Sam Worthington, Joel David Moore, Dileep Rao in James Cameron's Avatar (top); John Guillermin's The Towering Inferno starred Paul Newman, Steve McQueen, William Holden, Faye Dunaway, Fred Astaire, Susan Blakely, Richard Chamberlain, Jennifer Jones, O.J. Simpson, Robert Vaughn, and Robert Wagner (bottom)
AVATAR vs. TITANIC: International Box Office
If 3D/IMAX surcharges are factored in, Avatar would fall behind many more movies on Box Office Mojo’s inflation-adjusted chart, which is supposed to better reflect the number of tickets a movie has sold. As I’ve explained in the comments section of a previous Avatar post, the 3D/IMAX premiums can add somewhere between 25-30 and 40 percent to Avatar’s grosses. The vast majority of movies, including most recent releases, don’t have that sort of advantage — certainly not to Avatar’s extent, as 80% of its domestic gross and about two-thirds of its international gross have come from 3D and 3D/IMAX screenings. [Please see a personal addendum below.]
Even if you opt for the lower end of the scale and subtract only 25% from Avatar’s domestic earnings (a worldwide inflation-adjusted chart is unavailable) — in order to better estimate where James Cameron’s sci-fi adventure would rank in number of tickets sold — the film would have earned to date (Feb. 25) $518.7 million, placing it at #37, slightly ahead of Macaulay Culkin's 1991 comedy Home Alone ($515.4m) and several million behind Roland Emmerich's 1996 cartoonish sci-fier Independence Day ($527.1m).
If you opt for a mid-level percentage, or about 33%, Avatar’s "2D-equivalent box-office take" would be $461.1m, which would place it at #53 in number of tickets sold, slightly ahead of Sam Raimi's 2004 superhero flick Spider-Man 2 ($457.8m) and several million behind John Guillermin's 1974 all-star disaster melodrama The Towering Inferno ($467m).
Once again, bear in mind that those are approximations based on "average" ticket prices provided by the National Association of Theater Owners. (Box Office Mojo has come up with its own estimated average — $7.61 — for 2010.) An accurate calculation of a film’s popularity at the box office — as in, the number of tickets sold and its ratio to the population size at the time of the movie’s release — would be based on where the movie made most of its money, e.g., a top-dollar New York house, thousands of cheaper small-town theaters, 3D/IMAX screenings, or kiddie matinees.
Avatar’s ticket prices, for instance, cost much more than the purported $7.61 "average" for 2010. In fact, most releases — whether new or old — that earn(ed) most of their revenues in major urban centers are at an advantage on those charts, whereas movies that did well in smaller towns or those made for children (lower prices for kids, matinees) are at a disadvantage.
It’s also worth remembering that population increases, changes in movie-going demographics, changes in movie distribution (movies didn't open at 3,000 — – or even 300 — screens until the mid-70s), and the growth of entertainment alternatives (home video, cable television, pay-per-view options) should all be taken into consideration when comparing the box-office success of movies from different eras. And that many of the movies found on Box Office Mojo’s inflation-adjusted chart had one or more rereleases throughout the years.
The effect of piracy on a movie’s box-office performance remains highly 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 or Kinshasa, where most people who’d buy 50-cent copies of Hollywood flicks wouldn’t be able to afford going to the movies, anyhow).
And finally, Avatar is generating quite a bit of money and will probably keep doing so in the next few weeks. More “inflation-adjusted” updates will be posted in the near future.
Addendum: I've been accused of coming up with those figures because I'm somehow anti-Avatar. I'm not. Avatar isn't my favorite movie of the year and I wouldn't call it a great film, but I found it a memorable experience nevertheless. I am anti-bullshit, however. And I like to keep things in perspective as much as possible, even considering all the variables involved when comparing something as ephemeral as a movie's "popularity." That's the only reason I've been posting those "inflation-adjusted" articles about Avatar. It could've been any other movie that studio flacks — and journalists who should know better — claim is the Biggest Box-Office Hit Ever.
As an aside, I may be checking out Avatar a second time before it disappears from 3D houses. In fact, I want to catch it at an IMAX screening.
Photo: Avatar (WETA / 20th Century Fox);
DG,
As explained in those series of articles, the figures are all box-office-related. (Source: Box Office Mojo)
And yes, it's true, DVD and other ancillary revenues would be extremely difficult to include, especially when using inflation-adjusted numbers.
