Avatar with Sam Worthington: The Biggest global box office hit (not adjusted for inflation/currency fluctuations) at the time of its release.- Avatar vs. Titanic box office: Which grandiose James Cameron blockbuster is the most successful release, the one with Floating Mountains or the one with Floating Icebergs?
Avatar vs. Titanic box office: Battle of the James Cameron blockbusters
Avatar vs. Titanic. Some just can’ let go. And that, it seems, includes us.
Anyhow, if interested below is a brief side-by-side overview of the box office performances of screenwriter-director James Cameron’s two epic blockbusters, released 12 years apart.
But before we proceed: Keep in mind that current domestic – and international – ticket prices are considerably higher than they were in 1998. In the U.S.: $7.18 vs. $4.59, as per the National Association of Theater Owners.
Besides, even while taking inflation into account – as one must in order to get a more accurate understanding of the number of tickets each movie has sold – the record-breaking Avatar has been greatly helped by premium charges at 3D/IMAX theaters. According to The Hollywood Reporter, almost 80 percent of its domestic box office gross and 65 percent of its overseas gross have come from costlier 3D venues. (See how 3D/IMAX surcharges can add around 23–33 percent to Avatar’s total domestic gross.)
Lastly, the current low value of the U.S. dollar and the relatively recent opening up of China and Russia, two of the biggest international markets for Hollywood movies, have provided a great boost to Avatar’s international figures.[1]
With that in mind, below are a few basic comparisons between Avatar and Titanic.
Domestic opening-day box office
In the U.S. and Canada, Avatar collected $26.7 million from 3,452 locations on its first day out, last Dec. 18. This figure includes $3.5 million earned from Thursday midnight screenings.
Titanic earned $28.6 million ($45 million today) from 2,674 locations on its opening weekend, Dec. 19–21, 1997.
Avatar’s first-weekend gross: $77 million – thus clearly ahead of Titanic even if 3D/IMAX surcharges are factored in.
A little further context: Chris Weitz’s The Twilight Saga: New Moon took in $72.7 million on its first day out last fall: A domestic box office record previously held by Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight. Not far behind, Michael Bay’s Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen scored $62 million on its Wednesday debut last summer.
Note: New Moon, The Dark Knight, and Revenge of the Fallen are all sequels, always a plus when it comes to opening-weekend – and, for that matter, opening-day – grosses. Also worth pointing out, none of the three titles is in 3D.
Score: New Moon wins.
Number of weekends at the top of the domestic chart
Avatar topped seven consecutive weekends in the domestic market, from mid-December to the end of January, when the futuristic fantasy adventure was dethroned by the Channing Tatum-Amanda Seyfried tearjerker Dear John.
Titanic remained the no. 1 movie in the U.S. and Canada for 15 weekends, until finally being dethroned by Stephen Hopkins’ Lost in Space in early April.
Score: Titanic wins.
Titanic with Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio: The Biggest global box office hit (not adjusted for inflation/currency fluctuations) at the time of its release.All-Time Domestic & Worldwide Box Office Chart (including inflation-adjusted)
On Feb. 2, Avatar flew past Titanic to become the no. 1 movie on the All-Time Domestic Box Office Chart: $601.6 million vs. $600.8 million. Avatar had already overtaken Titanic at the global (including the U.S. and Canada) box office about a week ago.
Taking inflation into account, as per the National Association of Theater Owners’ annual ticket-price average, Titanic would have earned around $940 million in the U.S. and Canada in 2009.
To date (Feb. 24), Cameron’s futuristic fantasy adventure has grossed $691.7 million domestically and $1.775 billion internationally, for a worldwide grand total of $2.466 billion.
Titanic earned $1.242 billion overseas, for a worldwide total of $1.843 billion.
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ inflation calculator, Titanic would have grossed $2.45 billion in 2010 US dollars – or about $16 million less than Avatar.
