Should 'Avatar's Box-Office Numbers have an Asterisk Next Them?
We don't really think to ask until it happens
Avatar's first post-holiday weekend saw the film's largest percentage drop as it still managed to secure the #1 spot at the box-office for the fourth weekend in a row. This coming weekend it takes on The Book of Eli in 3,000+ theaters, The Spy Next Door in 2,800 and the expansion of The Lovely Bones, which will grow to 2,400 theaters. Should it manage to maintain its #1 position it would mean it is the first film to stay atop the box-office for five weeks in a row since The Sixth Sense did it over ten years ago. It would also mean it's inching closer and closer to overtaking Titanic's $600.7 million all-time domestic box-office record.
As of the writing of this article, Avatar is $171.7 million short of Titanic's domestic record and has everyone talking $2 billion in worldwide ticket sales, which would best Titanic's 13-year reign on that chart as well. Just how long will it take for it to get there, and once it does should we find a bright red asterisk next to its name?
Whether you closely watch Box-Office Mojo's adjusted for inflation list or not, you realize once Avatar passes Titanic for those #1 spots all-time people are going to refer to it as the #1 box-office earner.
I am not a big fan of discussing box-office records in terms of "adjusted for inflation," primarily because I am a sports fan and in my eyes a record is a record. However, my argument there gets shot down as soon as the name "Barry Bonds" and the word "steroids" are brought up (Mark McGwire for sure following today's announcement). Because his record definitely deserves an asterisk if not a 100% dismissal. With Avatar we aren't only talking about inflation. Aren't we also talking "steroids" of another sort?
We can quantify $0.50 to $3.00 increases in ticket prices to see the film in 3D or IMAX, a fact that has changed the landscape of box-office positioning. Just look at Box-Office Mojo's 3D chart, the top seven positions are owned by films from 2009, a year when studios fully realized the advantage of price gouging at the ticket booth.
I jumped over to MovieTickets.com to look at the ticket prices for Avatar in 2D versus Avatar in 3D and IMAX here in Seattle. For a matinee showing the price difference was a measly $0.50, but for regular and IMAX pricing we are talking about a $3.00 jump. An article at Moviefone from this past weekend shows "80 percent of theatrical revenue for the film came from 3-D ticket sales."
Looking at Avatar's current domestic total of $429 million, this means approximately $343 million of that can be attributed to 3D tickets sales. Simplifying things as much as I possibly could, I took the average ticket prices in Seattle — 2D ($9.00) and 3D ($11.75) — and the difference in the two is about $2.75 per ticket (weighted to assume more people attend evening screenings). Using this math it tells me 9.5 million people saw Avatar in 2D and 29.1 million saw it in 3D, which translates to an additional $80.2 million in box-office receipts thanks to 3D and IMAX alone.
Take that into consideration, subtract the 3D steroids from Avatar's total and we are looking at a current box-office return of about $348.8 million, which isn't that bad either and would still place Avatar at the #16 slot on the all-time list, just above The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers.
As for that worldwide box-office number you have to read this quote from China Hush:
Avatar ticket prices will go up next week in China because the demand is so great, which means the ticket prices for the movie in IMAX-3D will be the highest in the world! Chinese netizens are complaining that, people in China, where the average income is 20 times lower than the U.S., have to pay three times as much as the people in the U. S for the same ticket.
What are those ticket prices? Well according to that article, ticket prices were originally 180 yuan ($26.36) in Shanghai and 160 yuan ($23.43) in Beijing and will be jumping to 200 yuan ($29.29) in Shanghai and are already as high as 430 yuan ($62.98) in Dongguan. RopeofSilicon Box-Office Oracle, Laremy Legel, tells me during his trip to Japan he found the ticket price for all movies was $20.
Of course, this leads to the old bugaboo – inflation.
