Twilight had a huge budget?
Point out which ones are not relevant? Full and detailed explanation, and make sure you check their box office spot for that year before you talk -_- and check how much $$$$ they brought in.
Especially compared to your gold standard Rush Hour and Rush Hour 2 which came in at number 14th and number 11th in their years.
Move along now.
lol Teen romance film Twilight had a huge budget?
Especially compared to your gold standard Rush Hour and Rush Hour 2 which came in at number 14th and number 11th in their years.
>The Sting from 1973.
Oh lordy. Your own logic fails you.
Sting 1973 2nd in box office in that year. Grossed $159,616,327
Only beaten by The Exorcist at number 1.
https://www.the-numbers.com/market/1973/top-grossing-movies
But Rush Hour at 14th and Rush Hour 2 at 11th are ok amaaaright?
>Electric Boogloo
Aaah clinging to that old chestnut out of 200+ movies I presented. 200+
Electric Boogloo made less than Breakin' which came in at 18th, only 4 places behind Rush Hour. Thanks for clearing that up, and bolstering my point. The majority of sequels make LESS. You are right.
I adjusted the next list to make it "more relevant" using YOUR logic after you demanded more "relevancy". That's all you kept barking about, so it was amended
Sting 1973 2nd in box office in that year. Grossed $159,616,327
>Position at the box office means nothing.
haa haa I'm howling laughing. Now the goal posts are being moved again?!!
You said.....
>All of the movies I mentioned are high budget blockbusters
So what is a blockbuster to you? 11th place Rush Hour 2?
What is high budget to you? Twilight?
The Sting was a blockbuster! It was 2nd at the box office that year! So where is your comparison of The Stings budget compared to other movies that year? Let's hear it!
>Electric Boogaloo
Thanks for pointing out a sequel made less than the original.
Dude, i'll say it again. A crime comedy caper from 1973 is not relevant to Avatar in the slightest. The fact that The Sting 2 made 95% less money than The Sting says nothing about whether Avatar 2 will make more money than Avatar. Neither does Electric Boogaloo or Hellraiser with its $1m budget.
My early examples are more relevant than anything you've brought up, specifically the Marvel movies are the most similar in size and scope. Your retarded examples of B-movie horrors and movies from the 70's prove absolutely nothing. God, you're a retard lol. This is like explaining basic math to a child.
I'll ask again.....
So where is your comparison of The Stings budget compared to other movies that year?
Also, why did you present the Twilight series as they had small budgets.
Also, is Rush Hour 2s 11th place the definition of a BLOCKBUSTER to you?
>Electric Boogaloo
Thanks for point out the sequel to Breakin' made less money and dropped over 100 places at the box office. Bolstered my point haaaa haaaaa!
So where is your comparison of The Stings budget compared to other movies that year?
Oh it's completely relevant. It was a big budget box office smash.
Prove it was low budget.
Ah now you're editing your posts like the dishonest little weasel you are.
Lol hilarious seeing you try and justify the inclusion of Electric Boogaloo. Keep going, this is entertaining me.
>Electric Boogaloo
Thanks for pointing out a sequel made less than the original.
>All of the movies I mentioned are high budget blockbusters
So what is a blockbuster to you? 11th place Rush Hour 2? Deadpool 2 9th place?
What is high budget to you? Twilight?
The Sting was a blockbuster! It was 2nd at the box office that year, It's 354 all time domestic! So where is your comparison of The Stings budget compared to other movies that year? You don't even know do you! I'm salivating waiting to hear where you came to the conclusion that The Sting was low budget compared to other movies that year. Let's hear it!
I can't keep up with all this goalpost changing!
See response below. You're boring me now dickhead -
Dude, i'll say it again. A crime comedy caper from 1973 is not relevant to Avatar in the slightest. The fact that The Sting 2 made 95% less money than The Sting says nothing about whether Avatar 2 will make more money than Avatar. Neither does Electric Boogaloo or Hellraiser with its $1m budget.
