Avatar = Titanic x The Dark Knight
Up until now, box office analysts have had three kinds of mega-movies to figure out. There are the speed demons, there are – and there are only a couple of examples – the Christmas plodders (which only seem like plodders because we haven’t seen any $100m openings in December yet), and there are the films that are either majority-domestic or majority-foreign.
The highest form of the third group is Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs. $885m worldwide, $688 of it from overseas… a remarkable 78% of the gross. We will see more of this. 2012 and The Da Vinci Code were also in the 70s internationally.
Avatar is hovering right under 70%, a few percent more domestic than Titanic. Avatar will likely end up in the low 70s, a reflection of the expansion of markets internationally since Titanic… and all the more impressive since pumped-up 3D revenues represent less than half the international tickets sold.
But what is fascinating about Avatar is that it is doing both what The Dark Knight did domestically (and The Potters and Pirates 2 and Spidey 3, etc did worldwide) AND what Titanic did. It didn’t open as huge or speed to $300 million as fast… and it won’t hold as long as high as Titanic.
But as a hybrid of the mega-wide-release, the international phenom, and supermuscular legs, it is a new breed. (And the 3D money doesn’t hurt either.)
We are six weekends – 38 days – into this ride. Titanic‘s ride was 38 weeks.
And in spite of being the #2 all-time domestic grosser and #1 international grosser already, we’re looking at another Avatar drop of under 20% domestically. It’s insane. If the film keeps holding at 20% a week, we’re looking at another $200 million at the domestic box office BEFORE Alice In Wonderland takes over a large chunk of the 3D screens. (And don’t be surprised if Avatar makes a significant 3D-only return in April.)
That would be more than $750m domestic. $800m is not unlikely.
Internationally, it is already the #1 film of all time… and that is with a much smaller percentage of 3D tickets being sold overseas. And it had a $107 million weekend overseas this weekend. So are we looking at another $250 million… $300 million… $400 million? More?
By the way, the reason the Chinese thing is remotely significant is that China – about 90% 2D screens – has been one of the top six international markets for the film so far and Avatar is the highest grossing film ever in China.
The first $2 billion movie is now inevitable. But will Avatar raise the bar as high as Titanic did a dozen years ago? $2.5 billion is not unthinkable, given this run.
That would be a $650 million improvement on the Titanic gross.
For a little perspective, only 42 films in movie history have earned $650 million worldwide… period.
Of course, even at $2.5 billion, there will be whiners out there trying to diminish the achievement by slurring on about ticket pricing and inflation adjustment. Infantile. Or in the case of competing studios, business jealousy.
As far as the inflation bores go, as far as i can tell, the only $2 billion worldwide grossers, even adjuster are Titanic ($2.8b) and Star Wars ($2.2b).
And those ticket counters? 203 million tickets allegedly sold for Gone With The Wind (based on estimated pulled out of educated, but thin air). So let’s take the inaccurate $7.35 ticket price average of today. 203 million tickets sold would be $1.492 billion. Add $3.50 to 80% of tickets sold (all overly generous) for another $568m. So… $2.06 billion, broadly, would be equal to Gone With The Wind. Fair enough? When it happens, will you please shut the f**k up about the 3D bump?
Seriously, folks. A movie that more than DOUBLES the worldwide take of all but one film in movie history. You have to have big ol’ blinders on or be the world’s greatest contortionist to bend that into “just another big grosser.”
People make excuses for all kinds of movies, all the time. Avatar needs no excuses.
Nicely put, though the whiners would still be doing their thing at $4 billion, domestic.
And those ticket counters? 203 million tickets allegedly sold for Gone With The Wind (based on estimated pulled out of educated, but thin air). So let’s take the inaccurate $7.35 ticket price average of today. 203 million tickets sold would be $1.492 billion. Add $3.50 to 80% of tickets sold (all overly generous) for another $568m. So… $2.06 billion, broadly, would be equal to Gone With The Wind. Fair enough?
Fuckin’ A!
The special 3D release in April will be tough, as How to Train Your Dragon (and possibly Clash of the Titans, depending on Warner’s inclination) will be taking up 3D screens at the end of March/beginning of April. Unless they out and out flop, I’d imagine said screens will be booked until the May 21st release of Shrek 4. It could happen, but Paramount and Warner would basically have to be willing to cut their own throats. I can see midight 3D Avatar screenings, but not a full-blown release.