March 2022 update: Avatar’s final domestic figure, including rereleases (notably, a dismal domestic relaunch in late summer 2010): $760.5 million; worldwide: $2.847 billion.
Titanic’s final domestic figure, including rereleases: $659.4 million; worldwide: $2.202 billion.
Updated score: Titanic wins domestically (inflation-adjusted); Avatar likely wins worldwide.
Remember: Although Avatar had the advantage of 3D surcharges in 2009–10, Titanic’s worldwide 3D gross – costlier tickets – in 2012 was an astonishing $350.5 million. What makes this score less than 100 percent reliable is the issue of currency fluctuations. Scroll down for more detailed information.)
Number of tickets sold domestically
When it comes to actual domestic ticket sales, Avatar still lags behind not only Titanic but also a whole array of movies released decades ago.
Boxofficemojo.com estimates that Avatar is currently (late February 2010) no. 15 on the inflation-adjusted All-Time Domestic Box Office Chart. Titanic, without 3D surcharges, is no. 6.
If things continue as they’ve been so far this month, Avatar will need between ten days and two weeks to reach the no. 14 slot, currently occupied by Richard Marquand’s Return of the Jedi (1983), with $715.7 million.
And then things get more difficult: At no. 13, William Wyler’s multiple Oscar-winning 1959 epic Ben-Hur is listed with an adjusted $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 surpass these two.
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 houses, where, as mentioned further up, they’ve earned about 80 percent of their domestic gross. (Distributor 20th Century Fox, however, is reportedly considering a year-end relaunch.)
A little more inflation-adjusted context: Released in late 1939 and brought back several times since, David O. Selznick’s VIctor Fleming-directed Civil War romantic drama Gone with the Wind remains the top blockbuster ever domestically – and possibly overseas as well.
Score: Gone with the Wind wins.
March 2022 update: Avatar ultimately earned $760.5 million domestically, or no. 14 on the Inflation-Adjusted All-Time Domestic Box Office Chart. Since the release of J.J. Abrams’ Star Wars: Episode VII – The Force Awakens, which landed at no. 11, James Cameron’s fantasy adventure has gone down one slot.
Once again, bear in mind that the figures above are approximations based on “average” ticket prices provided by the National Association of Theater Owners.
As discussed elsewhere on this site, an accurate calculation of a film’s popularity at the box office – i.e., number of tickets sold – would be based on where a movie made most (or a significant chunk) of its money, e.g., top-dollar houses in pricy urban areas, thousands of cheap small-town theaters, matinees for kiddies, or costlier 3D/IMAX theaters.
Avatar: Floating Mountains on the far-away planet of Pandora.Avatar & Titanic cast info
The winner of Golden Globes for Best Picture (drama) and Best Director, Avatar is up for nine Academy Awards including Best Picture and Best Director. (Update: Avatar eventually won 3 Oscars: Best Cinematography [Mauro Fiore], Art Direction [production designers Rick Carter & Robert Stromberg; set decorator Kim Sinclair], and Visual Effects.)
Avatar cast: Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana, three-time Oscar nominee Sigourney Weaver (Aliens, 1986; etc.), Stephen Lang, Giovanni Ribisi, CCH Pounder, Wes Studi, Dileep Rao, Joel David Moore, Matt Gerald, and Laz Alonso.
Titanic won 11 Oscars, including Best Picture and Best Director. Notably, it was bypassed in the Best Actor and Best Screenplay categories.
Titanic cast: Leonardo DiCaprio, 1997 Oscar nominees Kate Winslet and Gloria Stuart, Bill Paxton, Billy Zane, Victor Garber, Suzy Amis, Danny Nucci, Ioan Gruffudd, veterans Bernard Hill (Gandhi) and David Warner (Morgan!), and Best Actress Oscar winner Kathy Bates (Misery, 1990) as Margaret “Molly” Brown (a.k.a. “The Unsinkable Molly Brown”).
