AVATAR Box Office: #34 All-Time (Inflation-Adjusted)
Avatar’s total domestic gross to date stands at $504.8m. James Cameron’s sci-fi extravaganza is now the third biggest blockbuster ever at the domestic box office (not taking inflation or higher 3D/IMAX ticket prices into account), less than $30 million behind Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Night ($533.3m) and less than $100 million behind Cameron’s own Titanic ($600.7m).
When you’re talking of small movies, $30 million is a staggering figure; Kathryn Bigelow’s The Hurt Locker, for instance, made less than half that amount in North America. But when you’re talking of megablockbusters, $30 million can be a (admittedly, large) drop in the bucket. If things continue as they are, Avatar should be ahead of The Dark Knight when weekend estimates are announced next Sunday. And if it keeps on going, it’ll be ahead of Titanic well before the end of February.
Worldwide (not adjusted for inflation or dollar-exchange variations), Avatar remains #2, with $1.637 billion, getting closer and closer to Titanic. The Leonardo DiCaprio-Kate Winslet hit grossed $1.842 billion back in 1998. At least in part as a result of the US dollar’s weakness in most key film markets, more than 69 percent of Avatar’s grosses have originated overseas, as revenues coming from other countries represent more in dollar terms. (Current exchange rates, which remain unfavorable to the US dollar, have also helped to add to the film’s dollar total.)
Now, as I’ve stated before, things change quite a bit when inflation is added to the box-office accounting — even without considering Avatar’s 3D/IMAX premium surcharges, which can add quite a bit to the cost of a movie ticket. Box Office Mojo estimates that Avatar is now #34 on the all-time domestic box-office chart adjusted for inflation, slightly ahead of Tobey Maguire’s Spider-Man ($510.7m in 2002) and a few millions behind the Ryan O’Neal-Ali MacGraw vehicle Love Story ($514.4m in 1970). (If 3D/IMAX premium surcharges were included in the calculations, Avatar would be much further behind.)
If Avatar adds another $15 million by Friday, as it quite likely will, it’ll land on that list’s 30th spot, behind Disney’s 1959 animated Sleeping Beauty ($534.1m). In addition to Love Story, Avatar will have passed the Robert Redford-Paul Newman Western Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (above, 1969), Ghostbusters (1984), and Shrek 2 (2004).
Once again, it’s worth remembering that those are approximations based on average ticket prices — which can vary widely depending on where a movie made most of its money, e.g., a top-dollar New York house, in thousands of cheap small-town theaters, or at 3D/IMAX theaters that charge a premium. It’s also worth remembering that population increases, changes in movie-going demographics, and the growth of entertainment alternatives should all be taken into consideration when comparing the box-office success of movies from different eras.
Also, the role of piracy in terms of how it affects a movie’s box-office performance remains debatable. It all depends on the type of movie (would you rather watch Avatar on your computer screen or at a 3D movie house?), the quality of the pirated material (high-def. copies vs. crummy reproductions), and where the copying is taking place (Beverly Hills or Lagos, where most people who’d buy 50-cent copies of Hollywood flicks wouldn’t be able to afford going to the movies, anyhow).
Photo: Avatar (WETA / 20th Century Fox)
Subscribe / Syndicate
19 Comments
Tags: Avatar, Box Office, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, James Cameron, Sleeping Beauty, The Dark Knight, Titanic
Comments
19 Responses to “AVATAR Box Office: #34 All-Time (Inflation-Adjusted)”
Leave a Reply
NOTE:
All comments are moderated and may take some time before they are posted. Different views and opinions are welcome, but courtesy is imperative. Rude/crass/bigoted comments and/or remarks, and name-calling of any sort will be immediately deleted.
Also, please be aware that Alt Film Guide has no contact information for the talent mentioned in this blog and no information pertaining to or access to distributors'/producers' film prints.
Hooray for inflation-adjusted figures. They’re my favorite type of figures.
many factor that determine the succeed of a film..ticket price is just one of them..remember that older film were playing in theater for months even years, so they could sell much more tickets than avatar (one month releases)..plus the quality of the visual effects n camera 3D who deserves the higher ticket price than film from 1980’s and 1990’s..so it’d be a weak reason to say that avatar is ‘only” place the 34th ranking.
if the older film (that sell much more tickets than avatar) is remaking now, even with 3D, i’m sure they won’t make it like avatar..
Can anyone on this blog please explain the importance of using the term “Inflation-Adjusted” when discussing the box office figures for this movie?
Second, how often has this metric been applied to measure the success of other movies?
My personal observation is that those who insist that the term “Inflation-Adjusted” is used when discussing box office figures for this movie, tend to be those who predicted that it would be a collasal failure prior to its release.
