On Saturday, James Cameron's Avatar overtook Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight at the domestic box office. On Monday, it overtook Cameron's own Titanic at the worldwide (including the US) box office.
Avatar has been out for about six weeks. It has grossed $1.292 billion overseas and $551.7 million domestically (US/Canada). Titanic, starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet, grossed $1.242 billion overseas and $600.8 million domestically. Avatar's worldwide total currently stands at $1.843.7 billion; Titanic's take (after a number of months) was $1.842.8 billion.
Impressive? Sure. Even so, Avatar still has quite some ways to go before it matches the number of tickets sold for The Dark Knight domestically ($533.7m in revenues), and a long, long, long way to go before it matches the number of tickets sold for Titanic on a global scale.
What many reports opt to ignore — or to have buried somewhere near the end of the article — is that Avatar made most of its money at 3D and/or IMAX screenings that charge a sizable premium. The vast majority of blockbusters that came before Avatar didn't have that box-office plus.
According to The Hollywood Reporter, at least 65% of the film's overseas box office and almost 80% of its domestic take have been generated at 3D venues, which can double (or more) the cost of an "average"* movie ticket price. For comparison's sake: The Dark Knight earned a mere 6.5% of its worldwide revenues from IMAX screenings. That's why when it comes to the number of tickets sold, Avatar still lags behind a whole bunch of other movies both domestically and internationally.
The Reporter adds that Avatar is now the biggest-grossing film (if you ignore inflation) of all time in China, Spain, Russia, Hong Kong (actually part of China, but never mind), and Chile, and the biggest Hollywood hit ever in India. Other top markets include France** ($124.8 million total), Germany ($95.8 million), the U.K. and Ireland ($93.2 million), South Korea ($79.7 million), Japan ($77.7 million), Australia ($77 million) and Spain ($76 million). (See Box Office Mojo chart.)
The fact that the US currency remains in the dumps helps as well, for the money generated overseas buys many more dollars, thus inflating Avatar's foreign revenues. On the other hand, back in 1998, when Titanic was earning millions abroad, the dollar was remarkably strong.
According to the Reporter, the actual #1 box-office hit the world over remains a 71-year-old movie, Gone with the Wind. The article claims the Clark Gable-Vivien Leigh Civil War drama grossed $400 million worldwide in 1939, the equivalent of $6 billion today.
Although I have no doubt that Gone with the Wind was a much bigger sensation upon its release than Avatar is or ever will be, I'm pretty positive that the Reporter's figures for the original GWTW receipts include rereleases as well. (See Box Office Mojo's all-time figures adjusted for inflation; note that this chart only covers domestic revenues.)
* "Average" ticket prices nationwide in any given year are provided by the National Association of Theater Owners (NATO). Box Office Mojo has come up with an estimate of $7.35 for 2010; those are the same figures as the ones NATO provided for 2009. Bear in mind that those "averages" won't necessarily reflect the number of tickets a movie has sold in any given year. In order to come up with a relatively accurate estimate, it's crucial to know where a movie made most of its money — a top-dollar house or a cheaper small-town or neighborhood theater.
** Includes Monaco, Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia
Photos: Avatar (WETA / 20th Century Fox); Titanic (20th Century Fox)
>>>>>>>>>>>You are comparing apples and oranges.
I don't disagree with you — because that was my point as well.
>>>>>>A quick look at the AMC theater guide for LA tells us that a regular film (Book of Eli) costs $10.00, Avatar in 3D costs $14.00 that's a lot different then your $7.35 to $15.00 or $17.00 "average".
That's where you're getting me wrong.
The $7.35 figure is not **my** average. That's the estimated (for 2010) nationwide average provided by Box Office Mojo, based on what's provided by film exhibitors all over the US. That's what is normally used to calculate the # of tickets a movie has sold. And it's *wrong* to do that. *That* is my point in the article above.
That's also why if you look at the text above, you'll see that I have the word "average" in quotes.
And that's why I say in my comment above that it's crucial to know where a movie made most of its money, whether it's "Avatar" or "Gone with the Wind." (And you can be sure that most of "Avatar's" money is coming not from small-town Kansas or Idaho, but from major centers like New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, etc., where ticket prices, whether $14 or $15.50 at the Landmark Westwood or $16.50 at the IMAX AMC Century City, are more than double the nationwide "average" used to estimate the # of tickets a movie has sold. Of course, that also works for other releases that earn most of their money in major urban areas.)
As for the $10-$14 discrepancy you mention — well, it's only four dollars. No! That's a *huge* 40% price increase.
$7 to $9 in small-town Kansas. That's still a hefty 28.5% increase. Not much when we're discussing dollars and cents. A whole lot when we're discussing hundreds of millions of dollars. For every $100 million a movie makes at regular screenings, you'll have to add anywhere between $28.5m to $40m to get the equivalent box-office receipts of a movie shown on 3D/IMAX. That's a lot!