Lol…yes DP I will shut the f**k up when it happens. Please keep in mind the site you use for all of your box office figures, Box office mojo, is one of your inflation “bores” and whiners and one of “those ticket-counters” as Mojo has cited the difference in attendance in multiple reports.
I still think the fact you are completely dismissive of the fact that domestically Avatar still trails TDK’s domestic attendance by 25% when the films were released a little over a year apart silly and amusing.
I am HOPING “Avatar” passes TDK so sites like Mojo and Nikki Finke don’t bring up the asterisk story in every article on the film’s run for eternity. Because that’s what will happen if it doesn’t at least hit 700 million.
i don’t see how anyone can debate the success at this point. it’s still doing exceptionally well. arguing over the asterisk seems so ridiculous.
and i thought the movie was pretty average. but success is success. in a day and age where people are trying to figure out strategies to get asses in seats, cameron is doing it and making it look ridiculously easy.
the WORST thing they could do is keep it going so long that films like Alice in Wonderland or Clash of the Titans losing 3D screens because Avatar was still out there. At some point, it’d be great to see people transition to other 3D films and get an “Avatar Bump” rather than losing money because they want to wring every last dollar out the movie.
I wouldn’t say i’d blame the studio for wanting to rake in the cash, but it’d be great if this could be the start a reinterest in the theatrical experience.
If Avatar is a one off and 3D grosses return to normal, it will feel like such a waste to the industry as a whole.
“People make excuses for all kinds of movies, all the time. Avatar needs no excuses.”
Then why do you feel the need to keep defending it?
I have no idea of what percentage of seats overseas are or are not 3D…how do you know the percentage?
But that is not the point. Avatar reaks of a top down, marketing phenomenon, not a bottom up people phenom.
I keep reading that it is getting by on great word of mouth. No it isn’t. It is getting by based on enormous marketing as the 3D sci fi entertainment you “must see”. I know of lots of people who have seen it but few that love it and of those that will admit to liking it, it is always a sheepish thing they cannot defend.
And that is the rub. Avatard’s defenders want it both ways. They want to say it is a bottom up, people discovered phenom that is resounding with people and uniting them the world over because of its message while at the same time negating the massive marketing hype, technology hype, 3D price bump, 3D marketing hype etc. that went into it. That is unquantifiable but real. How much does Avatar day count for? I have no idea. It is pure marketing. What does the q factor of James Cameron’s return to film making after a decade count for in terms of dollars? All of these matter.
That is why its defenders and Cameron are getting defensive. Word of mouth on this is more on the lines of “If you have to see it, see it in 3D because the script and story stink.”
If that makes you happy. Take the gross and leave.
But just reporting gross out of context of tickets sold, adjusted gross, hype, marketing 3D hype, Cameron’s return hype and price bump is just reporting what Fox and Cameron want. That is infantile. That is less inquisitive than EW. Even if Avatar beats Gone with the Wind in tickets sold it will still have an asterix because it benefits from decades of honing a marketing machine and international markets that were not around at the time of GWTW. But none of this would mater if Avatard were a good film.
Avatar will not age well. It will always have an asterix beside it because ultimately it is not very good. When it wins BP and BD the stench will be worse.
Wanna see a movie which those who love it love it a lot and will (and can) defend with a passion? See Sherlock Holmes. Saw it this weekend and was blown away by how smart and engaging it was.
As I have said before, for a film like Avatar, the sign of phenom goes beyond box office. It goes beyond spin. It is people wanting to always go back in the world. It contains (but not limited to) costumes, action figures, video games, books sound tracks etc. For Avatar, so far it has failed on all those levels. Even the McDonalds tie ins seem all played out.
If we see Avatar 2 (and there is no guarantee we will) I promise the game will be different. Sure, many people like the film and I am sure some even love it. I give you that. But those of us who dislike it because of how poorly made it is interms of script and acting(and that transcends any politics or culture) will not be rooked again.
I regret putting money into Avatar before the vastly superior Sherlock Holmes because even I fell for the hype. Guranteed there will be many more like me on round two.
Avatar 2 (and any Cameron follow up) will play more like Angels and Demons to the DaVinci Code than Attack of the Clones.
“Wanna see a movie which those who love it love it a lot and will (and can) defend with a passion? See Sherlock Holmes. Saw it this weekend and was blown away by how smart and engaging it was.”