My early examples are more relevant than anything you've brought up, specifically the Marvel movies are the most similar in size and scope. Your retarded examples of B-movie horrors and movies from the 70's prove absolutely nothing. God, you're a retard lol. This is like explaining basic math to a child.
The Sting has no parallels to Avatar at all. Not the same era, genre, budget. Absolutely nothing. Rush Hour 2 which you've latched onto, was at least released within the same decade as Avatar and is a genuine example of a successful sequel. The Sting is irrelevant. YOU'RE irrelevant. Now vamoose.
So where is your comparison of The Stings budget compared to other movies that year?
Prove that The Sting was low budget.
We know it's a blockbuster. 2nd at the box office proves this.
Just prove it was low budget -_-
>Rush Hour 2 which you've latched onto
I'm trying to follow the logic YOU set. You're setting the goal posts, I'm trying to follow them. The 2nd list pretty much follows them. Blockbusters by YOUR logic.
But YOU keep changing the logic to suit, ebs and flows like water.
11th at the box office is the definition of a blockbuster to YOU. YOU presented Rush Hour 2 as a BLOCKBUSTER at 11th place.
Twilight series budget is the definition of BIG BUDGET to you. We have to keep inside those boundaries. You can keep Breakin', it was only 18th at the box office, so out of your boundaries. Scratch Breakin' from the list if you must. lol Until your boundaries change again to suit. Now you're attempting to change the years. But you were ok with Alien in 1979. Now that's changing, I suppose? By the end we'll only be allowed movies released the same day as Avatar itself ha haaa
Again, The Sting has no parallels with Avatar. You can have that conversation with someone else.
Like I said, you're the king of irrelevant comparison aka Mr. Electric Boogaloo lmao.
If Rush Hour 2 and Twilight are the movies you have the biggest problem with, let's compare it with your examples. You brought up -
Electric Boogaloo (lol)
Hellraiser ($1m budget)
Halloween ($300k budget)
The Muppet Movie ($8m budget)
Happy Death Day ($4.8 budget)
Lol and you have the balls to latch onto Rush Hour 2 ($347.3 million at the box office) and Twilight with a total of $3.3 BILLION at the box office with 5 movies. You're just lost in this debate buddy and have no leg to stand on. I'd feel sorry for you if you weren't such a piece of shit lmao.
lol you moved the goalposts around so much you scored an own goal! LMAO
>Position at the box office means nothing.
Oh lordy, the goal posts are being moved again! Especially when you DEMAND that I present films comparable to Avatar, and only "blockbusters". Doesn't make sense, zero logic. Middling Box office numbers, and box office fails can't be called "blockbusters" can they. It has everything to do with it. Without the success, it's not a blockbuster. 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
>Position at the box office means nothing.
It's literally the topic! 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
>Again, The Sting has no parallels with Avatar.
But Tween romance Twilight does? Twilight is comparable to Avatar? None of the Twilight films broke the top 3 at the box office, only 1 broke the top 5 in their years. Hardly "blockbusters" like you DEMAND I present.
The Sting was literally a blockbuster success.
>you have the balls to latch onto Rush Hour 2
It came 11th at the box office. The Sting came 2nd in that year.
Which seems to be closer to the success of Avatar? hmmmmm 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
>Hellraiser
You wouldn't allow Hellraiser. That was before your ever changing requirement lists. The goalposts change with every comment you make, and you wouldn't allow it. First it was ">Are you on drugs, sequels very often make more than the original. Endless examples of sequels outperforming the originals.", but you changed your stance after realising there aren't endless examples. We both know you were talking straight sequels. You didn't mention blockbuster or high budget until 4 comments later after you knew you were at a loss. So after all your goalpost moving, reference the final list after I had to jump through hoops in order to keep up with all your rule changes and attempting to figure out your logic based on YOUR examples.
>Electric Boogaloo
Before your ever-changing requirement lists, but ok.