I'll add a note to the text to make it clear that the $7.35 average isn't something *I* came up with.
In fact, just to keep this going…
I just did a check in Leawood, Kansas. Regular ticket prices are $7.00, what does Avatar in 3D at the same theater? $9.00.
>>>>>>Joe, nope. That’s not “total crap.” Average ticket prices for 2010 (estimates) are $7.35. For example, if you try to go see “Avatar” in 3D in Los Angeles, chances are you’ll have to pay $15 or $17 to get in.
That is more than double the “average” ticket price used to calculate tickets sold in any given year.<<<<
You are comparing apples and oranges.
Sure $7.35 might be the average movie cost in Lyons, Kansas but what does Avatar cost to see there?
$15 or $17 might be the cost to see it in 3D in LA but what is a normal movie ticket at that same theater?
You are comparing the nation wide average (including all the small towns and small theaters that charge a lot less for shows) to the 3D price in a major city.
That's not very accurate.
A quick look at the AMC theater guide for LA tells us that a regular film (Book of Eli) costs $10.00, Avatar in 3D costs $14.00 that's a lot different then your $7.35 to $15.00 or $17.00 "average".
>>>>>GWTW did not make $198 mil in 1939; that sum represents the total grossed from many re-releases over the subsequent decades.
Jacen, I'm sure you're right. The Box Office Mojo figures are adjusted for those rereleases, based on "average" ticket prices. That can be tricky as well. It all depends on where the movie made most of its money.
>>>>>>>“which can double (or more) the cost of an “average” movie ticket price” is total crap.
Joe, nope. That's not "total crap." Average ticket prices for 2010 (estimates) are $7.35. For example, if you try to go see "Avatar" in 3D in Los Angeles, chances are you'll have to pay $15 or $17 to get in.
That is more than double the "average" ticket price used to calculate tickets sold in any given year.
>>>>>>>>>(BTW – GWTW also charged a premium during its initial release due to the cost and spectacle and anticipation involved. I don’t see anyone trying to discount the movie’s boxoffice success because of that.)
TL, actually, that has been mentioned in my previous posts on inflation-adjusted tallies. In order to be accurate (re: tickets sold), it's crucial to know *where* a movie made most of its money — in top-dollar houses or neighborhood theaters or …
>>>>>>>(BTW – Most studios care a lot more about dollars earned than tickets sold. If they could make a movie that people would pay $100 a ticket for they would be glad to sell a few less tickets in return. It’s actually more financially profitable to make more money with fewer screenings.)
If they could make a movie that ONE person would go see and pay $2 billion for the ticket, they would do it. Who could blame them? I would too!
But that would be ONE ticket sold. A record-breaking box-office hit. ONE ticket sold.
I'm not being a naysayer. I don't care if AVATAR is #1 or #1000 on the charts. I didn't make the movie. I didn't hate the movie. I have nothing to gain either way. I just can't understand why seeing through the hype and attempting to put things in perspective is seen as an attack on the film itself. I find that curious.
lets see how much avatar ends up getting…
I didn't see this movie but i listen about it from many of my friends they watch it &tell me to do so they told me how a man can imagine.this is really fantastic movie i have seen it trailer
Well I agree that you can and perhaps should compare older boxoffice totals with today's films, I disagree about using things like ticket sales and 3D pricing to take a kick at the current films.
We have know way of ever knowing how much of a difference the 3D is making in ticket sales. If the film had been released as only 2D then maybe it would have been just as popular. We can't know for sure. Also, the statement that 3D tickets "which can double (or more) the cost of an "average" movie ticket price" is total crap. I can't believe that any theater is charging double for a ticket to Avatar in 3D. Here in Canada, at least, it only costs $3.00 more for seeing the film in Imax 3D then a regular ticket.
So if you want to get technical you would have to figure out how many tickets were sold in 3D screenings and then take $3.00 off the boxoffice total for each ticket sold and use that number. But even then that is faulty statistics.
It's just easier to say Avatar is the highest grossing film of all time, and the naysayers will just have to live with it.
Gone With the Wind did NOT make 198,000,000 in 1939. That would have collapsed the economy. If it has truly made that much over its run it has been the accumulation of many rereleases. Most at much higher prices than it cost in 1939. (BTW – GWTW also charged a premium during its initial release due to the cost and spectacle and anticipation involved. I don't see anyone trying to discount the movie's boxoffice success because of that.)
So 70 years of release compared to 38 days for Avatar. They're not pulling Avatar from the theaters yet. If it runs long enough maybe this little movie can finally impress some of the naysayers who keep trying to find ways to crunch numbers to diminish the movie's success.
(BTW – Most studios care a lot more about dollars earned than tickets sold. If they could make a movie that people would pay $100 a ticket for they would be glad to sell a few less tickets in return. It's actually more financially profitable to make more money with fewer screenings.)