“Avatar vs. Titanic box office: James Cameron” notes
The box office weight of currency fluctuations
[1] Whereas back in 1998 the U.S. dollar was very strong, in 2010 it has been very weak. In other words, most top foreign currencies, when converted, could buy way fewer dollars in 1998 than today; e.g., 1,000 Japanese yen bought US$7.50 in January 1998, but US$10.70 in January 2010.
So, if 1 million tickets at 1,000 yen each were sold for Titanic in Japan in 1998 and 1 million tickets at 1,000 yen each were sold for Avatar in 2010 (we’re ignoring inflation and 3D/IMAX surcharges here), when converted to U.S. dollars, box office figures would read approximately $7.5 million for Titanic and $10.7 million for Avatar. For the same number of tickets sold.
That’s quite a discrepancy when we’re discussing eight- or nine-figure amounts: Titanic grossed $196 million in Japan in 1998; in 2010 US dollars (taking into account only currency fluctuations), that would represent a staggering $278 million. Avatar, for its part, has grossed a 3D/IMAX-boosted $131 million at the Japanese box office as of late February 2010.[2] (Update: Avatar ultimately took in $172 million in Japan.)
Even the domestic box office – which includes both the US and Canada – has been (paradoxically) strengthened by the weak U.S. dollar: The Canadian dollar was worth 70 cents in January 1998; in January 2010, it was worth 96 cents, a valuation of about 35 percent.
That means the addition of approximately US$3.5 million to every $10 million Canadian dollars earned by Avatar at the “domestic” (the Canadian side) box office when compared to the same amount (in Canadian dollars) earned when Titanic was the James Cameron blockbuster breaking international box office records.
Titanic’s top international markets
[2] Including rereleases (3D version in 2012, 2017, 2020), Titanic’s top international markets are: Japan ($201.4 million), China ($145 million), Germany ($130 million), France ($129.1 million), the United Kingdom/Ireland ($114.1 million), Brazil ($70.5 million), Italy ($68 million), Spain ($44.1 million), Australia ($38.9 million), Mexico ($27 million), and The Netherlands ($27 million).
“Avatar vs. Titanic box office” endnotes
Unless otherwise noted, “Avatar vs. Titanic Box Office: Which Is the Most Successful James Cameron Movie?” box office information via Box Office Mojo. Budget info – which should be taken with a grain of salt – via BOM and/or other sources (e.g., the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, Screen Daily, The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, Deadline.com, etc.).
Comments about Avatar, Titanic, and other titles being hits/profitable or flops/money-losers at the box office (see paragraph below) are based on the available data about their production budget, additional marketing and distribution expenses (as a general rule of thumb, around 50 percent of the production cost), and worldwide gross (as a general rule of thumb when it comes to the Hollywood studios, around 50–55 percent of the domestic gross and 40 percent of the international gross goes to the distributing/producing companies).
Bear in mind that data regarding rebates, domestic/international sales/pre-sales, and other credits and/or contractual details that help to alleviate/split production costs and apportion revenues are oftentimes unavailable, and that reported international grosses may be incomplete (i.e., not every territory is fully – or even partially – accounted for).
Also bear in mind that ancillary revenues (domestic/global television rights, home video sales, streaming, merchandising, etc.) can represent anywhere between 40–70 percent of a movie’s total take. However, these revenues and their apportionment are only infrequently made public.
Lastly, although a more accurate reflection of a film’s popularity (i.e., its number of tickets sold), inflation-adjusted estimates should be taken with extreme caution. For instance, they’re based on average domestic ticket prices (via the National Association of Theater Owners, unless otherwise noted) whereas numerous major releases scored a large chunk of their box office take at top-priced venues.
Currency exchange source: x-rates.com. According to the website, most of their pre-2009 exchange rates were culled from Federal Reserve Bank and International Monetary Fund data.
Pandora’s Floating Mountains and Sam Worthington Avatar movie images: 20th Century Fox.
Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio Titanic movie image: 20th Century Fox | Paramount Pictures.
“Avatar vs. Titanic Box Office: Which Is the Most Successful James Cameron Movie?” last updated in February 2023.
56 comments
Avatar is not that good compare to Titanic…
Avatar can be compared to Armageddon, Star Wars, or any other fictional films… My God, you Titanic haters must be lunatics…I’ve watched Avatar but I don’t find any special about it.. I am a movie critic, and I know how to judge a film…Titanic is one of the best films ever made…Avatar just have a high gross because of the director..James Cameron films is a crowd drawer…
Best Films Ever Made:
1. Bridge Over the River Kwai
2. Titanic
3. Lawrence of Arabia
That’s it…. I’m a 24 year old movie addict… I bet I’ve seen more movies than those who review movies..haha
Thanks for the info on Avatar. I still think Titanic is the #1 Movie of all time and Avatar is the #1 IMax/3D movie of all time. At least for Now. (I’m really not into the whole “adjusted for iflation thing.” There are way too many variables)
All the hate on Twilight is bc of it’s success. Once something becomes too popular people try to make themselve appear cool or important by trashing it. It makes them feel good about themselves. They don’t fool me for a second though. a hater is a hater is a hater.
Titanic was more of a classic than Avatar. I think 100 years later, Titanic will still be remembered as one of the very best, there’s something everlasting about tragic romances.
Avatar is way better then Titanic no questions asked. Avatar had a much better storyline and a good ending aswell. Titanic everyone dies pretty much, AVatar lots people die aswell but less then titanic and their was more depth put into the ending
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).
@DG
As explained in these series of articles, the figures are all box-office-related.
DVD and other ancillary revenues would be extremely difficult to include, especially when using inflation-adjusted numbers.
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.
@InCA
>>>>>>>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.
>>>>>>>>>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 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 — “Gone with the Wind” and “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” — 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.
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.
@InCA
>>>>>>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.
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*.
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.
@InCA
>>>>>>>>>>>>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.
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?
@InCA
>>>>>>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 in context, whether historical or financial.
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.
@InCA
>>>>>>>>>>>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.)
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
@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. GONE WITH THE WIND 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.
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.
@Tony Robertson
>>>>>>>>>>>>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. “The Big Parade” was the highest-grossing silent movie in the US, followed by “Ben-Hur.”
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 — these two movies would have earned about $340–$360 million in 2010 dollars.
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 mind-blowing figures. (Though, of course, the 18-cent average isn’t the best way to estimate their earnings as these two films were stellar attractions that could cost up to $1 per ticket. Much like the $7.61 “average” isn’t the best way to estimate 2010 ticket prices for a 3D release like “Avatar.”)
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.
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.
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.
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,
Avatar may trail serveral movies in admissions in the US, but it trails only Titanic internationally. It completely destroys Star Wars, E.T, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Jurassic Park, Independence Day etc etc in international admissions.
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 ….
@rachit
>>>>>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.
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
@Stephane,
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.
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
@Chuj
>>>>>>>>>It would be be cool If you were right but unfortunately your math is wrong.
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. (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.
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!
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.
Ticket prices may be considerably higher now than they were 12 years ago, but ilegal movie downloading is also considerably higher now than it was 12 years ago.
so critics and tickets inflactioners, shoud consider that aswell.
IT IS VERY DIFFICULT FOR AVATAR TO BREAK THE RECORD OF TITANIC.
I too did not find Titanic any special. (May be having been used to Indian films and the dislike it has created for melodrama)
Now a lot of Occidentals use Bollywood cinema to study “Indian culture” It is a curious case.
The only reality that the Hindi films reflect the imagined hyperreality of Bollywood movies themselves. Over the last decade, life has started imitating the movies (which reflect each other. In fact current ones are highly post modern and have references to earlier fims frame by frame especially in song sequences).
Even the “North Indian Wedding” has been changed by the imagined depiction of weddings in the movies. It is NOT the other way round. It is a case of movies invading life and not reverse.
