Perhaps you meant to say..."This article thread focuses on ticket sales ONLY!"
And even that seems ridiculous as that isn't what the article is saying.
Once again, the article itself is about the propensity to do a specific thing, namely, to focus on ticket grosses to determine how great a movie is, despite how inaccurate a means that is due to inflationary impact.
I even stated that meant the article as written by Hibberd!
So what? You don't even seem to understand what Hibberd is saying.
Next time, I just may do that.
I doubt it. You seem to be a glutton for punishment.
And you're an innocent bystander? LOL I'm more a glutton for handing out punishment. While you seem to be lost in covering your bloviating backside.
"This article thread focuses on ticket sales ONLY!"
>>>>>Despite the article itself being about more than ticket sales.
So? While the article itself focuses on ticket sales, it does not mean its entirely about ticket sales.
>>>>>... the article itself is about the propensity to do a specific thing, namely, to focus on ticket grosses to determine how great a movie is, despite how inaccurate a means that is due to inflationary impact.
The article itself does not go that far. It does not mention factors related to inflation. But your point is well taken. Nonetheless, the lead in paragraphs use ancillary rhetoric as a set up to drive the main point. The main point being, how actual current ticket sales for Avatar compare to the actual ticket sales of the greatest films of all time. By looking at ticket sales and not ticket grosses, you get a more factual account of a films true popularity with the public. Hibberd wants everyone to realize that Avatar, while popular today, is not as popular when a more trustworthy method is employed in considering its place in movie history.
Your turn.