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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.