Movies always refer to other movies and art forms.
There really are no original stories. Only degrees of originality and treatment.
It is how you tell an old story in a new way to make it attractive that counts. Or you can tell a new story the old way. New story in a new way, will not sell. That is what you get in “art films” or experimental films which you cannot get to see in a theatre even when we want to. (They dont even get released!)
So much for asking Cameron to tell a new story. They are asking him to pass through the “eye of the needle” with elephantine movie (It might be easier with a camel
I personally don’t like titanic, period end of statement. Avatar is just in my opinion so much better. titanic was just not for me, but then of course I didn’t like Fantastic Mr. Fox either.
I have a feeling that Avatar will be the first 3 Billion dollar film and will silence all those who talk about inflation. I think it might even be running in theatres one year from now. I saw it only in 2D (twice with family, and took a friend along for the second time), and want to see it in 3D. I will have to travel few thousand kilometres to see it in 3D and looking for an excuse to do it.
Lots of critics who crib about the lack of depth do not seem understand that this is a truly post modern film. The real movie is the audience experience derived by the interaction of the images with his/her past experiences including other movies, novels and cultural backgrounds. So it is truly remarkable that people of diverse background from India to Bolivia and China are deriving their own equally relevant meanings. The fact that it is slightly underwritten is its greatest strength (mostly likely deliberate by the wily and clever Cameron) so that it is open to such a wide variety of interpretations depending on what you want to read into it.
I myself felt like I had seen half a dozen parallel moves and more (the more you think the more different meanings you can feel) It has the same feel as Terminator or Star Wars or AI where you can keep seeing again and again and never get bored.
James Cameron understands something about movies that nit witted critics do not understand. It seems these critics want movies to be made for them. Cameron knows that it is important to make movies that a large number of audience from around the world can relate to.
The most amusing is the reactions of the americal right wingers who cannot go beyond seeing anti-americanism in everything.
This is a movie with global meaning.
I shall just mention the contexts for some diverse meaning below just for a single dimension of colonialism
a) East India Company and colonial exploitation in the making of the British Indian Empire
b) Displacement of tribals by Indian mining companies in the jungles of Orissa and Jharkhand, two Indian states
c) Human destruction of our planets environment
Colonization of Americas have been pointed out by every one.
Critics are upset that their story is not sufficiently portrayed in its “true” colours.
Alas, all these interpretations are both right and wrong and they are all valid depending on your perspective (ie who you are). It is the true greatness of Cameron’s genius that he has included just about enough for all of us to see what we want and has omitted any specifics which would leave prevent us from thinking all these parallel stories.
The Science Fiction genre allows the film maker sufficient freedon to be every thing an nothing at the same time to each one of us
As far as debates, and cribbing about the box office, let us wait for the story end (in 2011?)
The visuals and 3D were good for Avatar but that’s about it. Found it to be boring and predictable. The hype isn’t real. It’s good to see an article like this. Titanic is still far, far ahead in number of tickets sold as is Star Wars im pretty sure. I remember people going to see Titanic 5 times. It was a pain to watch Avatar once.
Rob….u may not have liked it — but to get a feel for the passion of some viewers u might want to check out some of the Avatar discussion boards. There are peeps that have seen it 8 times. It’s got a lot of the same trending as Titanic — just that Titanic got the repeat viewing from teen girls….this time it’s teen guys and geeks. There doesn’t seem much doubt that Avatar will surpass Titanic’s raw total of $600m (it’s $491m now and is probably going to pass Titanic before Valentine’s day and possibly as early as Feb 6th)….the question is could it possibly somehow get to $850m or whatever it would take to beat Titanic after adjusting for higher ticket prices? That would be an amazing accomplishment. And while it’s true that Avatar has higher ticket prices and that helps it — it also has the illegal download problem that didn’t exist when Titanic came out — over 1m illegal downloads and counting. How would 1m illegal downloads have affected Titanic’s gross?
