Avatar hasn't been the top weekend grosser at the North American box office since late January. First, it was dethroned by the Channing Tatum-Amanda Seyfried tearjerker Dear John; then came Garry Marshall's Valentine's Day, Joe Johnston's The Wolfman, and Chris Columbus' Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief. This past weekend, Martin Scorsese's Shutter Island, starring Leonardo DiCaprio, took the top spot.
Even so, Avatar remains the top movie of 2010. After 69 days in release, James Cameron’s ecologically conscious sci-fi adventure, which is up for nine Academy Awards including Best Picture and Best Director, has grossed $691.7 million domestically (US/Canada) and $1.775 billion internationally for a total of $2.466 billion worldwide. Hefty figures, no matter how you look at them.
But as I've mentioned before, it's always good to remember that those are box-office figures — which usually keep going up and up thanks to higher admission prices — instead of a higher number of tickets sold. If inflation, 3D/IMAX premium surcharges, and dollar fluctuations (for the international box-office tallies) are taken into account the overall picture changes rather dramatically. [See also Avatar vs. Titanic: International Box Office.]
Now, pirated downloads of Avatar, if they've had any impact at all on the film's box-office take, that impact has been minuscule. Really, how many people do you know who are eager to watch a state-of-the-art 3D epic on a 2D computer screen — even if in High Definition, which isn't likely — when they can catch it in all its technological glory at 3D theaters?
Box Office Mojo estimates that Avatar is now #15 on the all-time domestic box-office chart adjusted for inflation, which is supposed to more accurately reflect the number of tickets a film has sold. (For comparison's sake, Titanic is #6.) Yet, Avatar keeps forging ahead, even if with less steam than before; on weekdays, for instance, the film has been taking in about 55-60% of its daily grosses from two weeks ago. But although the Na'vi are getting a little tired, they're up five slots since our last report about two weeks ago, having passed Mike Nichols' The Graduate (1967), Steven Spielberg's Jurassic Park (1993) and Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), and George Roy Hill's Paul Newman-Robert Redford Oscar-winning caper The Sting (1973).
If things continue as they’ve been, Avatar will need about ten days to two weeks to reach the #14 slot, currently occupied by Richard Marquand’s Return of the Jedi (1983) with $715.7 million.
At #13, William Wyler's multiple Oscar-winning epic Ben-Hur, with Charlton Heston, is even further ahead, with $745.7 million, right behind Irvin Kershner’s The Empire Strikes Back (1980) with $747.1 million. Avatar will need quite a bit of steam to pass those two within the next month or so. That's not impossible, but Avatar will find it increasingly difficult as it moves up the list, partly because the box-office gap between films will get wider, and partly because, as mentioned above, the high-flying sci-fi epic is clearly showing signs of box-office fatigue in the US.
Compounding matters, Tim Burton's 3D fantasy Alice in Wonderland opens in theaters on March 5. The Na'vi will then be mercilessly forced out of their sacred IMAX/3D theaters, where they've made about 80% of their domestic income according to The Hollywood Reporter. (Fox, however, is reportedly considering a year-end rerelease.)
Once again, bear in mind that the figures above 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 film’s release — would be based on where a movie made most of its money, e.g., a top-dollar New York house, in thousands of cheap small-town theaters, at matinees for kiddies, or at 3D/IMAX theaters that charge a premium. (Avatar ticket prices range from $9 to $16.50 or whereabouts, or between 28.5% and 40% more than ticket prices for 2D movies.)
It’s also worth remembering that population increases, changes in movie-going demographics, 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 decades.
Image: Avatar (20th Century Fox); Ben-Hur (Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer)
>>>>>>>I’m guessing movies played a lot longer precisely because there weren’t as many options.
That isn't necessarily true. In small towns with fewer theaters, there was a new movie *a day* or every other day — since studios produced and released so many movies in decades past.
In major cities they played for a long time in large part because movies didn't open in 3,000 screens around the country. They were lucky if they opened in 30 — or even 13.
Often, big movies opened at one or two theaters. And played at those two for months at top prices.
>>>>>>>>If you’re just interested in how many people attend, that’s fine, but there are so many issues that skew things one way or the other…..re-release is another issue which is commonly brought into this argument.
I couldn't agree with you more. All of that must be taken into consideration.
>>>>>>>>>When I look at the list of adjusted for inflation, it doesn’t make sense to me that virtually all of them are older pictures.
But since people used to go to the movies much more often, that should make sense, no? Many more tickets were sold.
Even so, at least partly because of population increases, there are lots and lots of movies made in the last 10 or 20 years that are among the top 100 movies on Box Office Mojo's inflation-adjusted chart:
18 movies made after 2000; 16 between 1990 and 1999.
That's 34 movies out of 100, or more than 1/3 in only two decades — when blockbusters have been around since at least "The Birth of a Nation" in the early 1910s.
The 1940s, Hollywood's most successful decade at the box office — in terms of tickets sold — have only 7 movies on the chart, most of which are Disney features that had multiple rereleases.