The United States has seen 35% inflation since 1997. Box-Office Mojo reports the average ticket price in 1997 was $4.59 and in 2009 we are looking at $7.35. The best part about that is their average ticket price is still $1.15 cheaper than the $8.50 matinee price here in Seattle. On their adjusted for inflation chart Avatar sits at #58, a mere $1,049,272,700 shy of Gone with the Wind's adjusted total.
So with all that in mind, are you really ready to crown Avatar "King of the World"? Should it have an asterisk next to its name? Are Avatar's box-office numbers on steroids? Do you even care?
When it comes to talking about the #1 movie of all-time, if Avatar's numbers show it to be the #1 all-time earner I have no problem referring to it as such and will also need to update the Box-Office Oracle graphic, but I'm not going to be doing that until its final placement is realized.
Links from Other Sites You May Like
Showing 43 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New Comment |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
I wouldn't put an asterisk next to it, especially since so many movies benefited from different release styles and prices. The Dark Knight had an I-max bump, classic Disney films (and Star Wars films) have had re-releases, Gone With The Wind had forever and a day in theaters, G rated movies have lower ticket prices, etc. The adjusted list is good for reminding people that the next big thing usually isn't significantly bigger than the last big thing (Forrest Gump had more ticket sales than The Dark Knight, for instance), but the straight-out top dollar earner list is a good measure of our times… We've gone from when the definition of a massive blockbuster is one that broke $100 million in the US (worldwide wasn't much of a factor) to one that breaks $1 billion.
If people need an inflation-free means of keeping "score", then it's time to start counting number of tickets sold rather than the prices of them. Until then, let the movie that weaseled the most money out of audiences take a bow, no matter how it decided to do it.
It's a good point Brad but putting an asterisk next to Avatar is in my opinion unnecessary. 3D and IMAX releases for bigger films are going to be the norm from now on. And if we don't look at Avatar's result, if it manages to beat Titanic, as a new record then we basically have to put an asterisk next to all the records because of inflation because that would be the real result in terms of success. I read an article, I think it was either here or at Boxofficeprophets.com where the writer discussed the fact that when Gone With the Wind came out there were no other options for people to see the film. There wasn't an option to wait and own the film on DVD or Blu-Ray, there were no option to download the film and there wasn't an option to rely on TV for a lot of entertainment. And besides, going out to see a film in a theatre back in 1939 was a much bigger experience then today. Times changes and if we look at all the new records and hold them next to the old records then there will always be several other factors we have to look at.
I personally think that Avatar, if it manages to beat Titanic's $600 mill and $1,8 billion worldwide record, which I believe it will if it can hold it's ground for the next few weeks and get some Oscar nominations, it should be called the Nr. 1 champ, only because in maybe another 13 years when another film beats it because there is a new technology that increases the ticket price we will have another discussion then. Besides, how much fun will it be to still have Gone With the Wind as the real champ in 2023 because of the inflation since if we put an asterisk next to Avatar because of other factors then regular 2D releases we also need to keep Gone as the real champ. What I think is better is to crown Avatar for the amount of money it makes but also start another list where you can see how much the film has made from 3D and another list in IMAX. At the end, add all those figures together and then you have the official tally for the film. That way Gone With the Wind will stay the inflation champ for ever (probably, I don't see it possible for a film to earn almost $1,5 billion in domestic sales), Avatar will probably be the 3D and maybe IMAX champ and maybe also the #1 earner ever in terms of dollars earned.
In Norway where I live the success of a movie isn't tallied based on just the amount it makes, the weekly lists are based on the amount of tickets sold. So the film that had the largest audience is the #1 champ of the week. That is probably the best option to gauge a film's popularity, but again, that's kinda boring.
It's a tad difficult to continue to measure a film's success when incorporating inflation. I think the best measure is number of tickets sold.
@AJ:
I agree.
I'd also like to add that the moviegoing public had the choice to see Avatar in the "cheaper" good old fashioned 2D format. The same choice they had with the likes of UP, Ice Age 3, and others.