>>>Can anyone on this blog please explain the importance of using the term “Inflation-Adjusted” when discussing the box office figures for this movie?
It’s blog policy when discussing “all-time highest grossers.” And that’s a matter of logic, too. Those who choose to believe the studios’ p.r. machine are free to buy into their “record-breaking” hype. Those who’d rather see things put into perspective, would look at inflation-adjusted figures, whether for costs, salaries, or box office. That’s what we do here.
>>>>Second, how often has this metric been applied to measure the success of other movies?
Elsewhere, I’ve no idea. Here, whenever discussing “all-time” rankings, no matter the movie. We don’t “pick” on “Avatar.”
>>>>My personal observation is that those who insist that the term “Inflation-Adjusted” is used when discussing box office figures for this movie, tend to be those who predicted that it would be a collasal failure prior to its release.
Your personal observation is way off the mark as far as my posts are concerned. I’ve got no stakes for or against “Avatar.” But considering all the ridiculous box-office hype, I — and others writing for this blog — do like to keep things in perspective.
And I really can’t understand why anyone would NOT want to see things in context.
and you can’t just multiple the tickets with price now..because the tickets would’nt sold that much adjusted to the price..you could tell avatar is #34 for tickets sold, but not for income worldwide.. i think that the context.
34th of all time isnt to bad for only being in release for 33 days! This represents basically how may tickets have been sold..I wonder where Star Wars would be on the All Time Inflation Adjusted chart after only its 33 rd day of release..Oh but wait! Star Wars not only was in the theaters for over a year but its has been re-released 4 or 5 times over the last 30 years!! Lets wait and see where Avatar ends up on the Inflation chart(tickets sold) when the movie finally ends in run in the movie houses..probally 6 or 7 months from now…not unheard of remember Batman Begins? It was out for over 7 months at the theaters..and that was just last year.
You can’t realistically compare a film on an inflation adjusted basis alone. There are too many other factors involved. For instance there were few or any pirated films back then. Also, back in the old days there were not as many other entertainment vehicles like gaming, broadcast sports, and the internet.
>>>>You can’t realistically compare a film on an inflation adjusted basis alone.
You didn’t read the article. Info on piracy, internet, etc. is in there.
>>>>34th of all time isnt to bad for only being in release for 33 days!
No, it isn’t. Though “Avatar” would be way — but WAY — further down that list if 3D/IMAX charges were used to figure out the # of tickets sold — instead of “average” ticket prices for the year.
I’ve nothing against “Avatar.” That’s just a fact. Just like it’s a fact that “Avatar” has been out for only a little over a month. It still has plenty of steam left. And who knows? Future big-screen rereleases should add more $$ to its coffers.
One other factor that makes much older movie attendance difficult to compare is that in the olden days movies had longer runs, in part because there were fewer releases and because they could not be seen cheaply and in high quality in the home in short order. Perhaps this means that rentals/DVD purchases should count (and each rental/purchase should likely count as multiple views.)
>>>>>>One other factor that makes much older movie attendance difficult to compare is that in the olden days movies had longer runs, in part because there were fewer releases
I’m not sure which “olden days” you’re referring to, but before TV there were many, but many many many more film releases then there are today.
>>>>>>>>>>>Perhaps this means that rentals/DVD purchases should count (and each rental/purchase should likely count as multiple views.)
If so, so should television viewings — which might make Gone with the Wind the most-watched film ever. Its first television showing, for example, was a major event watched by tens of millions of people. I doubt it that “Avatar’s” initial TV showing will attract that much attention — again, not because “Avatar” is “bad,” but because film-watching has changed in the last three decades. Long before “Avatar” shows up on TV, it’ll have been made available on DVD, pay-per-view, etc. etc.
It would be nice to see comparisons of both tickets sold in addition to box office takes, when news outlets report on the success (or failure) of a film in these kinds of terms. I think that would put the numbers into a better perspective.
That being said, I don’t view the extra costs associated with 3D/IMAX showings as an unfair advantage for any films that are available in this format. I think the fact that movie-goers are willing to pay extra for 3D/IMAX says something about the public’s perceived quality of a film. I don’t look at it any differently than a higher-end consumer product “outselling” a lower-end one. A lower quality, less expensive product can sell more units than a higher quality, more expensive unit, yet the more expensive unit could still have higher sales. At the end of the day, if I were in the business of selling products, I’d opt for the latter.
>>>>>It would be nice to see comparisons of both tickets sold in addition to box office takes, when news outlets report on the success (or failure) of a film in these kinds of terms. I think that would put the numbers into a better perspective.