Thanks for reminding us the sequel made less money than the original. Bolstered my point. 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
>Muppet Movie
Before your ever-changing requirement lists, but ok, I'll indulge.
Erm, you stated that Cars 2 was comparable to Avatar.
Muppet Movie 10th at the box office in that year.
Cars 2 10th at the box office. LMAO Your lOgiC 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
Cars 3 24th at box office (which made the least of the cars movies, yet another example of movies making LESS than their predecessors, Cars spin-offs made even LESS)
>Logan & Wolverine
15th at the box office in their years. Blockbusters comparable to Avatar. LMAO Your lOgiC 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
Both 15th at the box office. Obviously to you both are highly comparable to Avatar and are blockbusting box office smashes! But Ghostbusters, Jaws, Jurassic Park and OG Star Wars, Batman 89, Superman 78, Indiana Jones, Independence Day, Men in Black etc should be ignored because "they're old and don't count, needs to be 10 years close to Avatar", but when it suits Aliens was A OK being 1979 then 1986 films lol, even then you were WRONG about Aliens outgrossing Alien. 1979 and 1986 are fine one moment, but another moment only films within 10 years of Avatar. Logic fail mate.
Then you DEMAND that comparisons MUST be within 10 years of Avatar, but earlier you said: "Endless examples of sequels outperforming the originals.", and gave Aliens, T2 as examples. lol How can there be ENDLESS examples within such a short period? WHy are you picking "old" movies but DEMAND I must fit every example I bring into a 10 year window!??!
Like I said earlier.....pick a lane. You're flip flopping all over the place.
Your logic is a mess man, how do you expect somebody to follow your rules? I can see where it's going though (wink), you're goal posting the dates, so you can remove Star Wars, Jaws, Jurassic Park, Indiana Jones etc from the comparisons. I see what you're up to, nice try though.
> if you weren't such a piece of shit
***yawn***
Now I'll ask you a third time..........
So where is your comparison of The Stings budget compared to other movies that year?
Prove that The Sting was low budget. It was a blockbuster in the box office. That has been proven.
It's literally the topic!
Before your ever-changing requirement lists, but ok.
15th at the box office in their years. Blockbusters comparable to Avatar. LMAO Your lOgiC
Look, I thought it'd be fun jumping into your clown 🤡 car for a jaunt, but now the steering wheel has come loose, the wheels are starting to fall off, and it's getting scary. You can't even keep the 🤡 car on the straight path with all the logical flaws in your arguments.
>The topic is examples of successful sequels in relation to Avatar.
Outperform, box office, $$$$$$$, success. Literally the topic. Sequels outperforming originals.........at the box office. With $$$$$. Literally the TOPIC. 🤡
You literally asked for movies comparable to................................................................................................................AVATAR 🤡🤡🤡
Complained that I provided a big budget original, which landed a number 2 place that year at the box office with massive takings at the box office.
Then YOU delivered Rush Hour 2 in a series where the highest came in at 11th! Wolverine that came in 15th!
How are these more relevant to the success of AVATAR????
Your logic is goofed! 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
This thread won't age well I'm afraid. It's a CGI film and people love CGI films, especially the gamers which there are a lot of. There is also a Avatar game coming out as well.
share"gamers" dont do "cgi films" cause they are "gamers". im not being offensive this sounds like the biggest boomersplaining ive ever heard.
shareAgreed.
If anything the "gamers" would be the ones calling this movie a "casual gathering".
The people that made Avatar successful were mostly casual movie goers, older movie goers and women.
true my family, parents and grandparents in particular loved it. I just sat there bored out of my mind
shareAbsolutely agree with you!
It will be just another story of fighting earth humans hunting down aliens and stuff.
The characters too are very ordinary and nothing epic that audience care. Theres no Ripley or David Mcclane here. It's just CGI Blue Alien love birds Jake & Neytri here the audience have had enough of them just in first installation.
agreed. all style no substance. like Michael Bay with more polish and even more CGI. I hope it fails, even though I dont think it will.
share