There's a reason all the studios are scrambling to find ways to cash in on the 3D/IMAX bandwagon now that Avatar has proven the outrageous possibilities. They get the numbers game. Now let's see if they can duplicate the content quality. My guess is that Avatar will sit comfortably at the top of the charts – at least until Cameron comes up with something new to unseat it.
Then all these folks being paid to write articles that try to spin negative angles about the relative success of the movie will probably be getting paid to kiss Avatar's butt in print. I bet they will gladly oblige.
GWTW did not make $198 mil in 1939; that sum represents the total grossed from many re-releases over the subsequent decades. One figure I've seen shows GWTW grossing only $32 mil during its first year of release (which is still a staggering amount when you consider how cheap movie prices were back then and that the Great Depression was not quite over yet). What I wish is that someone would research and tally the number of tickets sold for each of all the major films for the past several decades; that would give us a much more accurate portrait of what the biggest films have been (always acknowledging, of course, that older films will have their numbers inflated due to the benefit of multiple reissues; but at least the fluctuation and inflation of prices would no longer be a distraction).
>>>>>>>Gone with the Wind made 198 million US in 1939. Would that be more money today? Yes it would. That does not change the fact that it still only made 198 million dollars.
Actually, it does very much "change the fact." To see $198 million in 1939 as “only” $198 million is wrong.
$198 million in 1939 would be equivalent to about $3 billion today. *That* is how you have to look at it if you want an accurate understanding of the buying power of $198 million in 1939.
>>>>If you did not witness the movie while it was in theaters, you would have never seen it again. EVER.
Sorry, but wrong again. There were such things as rereleases. Those took place periodically.
>>>>>Were similar tactics to inflation used in comparing olympic athletes from now to those of 50 years ago it looks even more ridiculous. It is similar to saying, “if this swimmer from 50 years ago had used the same stream-lined suits that the swimmers of today wear, his time would have been 20 seconds faster than the fastest swimmer today.” You just cannot compare some things.
I agree: *those* things can't be compared. However, when one discusses inflation, one is talking about money’s **real** value. For that reason, you not only can but *must* use inflation adjustments when comparing costs/revenues from different eras. Else, your comparisons will be useless.
Get a salary raise below the inflation rate and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about. You'll be making more money — perhaps you'll even break a record or two — but you won't be any richer. In fact, you'll actually be poorer.
MGM could buy much more with “only” $198 million back in 1939 than Fox could buy today with $1.3 billion.
Avatar wasn’t the only film to ring in the new year with serious box-office bounty, either. Sherlock Holmes sleuthed out an elementary $38.4 million for second place, a 41 percent drop for $140 million total.
I think we shouldn't forget that while, yes, the tickets cost more (especially 3D and IMAX), people are more than willing to pay for them.
What difference does it make? Avatar is the top grossing movie of all time now and still counting after only 37 days of release! It took Titanic it's entire run to reach 1.82 Billion. It's not fair to try and take the celebration of out Avatar's success! Make no mistake when the dust settles this movie could make 2.5 Billion plus! Those other movies were great for their time and enjoyed their highest grossing box office title – now let Avatar wear the crown! After all the odds are that someday Avatar will fall to the number 2 spot! OBTW money is money no matter what decade it's acquired!!!
no metter the thing are going,we will never give up
I wish I could read one article where the Avatar gross is mentioned without it being compared to some inflated gross. Gone with the Wind made 198 million US in 1939. Would that be more money today? Yes it would. That does not change the fact that it still only made 198 million dollars. You could argue more ticket sales, but honestly back in 1939 there were no such things as DVDs or television reruns. If you did not witness the movie while it was in theaters, you would have never seen it again. EVER. I am certain that in today's times, had we no technology to steal movies or wait a few months and rent them on DVD, that movie ticket sales would be MUCH higher than they are today.
Avatar has made 1.843 billion dollars in today's times. That is still 1.843 billion dollars no matter which way you look at it. 100 years from now when ticket prices are $500 a ticket and movies are making 10 billion dollars on average, people are still going to say "Well you know, if you count for inflation, the 1939 Gone with the Wind would have made 3 Trillion dollars."
Point being-none of this really matters. I don't think James Cameron is kicking himself for not having released this film in 2030 and making some 2 or 3 billion more than in 2010.
Were similar tactics to inflation used in comparing olympic athletes from now to those of 50 years ago it looks even more ridiculous. It is similar to saying, "if this swimmer from 50 years ago had used the same stream-lined suits that the swimmers of today wear, his time would have been 20 seconds faster than the fastest swimmer today." You just cannot compare some things.
I don't know what's the fuss? AVATAR is the top grossing film since the dawn of human history – period.
Who cares about adjustments for inflation, extra $$$ for 3D ticket sales etc. etc.
AVATAR is the film for the 21st Century, I don't care about "Gone With The Winds", I wasn't even born yet..
We must give credit when and where credit is due. As far as i am concerned, James Cameron pulled it off! AVATAR is the new champion!
3 cheers to James Cameron!!!