I'm with you Brad, to me the stats are as is. That's how I read them, just like in sports.
I do agree that Avatar's numbers wouldn't be as big as they are now without the help of 3D and Imax though. That is something that gives today's movies a boost that other movies didn't have. Then again, we can always subtract the Imax and 3D numbers to get a better idea on pure ticket sales if we want to really get technical.
But also, I don't think people realize that if you look at the all-time earnings of movies adjusted to inflation, Titanic is only #6. Titanic is #1 without adjusting inflation.
Forgot to mention that the Titanic figures mentioned were for Domestic inflation*****
AJ put it exactly how I would put it. I think the "adjusting for inflation" is a bit stupid. We WANT to see new records be set. If we adjusted for inflation, those records wouldn't be set, because adjusting for inflation unfairly skews chances in favor of the older movies, which didn't have to deal with DVD markets (or VHS markets, in many cases) and other competing forms of entertainment. Of course, it IS true that not adjusting for inflation skews records in favor of the newer movies. But if I had to choose between favoring newer movies and favoring older movies, I'd favor the newer movies. I don't want to be stuck in the past and be one of those whiny people who are like, "Oh God, why aren't there any good movies anymore? I've lost faith in Hollywood." I still love old movies, but hey… it's just BO records we're talking about. They're fun. They let us celebrate the new big thing. It's a cultural unifier.
Adjusting for inflation should mostly be for underlining truly great achievements, such as Star Trek or The Dark Knight outgrossing all their franchise predecessors in ticket sales.
The only people who should be interested in box-office numbers is the studio and the others getting a piece of the pie.
im kinda sad that Titanic wont be the highest grossing movie anymore..its ironic that it held the crown for the entire decade_plus 3 years and with the beggining of a new decade an ew film will probably take the spot
@AJ:
Good points, totally agree.
And a new film by the same director. No matter what you think about James Cameron, that is an impressing feat.
It's funny you posted this article today, I was talking about this issue on my way to see the movie this weekend… I think an asterisk should be put next to it, but not in a negative way… or they could just average out as if all the IMAX and 3D showings were at normal ticket prices. or just have two columns. Normal and Imax and 3D viewings, it would just be another fair way to measure the amount a movie makes. and lets face it, having to records nowadays wouldn't be that bad of idea since 3D and IMAX are becoming more of the "blockbuster movie" platform…
I've been thinking for awhile with IMAX and 3D releases that a more accurate way to compare films would be through ticket sales. Adjusting for inflation gets to be messy business – let's keep track of how many people are actually seeing these movies, in whatever format, and then we can compare apples to apples. Has Avatar sold more tickets across its multiple mediums than Titanic did? Then Avatar is king. Did Titanic corner the 14 year old girl market to such an extent that they went back again and again and far out-sold Avatar and its fanboys? Then Titanic wins.
Is "Titanic" gross revenue including DVD sales or only the movie-theatres revenues only for the period it was featured? With the proposed 3D-television sets to be on the market in the last quarter 2010, guess when will Avatar 3D DVD will be premiered?….I'll bet that will boost the additional income considerably.
If people are prepared to pay higher 3D ticket prices to see Avatar then surely that has to count if you are judging how financially successful a film is?
I think there are two separate questions here. The first whether the gross should be adjusted for general inflation – that is $100m today is not worth as much as £100m 10 years ago. The second is whether the gross should be adjusted for ticket-price inflation. These two are not necessarily the same.
I think you should adjust for general inflation but not ticket inflation. If ultimately you want to know how financially successful a film is compared to another film you have to correct for the true value of their respective grosses in today's money i.e general inflation.
But if tickets are more expensive now then in the past even accounting for general inflation then this should count. As I've said you are measuring how much money a film is making, if people are prepared to pay more for their tickets – whether because it's a 3D film or tickets are just generally more expensive – then that is good for the success of the movie.
