Smoking GNU: The rage is papable.

It's likely to be the next Pope? How would that even work?

Johnny the Tackling Alzheimers Patient: Saw it tonight.

Spectacular scenery, visuals, cinematography.
Rich, immersive sound.
Exciting and engaging fight and chase sequences.

Dumb ass story.

The award shows so far agree. Several nominations in various categories, but zero nominations for its screenplay, and only claimed a single win for its special effects. Cameron's proved once again that theatrically at least, great spectacle beats a great script.

But it remains to be seen how (or even if) the industry will adjust to capitalize on this. Profit-wise, the movie is making an impressive amount of money, but it also cost an impressive amount. I think he's exaggerating a bit, but if Cameron's to be believed, the movie still has to make another few million just to break even. And like the first, so far at least it's not making big bucks on merchandizing. It'll be interesting to see where this leads.

Mad_Radhu: edmo: They should track numbers of tickets sold vs measuring the take of ever-increasing ticket prices.

The problem with that comparison is conditions are so different now so there are some caveats when you compare theatrical runs today with movies that were re-released several times prior to home video being available.

Gone with the Wind, for example, had wide re-releases in 1942,1947, 1954, 1961, 1967, 1971, 1974 (plus 1989 and 1998 re-releases in the home video era). You just aren't going to see the same kind of theatrical re-releases these days, because people have other ways to watch the movies. In 1947 if you wanted to watch Gone with the Wind again (or you were too young to catch it in its original run), going to see it in the theater was your only option so the theatrical re-releases sold a lot more tickets than they do today.

On the other hand, there were far fewer movie theaters back when Gone With the Wind was still a major draw, the international market wasn't a big factor in its overall success, and the US population has greatly increased since then. There's been so many shifts and changes in how the box office works and in the many factors that influence it, there isn't really a way to make a direct comparison between the successes of the two. Nor would it prove a great deal if there were a way, as each film is very much a product of its time. Avatar made with 1930s era effects wouldn't have done nearly as well, and a modern adaptation of Gone With the Wind would draw far more controversy than ticket buyers.

The idea of swapping their time periods does raise an interesting question, though. If Avatar had been made back in the early days of Hollywood, it's a near certainty that it would have been a musical. If Cameron had gotten Lin Manuel Miranda to score both Avatar films with unforgettable earworm ballads instead of completely forgettable stock dialogue, would the movies have been more successful or less? Personally I could see it going either way, although just one song on the level of a "We Don't Talk About Bruno" would have done wonders for their toy sales.