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.

Fascinating. Thank you for the chart.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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..