I understand where you are coming from here, but you are wrong. 3D pricing, while bringing in more money, also brings down attendance. Pricing a movie is like pricing any other good. Apple, for example, sell fewer laptops compared to the PC-industry at large, but they do this at higher prices and at higher margins. They are one of the most profitable companies in the world. The movie studios could care less about attendance. All they care about is revenue. If they priced Avatar 3D at Titanic (1997) levels it might have made the exact same amount of money in the end, who knows? Talking about "steroids" makes no sense.
The most popular films in theaters today are actually seen by many more people than days of yore, because people rent it on DVD, see it on cable, and ultimately see it on network television. So we should put an asterisk by Titanic with the note: not most viewed. Things are fine as they are.
There are all types of rankings. If Avatar succeeds in making $601 million at the domestic box office or $1.9 billion at the worldwide box office, then it will be number one on the all time list, as far as dollars go.
The "adjusted for inflation" #1 film will still be Gone With The Wind. Regardless, Avatar will go down in history as one of the biggest box-office-smash-hits of all time. And when one considers that, currently, the #1 & #2 biggest (unadjusted) films of all time were directed by one James Cameron, I think it's safe to say he's still "King of the World!!!!"
Come on, you think GWTW would have sold so many tickets if people then had 500 cable channels, 100 video games, 20 other current release films, and DVD's stacking their walls to choose from?
Comparisons between these radically different entertainment ages are close to meaningless.
@Charles: @mfan: @Monster: @JM and @AJ: By the way, if you guys want to talk about the "Adjusted for Inflation" conversation I addressed my opinion of that almost a year ago exactly in my article headlined "Why I Don't Like the 'Adjusted for Inflation' Box-Office Argument" which you may find interesting as well.
Check out this article also about how much 3D increases a films revenue:
http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=12392&cmin=10&columnpage=3
Asterisks tend to be a "put down" like "This movie/person set this record, BUT it/he/she had the luxury of etc etc.."
When Avatar breaks the record-It's not a question of "if" anymore considering the movie actually made north of $50mil this past weekend-down the road, it shouldn't come with an asterisk. The landscape changes everytime and you can't hold it against a movie/person if they use the existing landscape to their benefit so long as it wasn't done through illegal means. When Avatar takes the record, I'll recognize it as the record holder and won't view it's accomplishment with an asterisk, but I'll be aware though that the rankings would be different when figures are adjusted.
Even the number of tickets sold is misleading. this is because the number of people available to see Avatar is several times the number of people available to see Gone with the Wind. Put the cpmputers to work and check the number of tickets sold to the world population and you might find Gone with the Wind by far the #1. Another factor that I don't know how to factor into the equation is the number of screens available worldwide to show a film on.
Look at it this way, if the movie only cost $5 to see, how many more times would you see it? People are willing to pay $16 more than once to see this movie in IMAX. (I should know since I am one of them.) An earning is an earning. No Asterisk necessary.
Adjusting for inflation is an attempt to be accurate. I agree that there are many other factors to consider when it comes to comparing box office tallies over the decades (like all the ones mentioned in the above posts), so many that it probably is impossible to get a truly fair comparison.
But that's no excuse to ignore the simple economic reality of inflation, and subsequently treat unadjusted numbers as in any way meaningful, let alone report on it in a news article. The "a stat is a stat, a record is a record" argument doesn't make any sense, because we KNOW that at least one important factor in the data (not taking inflation into account) is completely wrong. This amounts to be an attempt to be INaccurate (and it succeeds).
Calculating the percentage of the population that bought tickets to see any given movie would be a stronger method; adjusted dollar amounts would be an imperfect second option, but certainly much better than acting as if inflation doesn't exist. But that'll never happen because movie studios and media outlets know that it'll be much harder for records to be broken that way, movies won't make any headlines, studios will see that as a lost opportunity for free marketing, and media outlets would have less attention-getting film news to report, and consequently fewer readers.
There DOES need to be asterisk, but not attached to movies; they should be attached at the end of every box office-related news article. The sentence that follows the asterisk should say, "These figures are useless."