Ahhhh, had you only left that bit out you could have had the perfect anti-Avatar rant.
I know people who really really did not like Avatar. I also know people who really really loved Avatar. And yes, beyond its visuals.
A film does not make 500m or 600m or 700m without pretty good/great WOM. Those initial people that went to see the film in December and recommended it, they started the massive Avatar fire that is now burning out of control.
Nicol, you are such a bore.
“If you have to see it, see it in 3D” isn’t very good word of mouth, and I certainly wouldn’t see a movie based on that recommendation. The bottom line is, for the drops it has day-to-day and week-to-week, it’s got to have very good-to-great WOM.
And GOTW is always better because movies today have the benefit of a well-honed marketing machine? That’s infantile and less inquisitive than EW for not even factoring in TV and the massive amounts of other things people have to spend their time and money on.
Loyal,
Then where are the ancilary markets? Should kids not be wanting the toys still sitting on shelves…gamers not be looking to re-experince the film in another medium? Scores flying off record shelves…colouring books at toys R us…
Let me put it another way…I am not one of those here to shit on Avatar’s financial success. It is a huge hit. But it is an extension of the Trans2 Ice Age 3 mentality. It is not a film for the ages and by that is why the anti-Avatards are coming out in force. This is not quality story-telling.
It is a big dumb marketing machine. If its fans would acknowledge that…people like me would go away. As long as they keep trying to elevate it to something more significant…we will not give up. If you think the parsing of stats is bad now,…wait until we see it win at the Oscars. Paul Haggis and the Crash backlash never had it so good.
” film does not make 500m or 600m or 700m without pretty good/great WOM.”
Like Transformers 2…or Ice Age 3…or the DaVinci Code. What was the word on DaVince Code which earned over 700 million worldwide? Howabout Spiderman 3…that is not a valid argument.
Why would fans acknowledge that it is nothing more than a big, dumb marketing machine? They are fans, ergo they actually like and enjoy the movie. That is not a valid argument for continuing to shit on it.
And Dave continues to report on the grosses, and you are the one in here shitting on him for doing so.
“I keep reading that it is getting by on great word of mouth. No it isn’t.”
It’s hard to continue reading the rest of his entry after such stupid statements. So. Damn. Stupid.
Anecdotal, of course, but at my local toy stores the AVATAR action figures are nearly all sold out. Certainly all of the Na’vi figures. Usually all that’s left is some secondary humans, and the one ATV vehicle that Mattel invented for the toy line.
“Like Transformers 2…or Ice Age 3…or the DaVinci Code. What was the word on DaVince Code which earned over 700 million worldwide? Howabout Spiderman 3…that is not a valid argument.”
I was talking domestic.
I don’t get you, EthanG.
“I still think the fact you are completely dismissive of the fact that domestically Avatar still trails TDK’s domestic attendance by 25% when the films were released a little over a year apart silly and amusing.”
Silly in what way? Because I am not micro-obsessing on some excuse to claim Avatar isn’t doing business that WB would be thrilled to take over the business of The Dark Knight?
I’m not sure why you care about domestic, as though it is more important than international… same as the ticket price stuff. It’s not amusing, but it is silly.
Big movies are made to make as much money as they can in THE WORLD… not domestic… not to sell the most tickets… etc.
The only shoe that will drop on Avatar, as it will have more tickets sold than Dark Knight soon enough, is that it probably won’t be able to change the dynamic to anything near this degree in Home Entertainment.
Box Office Mojo is not a repository of any box office insight… only numbers. They, smartly, respond to what is in the media. So they have played this idiot’s game of ticket sales, started by Sharon Waxman at NYT oh so long ago.
And Nicol… you’re not wrong that big grosses do no mean quality. but you’re just plain off the charts comparing these numbers to Trannys 2 or Ice Age 3 or DaVinci. For one thing… all sequels. For another, Avatar may well triple all of their worldwide numbers.
No film in history has been dropping at under 20% in weekend six – still in wide release – without excellent word of mouth.
The 10 movies on the top of the charts, following Avatar, for 6th weekend are Titanic, Sixth Sense, Mrs Doubtfire, Aladdin, Toy Story, Forrest Gump, Phantom Menace, Three Men & a Baby, and ET.
Someone could make the argument against Phantom Menace, though it would be a bullshit argument by someone holding on too tightly to the first trilogy. But I don’t think you can deny how well loved any of the other films are, whether they should be or not.
