Avatar hits $2,500,000,000 worldwide...

[eatbrie]

...in 3 weekends, the fastest of any movies in history.

It is now the 4th biggest hit of all time (non adjusted for inflation).

1) Titanic (1996) - $1,8 billion
2) Return of the King (2003) - $1,1
3) Dead Man's Chest (2006) - $1,066
4) Avatar (2009) - $1,022
5) The Dark Knight (2008) - 1,001

No other movies have passed the billion cap.  Avatar will be No2 very soon, and could challenge Titanic for No1 with a little help from Academy Awards nominations.

T

[CSM]

(Good) Word of mouth is a hell of a selling tool...

[guest8]

Woah .. I cant believe this .. Just goes to show you that the good box office results doesnt always mean its a great film I hope it doesnt get any major awards either .. well no awards outside of SFX , because they deserve those !

[guest8]

Maybe a nod for soundtrack as well .. But I dont even want this in best picture category !!

[eatbrie]

Taste can be so subjective.  I'm going again tonight for the 3rd time.  I had not done this in years.

Oh, and it will be nominated for best picture.

T.

[Dread_Pirate_Mel]

...in 3 weekends, the fastest of any movies in history.

It is now the 4th biggest hit of all time (non adjusted for inflation).

It's funny that the inflation-adjusted list is radically different from the non-inflation adjusted.  Dr. Zhivago No 9?

We forget that there were fewer entertainment options in the past and people went to the movies more often.

[guest8]

I dont know I guess I just expect a more impactful story to something making it into the "best picture" and if its a refurbished story line its done in  such a way that its like seeing it for the first time .. While watching Avatar I could only think of references to other films I had seen some of them great like Dances with Wolves .. others not so much like Fern Gully

[guest8]

We forget that there were fewer entertainment options in the past and people went to the movies more often.

Maybe .. but maybe not .. Would you agree that there are more theaters than there were "in the past" ?? As for avatar even with the tens of thousands of new theaters .. I heard friends still complaining of not being able to go because of sold out shows .. When I went I bought my tix online a few days before and when I got to the theater 1.5hrs early .. i heard that the show I was going to was sold out .

[eatbrie]

This girl I know has already seen Avatar 6 times.  Give it to Cameron for generating such amazing repeat business.  Of course, there are always naysayers.  I cannot tell you how many times I have heard people, especially in the movie industry, take down Titanic.  The story was lame, nothing new there, blah blah blah.  Yet, this movie, like Avatar is doing now, touched the heart of people all around the globe, of every sensibilities, religions, languages, etc.  There is a lot to be said about that.  I think Avatar is absolutely splendid, the story kept me on the edge of my seat for 2:40 hours, I just loved it.  My only regret is that I stopped my wife from working on it.

Thierry

[eatbrie]

Maybe .. but maybe not .. Would you agree that there are more theaters than there were "in the past" ?? As for avatar even with the tens of thousands of new theaters .. I heard friends still complaining of not being able to go because of sold out shows .. When I went I bought my tix online a few days before and when I got to the theater 1.5hrs early .. i heard that the show I was going to was sold out .

This is why I only buy reserved seating.  I haven't stood in line at a movie theater for over 3 years now.

[guest8]

This is why I only buy reserved seating.  I haven't stood in line at a movie theater for over 3 years now.

Thats something fancy you all must have in them there big cities .. .. No matter when we buy tickets seating is always 1st come 1st serve

[Dread_Pirate_Mel]

Would you agree that there are more theaters than there were "in the past" ??

Here's the info in this article: "By 1930, 65 percent of the U.S. population attended the cinema weekly.  Even with some 40,000 screens in multiplex theaters across the United Sates, weekly attendance has dropped significantly since the 1930s. In 2007, only 22 percent of the population attended the cinema frequently, which is to say once a month."

[guest8]

And what is the difference in population between now and then too ? Also that was the 30's .. what about each decade between now and then .. including inflation of currency .. population .. and number of theaters .. and if you want to get into over all profits dont forget over seas which i bet is way higher now than in the 30's.. and the retail market of DVDs and merchandise

And on top of that how many showings did these one screen theaters have .. maybe 1-2 a day ? or maybe just on weekends ?

[Dread_Pirate_Mel]

And what is the difference in population between now and then too ?

Here's an exhaustive scholarly article on the subject - Michelle Pautz, The Decline in Average Weekly Cinema Attendance: 1930 -2000

"In 1930 (the earliest year from which accurate and credible data exists), weekly cinema attendance was 80 million people, approximately 65% of the resident U.S. population (Koszarski 25, Finler 288, U.S. Statistical Abstract). However, in the year 2000, that figure was only 27.3 million people, which was a mere 9.7% of the U.S. population (MPAA, U.S. Statistical Abstract)."

You can read it and report back to us!  

[eatbrie]

It's funny that the inflation-adjusted list is radically different from the non-inflation adjusted.  Dr. Zhivago No 9?

We forget that there were fewer entertainment options in the past and people went to the movies more often.

BTW, Boxofficemojo's list is completely wrong.  If you want to adjust ticket prices, you have to do it for every single year of re-release.  GWTW, for instance, was re-released in the US more than 10 times.  It was in theaters showing non-stop from 1939 to 1946.  Its latest re-release, in 1998, generated $6.7 million.  What the good people at Mojo did was take the grand boxoffice total (including all re-releases) and divide it by the average ticket price in 1939 (about 35 cents).  In 1946, that price was 41 cents.  In 1998, $5.7.  The only way to do it is to do it for every single year of re-releases, which no one can do because the data is not available.  

By the same token, the 1939 GWTW numbers are generous estimates (not to say completely made up), because boxoffice numbers were not officially recorded until 1982.  And even then, studios were known to inflate numbers.