I think that Avatar doesn t need an asterisk at all. There are references to the 3D advantage. But who have spoken about the cost of the enhenced technology developed aroound that movie creating new horizons for world cinema boosting at the same time the production cost at region 400 million?
So should we put an asterisk regarding investment cost as well?
Or perhaps should we use the return on equity figure as a proper measure of a film performance?
Or even let us not forget that back in the late 80s western movies were banned across the iron curtain and china respectively?
How could we use as a measure the number of tickets sold when the audience pool has been altered substantially over the last years?
I believe that one way or another the unadjusted figures make more sense and by all means no asterisk is needed.
Should avatar overthrown Titanic from the top of the charts based on absolute figures then well done Cameron asterisk or no asterisk next to it!!!
@John: Inflation adjustment is a fantasy. It doesn't truly give a picture of an ever changing world. What is the inflation adjustment to a horse bought in 1850? That number wouldn't tell you why they hanged people for stealing horses? In fact, it would make them seem cruel. You simply can't compare different decades without writing a very long article about it. For a generational comparison, you would need a book.
people chose to go see avatar in 3d. they could have seen 2d but wanted to see the movie at its full potential. Avatar is not on steroids. unlike most other movies, it just decided to get in shape. and inlfation is something no one cares about. money is money. obviously if movies start to cost more, it means people have more money, so really prices havent changed.
I think what the article is saying is completely stupid. It's suggesting because the film is made in 3d then that is why it is making so much at the box office. it's suggesting there should be two separate charts one for 3d films and one for non 3d films. this is completely stupid. at the end of the day people CHOOSE to pay higher prices (if there are any) to watch a film in 3d. which means this counts so no two separate 3d and non 3d charts are needed.
this article and some people that are commenting are basically saying "avatar has an unfair advantage over the other films because it is made in 3d, ticket prices are therefore sometimes higher which means the film makes more money compared to other non 3d films". this is not true because avatar is not a film that has been given the exclusive right to record a film in 3d. any film maker/s are free to make any kind of film they want and invent their own recording method be it 3d or whatever just like james cameron did.
the film maker makes a film how he wants, he then sets a price for a customer to see the film and IF the customer CHOOSES to pay the price to watch the film then thats all that counts and matters. and you judge a film on how much its earned end of story. whatever the film has earned it has earned it fairly and without any advantage over the other films be it 3d, imax or whatever.
as for adjusted for inflation lark this is totally meaningless. how can anyone compare box office earnings of a film made at the time of gone with the wind to today. there are just too many factors to take into account. if avatar over takes titanic then it deserves the top stop without any asterix or without question.
dont forget people were not as wealthy and income was not as great as they are now when gone with the wind was released so the ticket price had to reflect that. today people are wealthier and they have a bigger income as they did at the time of gone with the wind so the films tickets price reflects this and so does the films buget. this is just one crude example of the factors that need to be taken into account. the"unadjused for inflation" is just fine because it reflects a films earnings parralel to its present customers income/wealth. there is no need to have multiple charts, one chart is perfectly fine for any filmmaker can make any film they want. i just get the feeling people are jelous of avatar's success. the current box office system lets us celebrate something new and lets us move on for the better and not get stuck in the "old days". avatar is a fantastic film, i've seen it, and it deserves everything it gets. good one cameron you really are the king.
The fact that people are **WILLING** to pay higher prices to see Avatar, alone, is enough of a reason to drop the "adjusted for inflation" nonsense.
If the movie was RANK people wouldn't be paying to see it more than once.
Avatar's word of mouth is the cause of its box office success, so to put an asterisk beside it just because tickets cost more would be ridiculous.
