Avatar: James Cameron, Sam Worthington on the set
Avatar hasn’t been the top grosser at the domestic box office for nearly two months. It was initially dethroned by the Channing Tatum-Amanda Seyfried tearjerker Dear John, followed by Garry Marshall’s all-star Valentine’s Day, the Martin Scorsese-Leonardo DiCaprio thriller Shutter Island, and for the last three weekends Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland.
Avatar is still doing okay business, but it lost quite a bit of steam globally after Alice in Wonderland took hold of hundreds of IMAX and 3D screens. Adding insult to injury, Tim Burton's 3D fantasy adventure starring Mia Wasikowska and Johnny Depp broke Avatar's domestic IMAX record a mere two and a half months after the sci-fier's release.
Even so, Avatar remains at the top of the all-time box-office charts. As of this past Sunday, March 21, James Cameron’s 3D sci-fi adventure had grossed $736.9 million in the US/Canada, in addition to $1.931 billion internationally (up to March 14) for a staggering worldwide total of $2.667 billion.
However, if inflation, 3D/IMAX premium surcharges, and dollar fluctuations (for the international box-office tallies) are taken into account the overall picture changes quite dramatically. [See Avatar vs. Titanic: International Box Office.]
Box Office Mojo estimates that Avatar is now #14 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; Gone with the Wind remains a distant #1.) Four weeks ago, it was #15, right behind the 1983 science-fiction Return of the Jedi. In other words, Avatar has gone up a single slot in a month.
So, the big blue Na’vi have just about had it, at least for the time being. In about a week or so, Avatar will probably be gone from North America's top-ten box-office chart. If things continue as they’ve been in recent weeks, Avatar will need about two weeks or more to reach the #13 slot, currently occupied by William Wyler’s 1959 multiple Oscar-winning epic Ben-Hur with $745.7 million, which is right behind Irvin Kershner’s The Empire Strikes Back (1980) with $747.1 million.
Chances are Avatar will end its initial run at #12, though with some luck it could reach #11. That slot is currently occupied by Disney's 101 Dalmatians (which has had multiple rereleases since it first came out in 1961) with $760.3 million.
With $829.4 million at #10, Snow White and the Seven Dwarves (which has also had multiple rereleases since 1937) is totally unreachable.
Avatar's only chance to pass Snow White and get its own niche among the all-time top-ten movies is if Fox's planned late-year rerelease becomes a monumental hit.
Once again, bear in mind that the figures found on Box Office Mojo's inflation-adjusted chart 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.)
A thoroughly 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 children's matinees, or at 3D/IMAX theaters that charge a premium. (Avatar ticket prices have ranged 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.
As I've mentioned earlier, if pirated downloads of Avatar have had any impact at all on the film’s box-office take, that impact has been minuscule. Really, how many people do you know would be 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?
Photo: Avatar (Mark Fellman / 20th Century Fox)
>>>>>>>>Another lame attempt to make Avatar look less successful than it is.
Lame is right. But more like another lame attempt to make "Avatar" look more successful than it actually is.
Re: rereleases. That's mentioned in the piece. If you didn't read it before commenting, that's not my responsibility.
>>>>>>>>>>That means if your movie is re-released 5 or 10 years later, the amount of money earned per ticket is more (b/c of inflation), plus the movie gets credited additional dollars to it’s total with inflation calculated on top of that.
Yes, but you're wrong anyhow. Box Office Mojo calculates the inflation-adjusted ticket costs for the year of the rerelease. Now, *that* you omitted from your tirade.
So, if "Snow White" made $100 million in 1970, that amount will be added to the film's inflation-adjusted total as **1970** $100 million. That should be obvious. Else, "Snow White" would have made a couple of trillion dollars on that chart.
>>>>>>>>In fact, the only post 80’s movies on that list above Avatar are 1) The Empire Strikes back … 2) ET, & 3) Titanic (will be re-released in 2012).
That's because more people went to the movies in the past. Four billion movie tickets were sold a year in the 1940s. (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1817&dat=19770330&id=10YgAAAAIBAJ&sjid=850EAAAAIBAJ&pg=6763,5117412) Today they're lucky if they sell 1.4 billion even though the population of the United States is more than twice what it was then.
>>>>>>>>>So in summary, to prove that Avatar is less successful, the author has needed to…
The author has needed to do only one thing. Come up with best possible approximation for the # of tickets the movie has sold (in current dollar terms). That's what the inflation-adjusted chart is all about. That's it.
>>>>>3) claim that downloads which weren’t available for any other film ahead of Avatar on the list had no impact which it most certainly would have, particularly for people afraid of 3D hurting their eyes,
C'mon, you must be able to come up with better arguments than this.
>>>>>>>>>4) the market has changed and today there are more big budget movies knocking Avatar out of cinemas such as Alice,
Clearly, you don't understand the way the market worked 30 or 40 or 50 or 60 years ago if you believe big studio movies are something new. Take a look at the movies released in 1939 or 1940 or 1950 or 1960 or 1970 and you'll find lots and lots of big, big movies that were very successful. (And some that weren't.)
>>>>>>>>>5) today people also have to content with television, pay TV and DVDs which is an option but I suppose the author would discount this as not applying to Avatar
You should read the article before commenting.
Another lame attempt to make Avatar look less successful than it is. The author failed to mention that on that same Box Office Mojo page the author quote for unadjusted inflation it says:
"Most pre-1980 pictures achieved their totals through multiple releases, especially Disney animated features which made much of their totals in the past few decades belying their original release dates in terms of adjustment. For example, Snow White has made $118,328,683 of its unadjusted $184,925,486 total since 1983."
That means if your movie is re-released 5 or 10 years later, the amount of money earned per ticket is more (b/c of inflation), plus the movie gets credited additional dollars to it's total with inflation calculated on top of that.
In fact, the only post 80's movies on that list above Avatar are 1) The Empire Strikes back (which is only $10M ahead of Avatar and will be caught, plus that was re-released in the 90s with extra scenes), 2) ET, & 3) Titanic (will be re-released in 2012).
So in summary, to prove that Avatar is less successful, the author has needed to: 1) rely on data that is adjusted for inflation in it's release year when almost all the movies ahead were re-released years later, 2) discount Avatar's 3D surcharge which is valid considering it is adding value the other movies aren't, 3) claim that downloads which weren't available for any other film ahead of Avatar on the list had no impact which it most certainly would have, particularly for people afraid of 3D hurting their eyes, 4) the market has changed and today there are more big budget movies knocking Avatar out of cinemas such as Alice, 5) today people also have to content with television, pay TV and DVDs which is an option but I suppose the author would discount this as not applying to Avatar, 6) excluded the fact that it hasn't even been released for 100 days yet so this article is a bit pre-mature, 7) exclude the fact that it has earned more than twice that of any film in history worldwide.
In 7-10 days this article will be redundant anyway as Avatar is on track to take Ben Hur despite all the dodgy inflation accounting. Plus, like all the great movies on that list Avatar is set for re-release later this year with additional scenes. It may very well be re-released again decades later too when movie prices are $37 each and have it's total figure adjusted from amounts of $7.61. That would really stuff the argument up (when it's finally competing on the same field). What will Avatar haters use as evidence for how unsuccessful it is then?
Worldwide Avatar is #2 on the all-time box-office chart adjusted for inflation:
1. $3,429,000,000 Gone With The Wind 51% domestic
2. $2,670,000,000 Avatar 27%
3. $2,476,600,000 Titanic 32%