Something else you should throw into the picture is that in today’s world people can just download movies instead of seeing them in theatres, so even if Avatar didn’t beat out box office numbers, I bet more people will see it in the first month than Titanic. Avatar>Titanic
avtar doesnt have power to break the record of titanic even if it breaks titanic best movie ever to be realeased in hollywood
Hi Michelle,
Rather than get too longwinded here, I posted about our discussion at the link below. Briefly, I acknowledged the ticket price issue but made the point that we have to ‘do the math’ by considering not just the ticket price differential, but also inflation — and I ran the numbers which show that, adjusted for inflation and ticket prices, Avatar is at $250m thru 12 days and this compares to Titanic’s adjuted figure of $164m for the same 12 days (Titanic’s raw figure for 12 days is $104m). Anyway, this will be fun to watch.
Here’s the link:
avatarvstitanic.wordpress.com/2009/12/31/avatar-vs-titanic-debating-the-inflation-and-ticket-price-adjustment-issue/
Michelle,
I realize you wrote on this opening day. And you’re absolutely right that ticket prices are higher now, and that’s an advantage for Avatar. That said — do you have any further comment now — 12 days in? Avatar stands at 250m compared to 104m for Titanic after 12 days. Unlike virtually all megablockbusters which drop 40-50% in their second weekend, Avatar only dropped from 77m to 75.6m in its second weekend, and its second full week will be 10% or more ahead of its first full week — very ‘Titanic-like’ in terms of trends.
Boxofficemojo has just updated the Monday numbers, and thats the total worldwide. USD 285 Million! (93 domestic + 192 international)
I’ve seen it.
It’s amazing visually speaking but, I sort of had a hard time following the story.
I felt a bit overwhelmed with the incredible special effects and the visual aspects of this movie, that distracted me from following the storyline.
I mean, how many zillions of dollars Hollywood has to spend, in order to show off their technology, and high-tech resources?
It was entertaining but it didn’t make any impact on me, intellectually speaking.
Some stupid guy at my office told me: “If I want intellectual stuff I read a book, I don’t go to a movie”
“Yeah….here is some more popcorn” I thought to myself…
Using the same math as you used for the tickets, Avatar cost less to make than Titanic.
I wonder why you didn’t think to mention that…
@irastev
I didn’t mention it because the piece was about box-office grosses, not film costs.
Also, it’s important to remember that movie-production-cost inflation is not the same as movie-ticket-price inflation. The two can’t be compared using the same ratio.
Cost figures I’ve found for “Titanic” are estimates, not official studio figures. The same goes for “Avatar.”
Some estimate that “Titanic” would have cost $250-$275 million in 2008/9 dollars. “Avatar” production cost estimates range from $200-$500 million. (Fox says it was about $200 million, but I haven’t seen any documentation on that posted anywhere online.)
And remember that neither estimate includes advertising/print/distribution costs.
PLUS…Titanic stayed as the #1 movie in the country for over 3 months.
Titanic didn’t start off that successful, but word-of-mouth for weeks and weeks after its release is what made Titanic so successful.
Has anyone seen that animated film DELGO? Avatar looks just like it. I watched both today and the similarities are amazing. I’m surprised nobody else has noticed. Maybe it’s because the DELGO film did so poorly in the box office. Who knows?
yes , but delgo was made in 2008 and avatar start filming in 2005 so ….
I haven’t seen either Avatar or Delgo yet… But has anyone seen Disney’s Atlantis??? The villian, character design with the natives, the environment, and the minor characters strongly parallel Avatar.
I also noticed the MANY and striking similarities between Avatar and Disney’s Atlantis…..So strange that critics haven’t noticed it….
I was thinking that Cameron MUST’ve paid for the rights to Atlantis; I’m surprised there’s nothing else on the Web when I Googled it.
Now that you mention it, I also see the great similarity to DELGO!