Interesting article. I wonder if your numbers for past movies are strictly box-office numbers or if they include VHS/DVD/Bluray revenue from those movies as well. If they do include this revenue, it becomes incredibly difficult because this revenue stream comes in more recently than the movie was out. Compensating DVD revenue by inflation requires you to know when the DVD was released to know what price to compensate it for.
For instance Titanic sold a ton of DVDs at pricing from 10+ yrs ago and now is re-released on Bluray and sold a ton more at today's pricing. This steady income stream skews your numbers. Not to mention if any network picked up these old movies for release on TV and paid for them. That gets added to the revenue of a movie.
I guess it depends where you get your revenue numbers from (strictly box office or for the movie in general).
hmm,
>>>>>>>>It’s not about popularity – It’s about how much money the movie makes!
Well, it's more about how many tickets a movie sells. So, popularity can be "estimated" that way. How many tickets sold, the population at the time. That sort of thing.
>>>>>Gone with the wind was the only option for years/decades with multiple rereleases…
No, that isn't right. GWTW wasn' the Kim Jong Il of Hollywood. There was PLENTY of competition. Studios made dozens of movies each year, and some pretty big ones that were big box office hits and/or that had big rereleases. BEN-HUR, DUEL IN THE SUN, THE WIZARD OF OZ, KING KONG, THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES are a few that come to mind.
GWTW made more $$$$ because it was more popular -in a way that people today have trouble imagining.
It's not about popularity – It's about how much money the movie makes! There is no way compare "popularity" of a movies from different eras. Is Kim Jong Il of North Korea more "popular" there than say Barak Obama in US just because he's the only option in his country? Gone with the wind was the only option for years/decades with multiple rereleases… And when you make your research and look at the numbers that GWTW made in international scene and when it did them you see that numbers must be pretty close already when you are talking Ticket Price inflation adjusted box office
>>>>>>>>>>>>I don’t see how putting really old movies at the top of lists is going to accomplish anything. How will that change things really.
It just gives you a better idea of how many tickets a movie sold, which is the *true* measure of a film's success. That's what it accomplishes.
(And yes, of course, newer movies haven't had the rereleases enjoyed by many older movies. That should also be taken into account. Just like the country's population at the time a movie was released should be taken into account as well. Unfortunately, the Box Office Mojo chart doesn't provide that sort of detailed breakdown.)
That's not living in the past. That's simply attempting to put things in perspective, based on that data we have at our fingertips. Else, what do you suggest? Doing away with every history book out there? Who cares about the past, right? No lessons to be learned there.
Also, "Metropolis" was not a major box-office hit. A good reason why silent films aren't on the Box Office Mojo inflation-adjusted chart is that none grossed more than $4 million or so at the US box office.
"The Big Parade" was the highest-grossing silent movie in the US, followed by "Ben-Hur." ("Ben-Hur" did much better overseas and was the highest-grossing movie worldwide until "Gone with the Wind." This blog's administrator has done extensive research on that movie.)
Even if you estimate that "average" ticket prices were 18 cents in 1925 — or half of what they were in 1948 as per the National Association of Theater Owners — those two movies would have earned about $170-180 million in 2010 dollars. ("Average" of $7.61 as estimated by Box Office Mojo.)
The Box Office Mojo inflation-adjusted chart ends at #100 — "Top Gun" – $362 million.
Considering that the US population in 1925, when "The Big Parade" and "Ben-Hur" came out, was 115 million or about one-third of what it is today, those are mindblowing figures. (Though, of course, the 18-cent average isn't the best way to estimate their earnings as those two films were stellar attractions that could cost up to $1 for a ticket. Much like the much too low $7.61 "average" isn't the best way to estimate 2010 ticket prices.)
I don't see how putting really old movies at the top of lists is going to accomplish anything. How will that change things really. The thing of it is, there are two lists out there. One for how movies are doing in today's prices, and one for all movies adjusted for inflation. Most have just chosen to go with the former list. Really the adjusted list it is not an accurate list because what about movies from the silent era. They are not on there. You have Metropolis and other famous films from then. Maybe it should be at the top. In pop music they do the same. When doing the biggest hits on vh1 they use the 1950's as the cut off decade, no swing tunes on that list.