The 1950s have 10 movies, including a couple of Disney cartoons with multiple rereleases. The 1930s have only 2, both — GWTW and "Snow White" — with multiple rereleases.
So, no, the inflation-adjusted box-office chart isn't at all "skewed" toward older movies. Though movies that have had multiple rereleases are at an advantage.
(This whole thing is an interesting idea for a post!)
>>>>>>After all of this, they still look like apples and oranges to me.
I see what you mean, but I don't quite agree. Could we be comparing apples and apples or oranges and oranges — but in different climates and terrains??
Thanks for taking the time to express your thoughts.
mh on March 1st, 2010
I'm guessing movies played a lot longer precisely because there weren't as many options. According to my mother EVERYBODY went to the movies in her day because that was the thing to do. I still don't think it's that way so much anymore. In any case, inflation doesn't really work. I wonder how percentage of disposable income has changed. The effect of access to credit cards, internet booking, etc. Some help put people in seats now and some don't. If you're just interested in how many people attend, that's fine, but there are so many issues that skew things one way or the other…..re-release is another issue which is commonly brought into this argument.
When I look at the list of adjusted for inflation, it doesn't make sense to me that virtually all of them are older pictures. It tells me something is amiss. I probably look at those numbers skeptically because of my background in statistical analysis (I used to teach it at the University of California) and the list looks skewed. If adjusted for inflation was a good indice, there would be more balance to it, but that's coming at things from an entirely different perspective. After all of this, they still look like apples and oranges to me.
>>>>>>I think there are dozens of reasons people used to go to the movies more. It was pretty much the only pony in town compared to now.
I see your point, and I've read this a # of times before. I'm not sure that is correct, though. The culture *has* changed, that's a given. But people had a number of options in the past as well.
In fact, movies had LOTS of competition from one another. Hollywood studios released major productions much more often than they do now. Just about every week there were not one or two, but four or five or six A-grade movies coming out. Major stars often appeared in three, four, five movies per year.
So, even though there was no TV until the late 40s and no Internet or DVDs until the mid 90s, there was lots of competition *at the movies*.
mh on March 1st, 2010
It's a harmless enough exercise you're going through and it's clear the PR is a bunch of $#!^, but # of people is no more interesting than total dollars. I think there are dozens of reasons people used to go to the movies more. It was pretty much the only pony in town compared to now. We have a home theater system with a 10 foot screen, surround sound, 1080p, etc. and can purchase just about anything we want. My son has an X Box, a big screen TV in his bedroom and well as a 23" Mac. There's more movies coming out on a weekly basis and so on. People may still go to the movies, but it ain't the same. At least you realize the per person attendance for a movie like Avatar gets driven down by "premium" prices.
>>>>>>>>>>>>Also, why aren’t we comparing “GWTW” and “Avatar” global revenues? Because it’s dumb…..too much change for any comparison to make sense.
Not dumb at all. Actually, that would be very interesting. The problem is that that sort of data is mostly unavailable or very hard to find.
>>>>>>>>>>>It sure doesn’t look that way to me. I keep reading about “adjusted for inflation” this movie made more money that that one…etc.
That's what "inflation-adjusted" charts do. They show you figures adjusted for inflation so you can have a better idea of the actual ranking of a film in terms of tickets sold. Since we don't have the actual numbers, the inflation-adjusted chart is the best way to put a film's box-office success in that sort of perspective.
>>>>>>>>If you want to try and estmate # of peole who have seen a movie, that’s fine, but it’s a very, very limited perspective.
I disagree with you there. If that's the case, then box-office charts shouldn't exist, because *they* also present a very limited perspective.
>>>>>>The whole point is that EVERYTHING is so much different today than it was 10, 20. etc. years ago. This is why I don’t believe comparisons are valuable. The times they are a changin.
True, but some things remain the same. People still go to the movies.
All we're doing is attempting to dig beneath the "all-time box-office champ" p.r. blitz by presenting a different — though certainly not the *only* — way of looking at a film's box-office take.
In our view, "inflation-adjusted" box-office charts or charts that present the # of tickets a movie has sold are much more reliable than those that only present inflated box-office figures.
And remember: In "Avatar's" case it's not just the 3D effect. It's also the fact that due to inflation *everything* (including movie tickets) costs (or seems to cost) more than before. (Just like people may think they're making more money — though since their money has been devalued that may not necessarily be the case.)
To mh on March 1st, 2010
Also, why aren't we comparing "GWTW" and "Avatar" global revenues? Because it's dumb…..too much change for any comparison to make sense.
To mh on March 1st, 2010
> What we’ve tried to do here is estimate “Avatar’s” position on the all-time box-office ranking based on the # of tickets sold. That’s it.
It sure doesn't look that way to me. I keep reading about "adjusted for inflation" this movie made more money that that one…etc.