I totally agree. Outside of North America, countries often report the number of tickets sold. That’s a much more accurate way of looking at a film’ success **at the box office***. Of course, there have been movies that did moderate or poor business at the box office and later became home video hits.
>>>>>That being said, I don’t view the extra costs associated with 3D/IMAX showings as an unfair advantage for any films that are available in this format. I think the fact that movie-goers are willing to pay extra for 3D/IMAX says something about the public’s perceived quality of a film.
It’s only “unfair” in that it makes it seem as if more tickets are being sold — that more people are watching the film. When that’s not necessarily true.
>>>>>I don’t look at it any differently than a higher-end consumer product “outselling” a lower-end one. A lower quality, less expensive product can sell more units than a higher quality, more expensive unit, yet the more expensive unit could still have higher sales. At the end of the day, if I were in the business of selling products, I’d opt for the latter.
So would I. So would — so do — movie moguls. Expect AVATAR 2, THE HANGOVER 3, STAR TREK 4, DISTRICT 10, 2013, TRANSFORMERS 15, etc. The downside is that “small” movies, or movies that don’t have the widest possible appeal no longer have a chance at the big studios.
Independents must fight the fight to finance their projects, no matter how great the cast, the screenplay, the director, etc.
If Gone With The Wind were released today instead of 1939, it wouldn’t be the top box office of all time. Big, but not that big. Released in a day with no TV -not to mention no DVD, TiVo, Cable, on demand, etc.- it continued to be rereleased every few years – 1942, 1949 and so on. Actually was released last year in Poland. Today’s movies have a quick run and then they are moved to DVD. It is harder to get people to go see a movie again in a few years when they have it sitting on the shelf in their den, on their ipod, on their phone, and anywhere elese you can think of. The only movie in modern times that has drawn that kind of repeat business over years is Star Wars and it wasn’t really the same movie. The rerelease was a major budget, major differences, new version. It should count as two movies.
>>>>>If Gone With The Wind were released today instead of 1939, it wouldn’t be the top box office of all time. Big, but not that big. … it continued to be rereleased every few years – 1942, 1949 and so on. Actually was released last year in Poland. Today’s movies have a quick run and then they are moved to DVD.
True, today’s movies generally have a quick run. GWTW was around for a long time. In fact, I don’t believe it was rereleased in 1942. It was probably still playing back then.
One thing, however, that is *very* important to remember is that movies didn’t open in 2,000 or 3,000 or 4,000 screens (to reach the widest possible audience *right away*) in those days.
A movie like GWTW opened in one or two theaters. And stayed at those two theaters — earning million$$ — for months, sometimes a year. Or longer. Slowly it’d open in other major theaters across the country. And only later would it reach small-town theaters.
Had GWTW opened in 3,000 theaters back in 1939, it’d probably have made a billion or more then and there.
Intriguing! I often wondered if they adjusted for the extra cost of “gold class” tickets; same screen, but with larger and comfier seats, and a menu to order from (at extra cost, again). Apparently not.
An Australian Cardinal was worried that Avatar being so greatly-watched meant a return to paganism. It prompted the following observation in an article (although they include reshowings):
The films that made the most money in Australia:
1 Avatar (2009) $69 million
2 Titanic (1997) $58m
3 Shrek 2 (2004) $50.5m
4 The Return of the King (2003) $49.5m
5 Crocodile Dundee (1986) $48m
6 Fellowship of the Ring (2001) $47.5m
7 The Dark Knight (2008) $46m
8 The Two Towers (2002) $46m.
The films that sold the most tickets in Australia:
1 The Sound of Music (1965 and later reshowings)
2 Crocodile Dundee (1986)
3 Star Wars (1977 and 97)
4 Gone With The Wind (1939 and reshowings)
5 Titanic (1997)
6 E.T (1982)
7 Dr Zhivago (1966)
8 Grease (1978 and reshowings).
(Full article: http://blogs.sunherald.com.au/whoweare/archives/2010/01/the_tribal_mind_49.html)
Melissa,
Fascinating. Thank you for the chart.
Perspective is a good thing. You have to take it into account to get as close to accurate a picture as possible. For instance the cost of production of a film has to come into play when one discusses profitability. $100 mil sounds like a lot of moola, but RoI will certainly have to be adjusted if the film cost $70 mill to make as opposed to say $300,000.
All in all there seems to be a lot of people that really want this movie to break all records. Why I don’t know, it’s just another movie, although a very glitzy one I must admit. When it comes to the subjective, it makes no sense to debate quality or anything else. Just nod, or shake your head and kick the dust off your sandals.
Um, am I missing something? In the first paragraph, you write that Avatar is number two. Then you write that it’s behind Dark Knight and Titanic. Doesn’t that make it number three?
ouch…
We should’ve caught that.
Thank you.