@mfan: I do certainly agree that the adjusted for inflation method is far from perfect. But I don't understand how factoring in inflation could be just as inaccurate, or any less accurate, than not adjusting for inflation, which is what most people here seem to be arguing. Surely adjusting for inflation gets you closer to a more accurate figure, however far off that accurate figure may be. All I'm saying is, unadjusted grosses are the most inaccurate method to ascertain comparative, all-time box office tallies because they don't take ANY outside factor into account. At least acknowledging inflation is a first step away from that.
But whatever, I'm just debating for the sake of discussion at this point. As an action sci-fi and James Cameron fan, I'm actually glad that Avatar is such a big hit with audiences, regardless of how it may stack up with other films in terms of box office receipts.
Consider how many films on the "adjusted for inflation" list have been released and re-released, and re-released, and re-released over the decades. Number one on that list, "Gone With The Wind" has been re-released at least six times just in the USA, and dozens of times worldwide. Just last year it was re-released in Poland.
"Avatar" is a game changer for the film industry the way, "GWTW", "The Wizard of Oz", and, "Star Wars" were.
I'm not sure I understand. If a spectacular new movie charged $50 a ticket and people were willing to pay that amount for a ticket, would you really consider their earnings to be somehow diminished? Perhaps Avatar would earn even more with a lower ticket price with more tickets sold. Perhaps it would benefit more with even higher ticket prices. What a person is willing to pay for a product and what the product earns is the end argument.
If lists decide to put an asterisk next to Avatar, then might as well mark record breaking movies that are at the top when adjusted for inflation. For example, GWTW could have two asterisks signaling that it experienced multiple releases, or/and that it was released in an era where there were no VHS/DVD and people couldn't download from the internet. Movies like GWTW, Star Wars, Titanic and Avatar belong to different eras and as such are subject to different advantages/disadvantages. What they do have in common is that they all stood out in their eras and surpassed other movies that faced more or less the same advantages/disadvantages, and as such deserve to be in the top lists without not-so-subtly being pointed out as "cheaters" because of causes like inflation, 3D prices or re-releases.
@John: "… regardless of how it may stack up with other films in terms of box office receipts." It's all about what one is trying to measure. I don't see any comparisons to silent movies like Birth of a Nation, or Charlie Chaplin movies, et al. Why not? Many of those films would probably wipe the floor with Gone With the Wind. Even if the data doesn't exist, estimates can be made. But if you believe they're too different to compare to "talkies", well they are not more different than 2D verses 3D/IMAX.
But why just compare moving pictures? If we are talking people in seats at theaters, shouldn't we include live theater? You may think live theater wouldn't be competitive, but have you read the comments of people who want to population adjust the numbers? What about Greek city/states where the ENTIRE population would turn out to for a theater production. That means, for that civilization, 100% ticket sales, putting Gone With the Wind to shame.
Are we only discussing America? Many of the "Domestic" numbers BOM cites include Canada. Should we parse the data for only America? What about Alaska, and Hawaii? They weren't states when Gone With the Wind was made, so if we are compariing popularity, shouldn't we subtract those states numbers?
All I am saying is any comparison to different eras is arbitrary. Even a decades time can bring about enough change to blur the issues. The reason to adjust for inflation is to create a more accurate picture of what one is trying to compare, but if adjusting for inflation doesn't do that, then what is the point? If one's point is that Gone With The Wind was very popular and sold many tickets, just say that. If your point is that Gone With the Wind was MORE popular than Titanic and sold more tickets, adjusting for inflation does not in itself, bolster your argument. It is as misleading as not adjusting for inflation. IMHO.
I vote for AJ's first paragraph as the most concise argument. Kudos.
Excuse my ignorance but is there a reason these things aren't judged on number of tickets sold?
I understand the box office finances are how the studios gauge their films successes but for the general public wouldn't it make more sense to go by tickets sold?
I always wonder this when I hear the adjusted for inflation argument. Going by number of tickets sold would squash that issue almost completely.
Am I missing something?