The reason is people are interested in today, not 70 years ago. That is just the reality of it, if some people don't realize it then life will be very frustrating for those who hang onto the past.
Hi Rich,
I completely agree with what you said.
People are willing to pay more despite economical crisis and availability of 2D screens, so this should indeed be seen as impressive and not factored negatively.
Besides, part of the budget of that movie was actually dedicated to 3D.
At the time of Titanic movie, I would like to remind everyone that 3D was already existing. I remember myself when i was kid watching Captain Eo in Disneyland in 3D and it was in 1989 !
So yes, today there are more theaters, technology is available but 4 to 6 months after release, DVD releases are out. And this has a big impact in movie theater life cycles.
Personally inflation charts should be for the changing dollar, not the ticket cost. If some movie comes out within the near future in a special format costing $50 per ticket, it should be viewed as more impressive. If people are willing to pay that much because they believe it's worth the extra cost, why when making an all time chart should it be factored out? Yes this is pushing it to the extreames but atleast in my opinion all time charts can only be 3 ways; exact earnings, calculated for inflation(dollar or ticket), and evyrthing calculated in. The problem I see with what you are doing is only Avatar is affected. If you calculated everything in including 3d and rereleases for all movies in an all time chart that put Avatar at the bottom I'd be fine with it, but your methods just make you seem like an Avatar haiter BECAUSE it is the only movie affected by your calculations.
>>>>>>>I’m looking forward to that article! I think it can really be accurate.
Well, not THAT accurate, I must grudgingly admit. I'll have to do "possibilities" in terms of average tickets costs for 3D as those vary depending on where you watch "Avatar" — a major city or a small town or far-flung suburb.
It'll be probably have to be lower end (28.5%), mid-range (about 33-34%) and higher end (40%) "possibilities."
"…You’re right. And my next piece on AVATAR will consider the 20% 2D revenues separately."
I'm looking forward to that article! I think it can really be accurate. the-numbers.com has specified the total Imax gross (dom and ww and to date 120mil dom) although without a date for the last updated figures. I'm not from the US, nor am I living in the US so I'm sure you will do a much better job calculating what the average cost of the 3D tickets (excluding Imax) are than me.
>>>>>>>>>I get your points but disagree. You can’t just change what people paid for their tickets. If you didn’t want to pay extra to see Avatar you wouldn’t. Plus even when accounted for inflation, wolrd wide Avatar is ahead of Titanic.
Rich,
I'm "changing" what people paid for their tickets in order to get a better idea of how many tickets were sold for "Avatar." That *needs* to be done.
And no, "Avatar" has not passed "Titanic" in terms of ticket sales worldwide.
See: http://www.altfg.com/blog/box-office/avatar-titanic-worldwide-revenues-87129/
>>>>>>>>I really enjoy your articles about this subject, but your mathed is slightly flawed. Avatars actual gross is to date 691m and if 80 % of that is with the extra 3D charge, 20 % is not. That would mean that 138,2 mil of the gross is non 3D ergo, not a subject to your calculations.
Sammie,
You are absolutely right. I was going to do it the way you have it, but as I tried to simplify the math (so readers wouldn't get bored) I did away with the 80%-20% issue and opted to subtract 25% and 33% from "Avatar's" revenues — those are lower-end, and mid-to-lower-end percentages — so as to offset the fact that I hadn't considered the 20% revenues in 2D. (I hope I'm not making *this* too complicated.)
The point is: You're right. And my next piece on AVATAR will consider the 20% 2D revenues separately.
>>>>>but what you, and many other do not take into account is the fact that movies nowadays do not enjoy a year long box-office run as they used to do in the times to tinanic and before … number of movies releasing, other recreation activities have taken their hit on repeated viewings
True. However, what people today should take into account is that movies didn't open at 300,000 screens in the past. As late as the mid-70s, movies opened in a few hundred — if that many — theaters.
Up to the late '60s, special releases often opened in a few houses — sometimes only *one* — and stayed there for months. Then it'd slowly open elsewhere, little by little. They'd never reach 3,000 screens and the like at once. (Though admittedly, some of those movie palaces were huge.)
Now, something else: In the past, movies didn't face competition from DVDs and the like, but they had a lot of competition from ONE ANOTHER.
Many more movies were released by the Hollywood studios during the studio era than nowadays. Many, many, MANY more. There was a lot of competition for entertainment, even without the Internet or home video.