Thierry

[guest8]

Your the researcher here not me

I guess our conflict is were talking about 2 different things .. Im talking about gross income .. and your talking solely about attendance .. But I still find it a hard to believe more people went to films back then over now .. Unless its solely based on percentages .. like you said ~60% went back then .. well that # could be less than/equal to  or greater than 20% of todays current population..

Ohh and I edited Reply #12 like 5 times just in case you missed any of my ramblings

[guest8]

BTW, Boxofficemojo's list is completely wrong.  If you want to adjust ticket prices, you have to do it for every single year of re-release.  GWTW, for instance, was re-released in the US more than 10 times.  It was in theaters showing non-stop from 1939 to 1946.  Its latest re-release, in 1998, generated $6.7 million.  What the good people at Mojo did was take the grand boxoffice total (including all re-releases) and divide it by the average ticket price in 1939 (about 35 cents).  In 1946, that price was 41 cents.  In 1998, $5.7.  The only way to do it is to do it for every single year of re-releases, which no one can do because the data is not available. 

By the same token, the 1939 GWTW numbers are generous estimates (not to say completely made up), because boxoffice numbers were not officially recorded until 1982.  And even then, studios were known to inflate numbers.

Thierry

So its all a buncha BS anyways Anything made before '82 shouldnt exist on those charts I tell ya !!

[Dread_Pirate_Mel]

Wikipedia has an article on it as well and Wikipedia is always right!   

Regardless, I definitely agree that studios emphasize the unadjusted numbers "so that new blockbuster films can much more easily achieve a high sales ranking, and thus be promoted as a 'top film of all time.'"

That aside, I'll have to find a decent theater in DC to see Avatar.  The Smithsonian IMAX occasionally plays commercial stuff.

[eatbrie]

It is pretty much a bunch of BS.  A good friend of mine, Herman Cohen, who passed away a few years back, and was once considered the B movie kind of Hollywood (he produced Berserk, I was a Teenage Werewolf, and many, many more), told me how he used to completely make up his BO numbers.  It was all up to him, no one checked on it, there was no Nielsen, or independent organization checking it out, like there is now.  All the producers/studios were trying to beat each other to the finish.  Plus, numbers were not published and examined like they are today.  This started in the 90s.  In the 80s, Daily Variety was only reporting the first 20 movies, and they were getting their numbers directly from the studios.  Then boxoffice tracking companies like Paul Dergarabedian's Exhibitor Relations started tabulating those numbers.  Everything being computerized today, there is no room for cheat.

Thierry

[CSM]

BTW, Boxofficemojo's list is completely wrong.  If you want to adjust ticket prices, you have to do it for every single year of re-release.  GWTW, for instance, was re-released in the US more than 10 times.  It was in theaters showing non-stop from 1939 to 1946.  Its latest re-release, in 1998, generated $6.7 million.  What the good people at Mojo did was take the grand boxoffice total (including all re-releases) and divide it by the average ticket price in 1939 (about 35 cents).  In 1946, that price was 41 cents.  In 1998, $5.7.  The only way to do it is to do it for every single year of re-releases, which no one can do because the data is not available.  

By the same token, the 1939 GWTW numbers are generous estimates (not to say completely made up), because boxoffice numbers were not officially recorded until 1982.  And even then, studios were known to inflate numbers.

Thierry

Interesting.  I had always wondered about this.

[movieposterodyssey]

Huh,this flick must be a lot better then it looks in the trailers.Have to check it out.
I think I gotta a couple of free movie passes left.

Anthony

[kovacs01]

All the buzz will get my money, since I am going to happen to be in town at the right time.

[Bruce]

In pre-television, pre-central air conditioning days, just about everyone went to the movies every night from May until September. The alternate was sitting home and listening to the radio or reading a book, while your clothes stuck to you. Movies were dirt cheap (even adjusting for inflation) and you got two features, newsreels, travelogues, cartoons, etc, and great frigid air conditioning, candy, and you could do pretty much whatever you wanted in the back rows. They also went a lot the rest of the year. Most big cities had theaters on every single block, and tiny West Plains, MO (pop 6,000 then) had four theaters.

Bruce

[cinemarts]

Its all about BOS (Bums On Seats).
The general consensus has been for a very long time that
GWTW (Gone With The Wind) is never going to be beaten for
the number of BOS which is what movies are really all about.
The film was a huge hit in its day and was in a lengthy first
release in a way that we cannot comprehend today, or since the advent
of TV (television) never mind HEM (Home Entertainment Market).
Prior to its availability on TV, it had several RRs (re-releases) complete
with new marketing campaigns which were done at an international level
and meant that not only did long-time lovers of the film get to see it
again (and again) but it was introduced to a whole new audiences.
If you want to factor in the whole HEM via Beta/VHS/Laser/DVD/Blu-ray, then
that's more than enough BOS to sink Titanic several times over.
As for BO (box office) if you look at theatre admission prices then and now, factor
in the super-cheap tix of suburban and rural sub-runs (these are multiplex days which as
Bruce rightfully notes meant that there was a cinema on almost every block, and most
of those cinemas had SC (seating Capacity) in one theatre that equaled a 6 or 8 screen
multiplex today) then trying to inflation adjust BO then and now is really pretty much
impossible.
Inflation adjusting BOS is impossible I (and that's not even factoring in mis-reporting by screens on
ticket sales).

AVATAR has made enough money fast enough to make itself something of a social phenomenon.
Second and third weekend BO drops this small are practically unheard of.

[eatbrie]

Avatar is now officially #3 worldwide.  By the end of the week, it will be #2 with only Titanic in sight. 

Some Hollywood pundits now put it in the lead for the best picture award, ahead of Up in the Air, the previous fav.

T.