If you want to try and estmate # of peole who have seen a movie, that's fine, but it's a very, very limited perspective. As I said, higher IMX/3D prices DISCOURAGES people from seeing Avatar (not that a lot haven't seen it over and over) so it's not really a fair comparison. The whole point is that EVERYTHING is so much different today than it was 10, 20. etc. years ago. This is why I don't believe comparisons are valuable. The times they are a changin.
>>>>>>This is such a silly discussion and I don’t know why people continue to insist on comparing apples to oranges. You can’t do it.
Yes, you can. In many countries they use # of tickets sold to calculate a movie's popularity or success. In Hollywood, they use inflatable box-office figures. What we've tried to do here is estimate "Avatar's" position on the all-time box-office ranking based on the # of tickets sold. That's it.
>>>>>>>>For example, I could say that the additional surcharge for 3D has hurt Avatar’s box office both in terms of number of people (as it surely has) AND the overall revenue because IF YOU CHARGE LESS FOR A SEAT, MORE PEOPLE WILL ATTEND. Can anyone say for sure that the more expensive 3D/IMAX tickets maximizes the overall income?
Yes. That's logic. If 100 people pay $10 to see a movie and 51 people pay $20 to see another, the one that costs $20 will show a higher income even though way fewer people saw it.
>>>>>>>>>People should stop these silly discussions. Movies are going to continue to be made in different economic/social/technical eras and you can’t bring them into line with each other. Why the obsession with #1?
I don't think they're silly. I think it's good to attempt to put things in perspective. The obsession with #1 comes from the studios and the news sources that publish their tales without attempting to see them within context, whether historical or financial.
This is such a silly discussion and I don't know why people continue to insist on comparing apples to oranges. You can't do it. You can try to make all the assumptions you want, but there are always different ways of looking at different times. For example, I could say that the additional surcharge for 3D has hurt Avatar's box office both in terms of number of people (as it surely has) AND the overall revenue because IF YOU CHARGE LESS FOR A SEAT, MORE PEOPLE WILL ATTEND. Can anyone say for sure that the more expensive 3D/IMAX tickets maximizes the overall income? If seat prices really add more to the overall revenue stream, why not just charge $100 per seat??? Then you'd REALLY make a lot of money (Folks, that's sarcasm…..).
People should stop these silly discussions. Movies are going to continue to be made in different economic/social/technical eras and you can't bring them into line with each other. Why the obsession with #1?
But it should tell the whole story. I also agree with the idea of days a movie was in theaters being factored in. As long as it's calculated without decreasing a movies position with it staying in theaters it could make a cool all time chart.
>>>>I agree with Rich – Avatar has surpassed Titanic’s worldwide box office when adjusted for inflation.
True. But that doesn't tell the whole story…
http://www.altfg.com/blog/box-office/avatar-titanic-worldwide-revenues-87129/
I agree with Rich – Avatar has surpassed Titanic's worldwide box office when adjusted for inflation. And Avatar's run is not over with yet. Also, JR is correct when talking about bums on seats (great definition)because that is what the adjusted inflation list is detailing so why not just combine both charts and list number of Bums on Seats with gross amount! In the end Avatar's 2.5 Billion and counting is not going to be beaten for a long time!
The REAL Movie Gross List
Avatar is nr. 2!!!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0499549/board/thread/155176384?d=155176384&p=1#155176384
A lot of people keep bringing up that Gone With the Wind is at the top of the adjusted for inflation list. I think really it just boils down to a sour grapes kind of thinking. People saying that for the most part probably don't like Avatar and/or hate the idea of a 3d release doing this well. So they cry it is not the most popular movie.
However, if it were another movie that they just thought was the best they had seen in years and/or was not a 3d release you would not hear a word out of those people. They would probably be "so what" as far as the adjusted list, at least more so but might still agree to some extent. I guess that is just human nature though, if you don't agree with the majority on something, you find every reason as to why their opinion is off.
Putting Gone With the Wind at the top won't change the direction movies are going though, only those movies that rise to the top with todays prices are the ones that will get the attention and change the direction of how movies are done for the near future. Not a release from 70 years ago. The adjusted list has its place for those who want it, then there is the current list that is just done with today's prices. You can have two lists, there is no law against it.
Measure inflation figures as a comparison when the horse hasn't finished running yet isn't quite fair. What would be more interesting is a measurement of bums on seats, that way you can discount dodgy inflation figures. Have you noticed how many of the films on the inflation list are pre-mid 80s? These days there are shorter runs, plus downloads PLUS cable AND dvd sales which eats into box office takings but earns more overall. It's also worth considering that people are willing to pay more for Avatar tickets b/c of the experience, not just b/c of inflation. All in all, the inflation comparison just doesn't seem to tell much truth.
What would be the best comparison would be bums on seats vs days of the film released. I can't think of a better comparison.
Avatar has only made 28 percent of its totall gross domestically. It may be 15th when adjusted for ticket price inflation but world wide it has passed titanic even when adjusted for the changing dollar. I hope it is rereleased again becuase then domestically it could be in the top ten in tickets sold.