@Sean A: You are missing that people like to complain. I'm 100% sure that if you went by ticket sales, then people would still want to adjust the numbers for population inflation, areas the older films were shown in, or any number of variables their creative minds could think of. And why not count people who bought a movie on DVD and watched it on their "home theaters"? There is no "fix" for people wanting to argue and complain.
Also, the reason for keeping track of box office gross is to judge profitablilty, project potential, etc., in order to determine what project is going to be greenlit next. Hannah Montana: The Movie, with an $80 million domestic gross, probably sold more tickets than some $120 million films because virtually all it's tickets were matinee tickets. That doesn't matter. The decision to go ahead on a sequel would be based on profitability (real or potential), not on ticket sales. If people come in later and try to compare films, that's just for fun.
I do ponder why successful music is defined by units shifted, but film isn't, although my greater concern is that it cost me £11.50 to see Avatar in 3D in the UK. That's the equivalent of $18.80!! (and the film industry wonders why so many people have no problem with piracy?!)
Last year, when I saw My Bloody Valentine and Monsters vs. Aliens, the extra cost of a 3D ticket was £1.00 ($1.60). Just in time for Avatar, my local cinema put the supplement up to £2.80 ($4.60). (They clearly saw all of us coming)
It will be interesting to see how the DVD sales go, because you obviously can't replicate the 3D cinema experience at home for what is a very visual-driven film.
How come no one talks about the fact that moviegoers are willing to shell out more money and pay a premium to see Avatar over other movies? As for "inflation adjusted" box office figures Avatar is climbing up the charts very rapidly. When all is said and done Avatar will blow Titanic's domestic and international totals out of the water with over $800 million in domestic alone. Expect Avatar to be a top 10 inflation adjusted movie in a few weeks. Keep in mind this movie is going to be in general release until at least the end of March. Thats plenty of time to continue its impressive box office run.
Asterisks next to it? Oh come on, Every movie out there could have an asterisk next to it for some reason or another. Gone with the Wind, had no video/DVD rental market to deal with for example. I forget how long it was in movie theaters for but a lot longer than you'd have to wait for a movie to come out at the DVD store these days.
People going on about how it's not a real record and yet it's usually the same people bringing up Avatar's high budget (though they usually are prepared to use a figure like $500m which is a) not correct anyway but more importantly b) not calculated with the same equation as for most movies). Well, yes 3D tickets cost more. Guess what? It costs a lot more to make a movie in Stereo too.
As for Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire, I don't think they should have an asterisk next to their names either. The reason? How many pitchers weren't on steroids at the same time? Level Playing field in my opinion. In each generation movies face things which will hinder their box office. In this age it's people hanging out to watch it on DVD instead (see King Kong) when some movies come out 3 or 4 months after their cinema run now, from what I recall if Titanic had the length of release it did back in 1997 now it'd cross over well into it's DVD release. Titanic didn't have to face competition from illegal downloads either.
ben morgan great job. a record is a record and there are so many factors when times do change. avatar is not done yet it's still has at least 100 plus days left. i just wish this movie made a billion domestic to shut up those star wars and titanic fanatics. it is what it is. 700 million is not bad a profit of almost 2 billion is not bad either. i think this just pushes the envelope of movie makers and studio to take more risk by spending more money. there a lot of crappy movies out there that we watch and those so called directors who make those crappy movies because of a franchise have to step their game. cameron is calling all the big boys to do better. steven speilberg, peter jackson, jerry brock. etc. are thinking of how top avatar. i hope they can make another masterpiece the more the marrier. lords of the ring, titanic, some of the harry potter series, star wars, star trek, nemo, up,howl's moving castle, spirted away, princes minoke,
With many other factors that can influence calculations to get ALL movies across the board on even ground (even Box-Office Mojo has a disclaimer), I just don't care. Forget the asterisk, it is just a waste a of time. Good day.
The fact of the matter is Avatar in only a few months got to within 300 million of the inflation adjusted worldwide mark. That's pretty incredible.
If it hadn't have been yanked to make way for other 3D movies….who knows it may have broken it.