I get your points but disagree. You can't just change what people paid for their tickets. If you didn't want to pay extra to see Avatar you wouldn't. Plus even when accounted for inflation, wolrd wide Avatar is ahead of Titanic. You could manipulate the data for anymovie to change its rank. If you remove GWTWs rereleases it's not even close to the top of inflation adjusted charts.
Just my rant,
I really enjoy your articles about this subject, but your mathed is slightly flawed. Avatars actual gross is to date 691m and if 80 % of that is with the extra 3D charge, 20 % is not. That would mean that 138,2 mil of the gross is non 3D ergo, not a subject to your calculations. 552,8 mil is though. If you count these 552,8 with 40 %, which is your extreme, the sum would be 331,7 mil + the 138,2 = 469,9. This calculation would place Avatar on #51 right behind The Bells of St. Mary's. If we were to remove only 25 % of the 3D inflated gross, the total would be 414,6 + 138,2 = 552,8. This would place Avatar on #31 right behind Sleeping Beauty.
Nice article which puts things in perspective as far as price and number of tickets is sold … sure avatar lags behind a lot many movies in terms of tickets sold … but what you, and many other do not take into account is the fact that movies nowadays do not enjoy a year long box-office run as they used to do in the times to tinanic and before … number of movies releasing, other recreation activities have taken their hit on repeated viewings … i mean definitely avatar would have raked in much more than 15mn this weekend had shutter island not released, but sadly that calculation is not feasible … The inflation adjusted figures for gone with the wind stand at a staggering 1.5 bn usd … no one in the right state of mind would predict such a run for a movie now … so while your argument holds true, i would still put avatar at the top of the tree ….
Hello, Stephane,
I believe I get your point.
It's true that lots of people are paying more to watch "Avatar" because of the 3D allure and that some have stayed away because they find it too expensive.
So, in a sense, the 3D is both an advantage and a disadvantage. But trust me (and the box-office figures): the 3D technology has always been "Avatar's" chief selling point. It's been much, much more of a plus than a minus.
After all, people have the option to watch "Avatar" in 2D for lower prices — but 80% in the US and about 66% overseas prefer the more expensive 3D screenings.
The sole point of this article was to attempt to put in perspective "Avatar's" place on the all-time box-office chart in terms of tickets sold. That's it. When I talk about the 3D "advantage" I'm referring to inflated box-office figures — i.e., higher revenues despite (relatively speaking) fewer tickets sold. I'm not saying that's good or bad. It's just a fact.
And please don't get me wrong. "Avatar" has sold a ***huge*** number of tickets. But it hasn't sold more tickets than many other earlier box-office blockbusters.
I hope this makes my position a little clearer. And thanks for writing.
Hi Michelle,
your article is very interesting. I however would like to challenge your ranking while adjusting Avatar box office with other movies business results. The facts indeed the ticket fares are more expensive for Avatar should actually be considered as an handicap in some ways as some people would have decided not to watch it because of such high pricing.
Cheers
>>>>>>>>>It would be be cool If you were right but unfortunately your math is wrong.
Your comment was unnecessarily spiteful. Normally, the administrator would have trashed it right away. But I suggested we just remove the infantile name-calling and keep the attendance figures.
My math isn't wrong. All you have to do is use your brain. If you know that 3D surcharges will add an extra 28.5%-40% to the price of a movie ticket, you have to subtract that from the total box-office revenues so you can get the # of tickets sold. That's called logic. (Taking into consideration the percentage of tickets sold at 3D/IMAX houses; in the case of "Avatar" that was 80% in the US.)
By the way, where did you find those "official" figures? The Warner Bros. ledger? The Fox ledger? US studios use box-office figures, not attendance records to report a film's success.
Those aren't official figures. All you did — or whoever came up with those figures — was divide the box office take of those films by the "average" ticket prices of their given year — without taking into consideration *where* those films made money.
$7.61 is the 2010 ticket price "average" in the United States according to Box Office Mojo. Try watching "Avatar" in 3D for $7.61. See how many — if any — 3D/IMAX movie house in the US will let you in.
It would be be cool If you were right but unfortunately your math is wrong. Here are the official numbers in millions of attendance:
Avatar 91.7
The Dark Knight 74.9
Independence Day 69.3
Home Alone 65.9