You are welcome to your opinion of the movie. But this bullshit – which no one can argue since it has no substance to argue against – about “it’s all marketing” is about as lame as you can get. So… this was the PERFECT marketing machine? They wanted that $500m tag because it was a great thing? The marketing tricked the vast majority of the critics, including many who are considered angry arthouse types? Fox’s $150 million was 5x better than WB’s $150m spent on Sherlock Holmes or 3x better than the $150m spent on Tranformers 2 or a dozen times better than the $150m spent on Watchmen?
What the FUCK are you on about?
And what about The Dark Knight? A smartly managed campaign, but absolutely in line with the great history of marketing Batman movies at WB. Was their marketing half as effective as Fox’s?
“This is not quality story-telling” = Nicol doesn’t like the movie.
There is nothing wrong with you having an opinion. But don’t delude yourself into thinking that your opinion – and I will assume it is as deep as your initial reaction followed by having uncomfortably defend the position to 90% of the people who you express it to – is a fact.
I agree that majority opinion by box office is not a good way to assess a movie. But like Phantom Menace… someone liked it… a lot. You don’t get to decide for them that Jar Jar Binks ruined your experience and should ruin theirs.
I ahve to use Bosley Crowther, because it is overused – including against me – but you sound like an angry old man who hates the success of this film because you have decided that it doesn’t deserve its perch… and your favorite films do.
The genius of Avatar and of Cameron is that he is not a smirker. He deals with real human emotions that people across the glove share and he never apologizes for it.
Is Law & Order the best TV show ever made in America? Is CSI? But these shows connect with people in a very specific, very real way. And as a result, they watch and they watch and they watch. 30 Rock vs 2.5 Men? Are you kidding? But audiences cannot get enough of the lesser show. And they are not somehow being marketed into it.
As far as the Oscar, which it will win, the comparison is Rings, not Crash. The group of people who hate Avatar like many hated Crash is infinitesimal by comparison. And that was the triumph of a film that was a safe choice when voters really didn’t want to feel forced into voting Brokeback. Avatar came into a settled Oscar season and went from 0 to 120 in a week or two. The Academy will never regret handing this film Best Picture. And you can bet your bazookas that the whole show will celebrate this film, as the show gets its best ratings in years because of it.
Suckers!!!!
Could someone please explain to me wtf selling toys has to do with how much people like a movie?!? I will wait patiently while I play with all my Titanic Action figures and try to beat my high score on my Gone With The Wind video game.
Seriously, STFU about it. Star Wars sold toys because it WAS A KID’S MOVIE! The reason adults hated Episode One, is because they couldn’t deal with the fact that the original Star Wars was a fantasy movie for kids — they forgot that they were kids when they first saw it.
Seriously the “but it’s not selling ancillary stuff” so it’s not a phenomenon, is the stupidest weakest and off-point argument against Avatar’s success I’ve ever heard.
Question for all idiots who still don’t get it: Which is the better and more successful movie — Cars or Finding Nemo? In your tiny brains, obviously the answer is Cars, because Cars sold over 2 billion dollars worth of toys, plush, etc, far exceeding Nemo’s ancillary profits. Yeah, that totally makes sense.
May I repeat: S.T.F.U. and try to find some other weak argument to support your belief that Avatar is such a colossal failure.
Idiots.
“is that it probably won’t be able to change the dynamic to anything near this degree in Home Entertainment.”
While I believe that’s true in essence, I think that Avatar will almost single-handedly secure blu-ray as a format when it comes out. I’m of the opinion that, if not perhaps instantly, several million people will pony out for a blu-ray player to be able to view Avatar in the best home format possible (it’ll act more as a tipping point than as a sole reason just so I’m clear on where I’m coming from). I base this assertion on the fact that this film, more than any other I’ve known in my lifetime certainly, people are quality conscious about. “See it in 3-D, IMAX if you can” and I think that’ll translate to the home market as well.
“Question for all idiots who still don’t get it: Which is the better and more successful movie — Cars or Finding Nemo? In your tiny brains, obviously the answer is Cars, because Cars sold over 2 billion dollars worth of toys, plush, etc, far exceeding Nemo’s ancillary profits. Yeah, that totally makes sense.”
Nemo is certainly the superior film in my opinion, but I have to say that I think you’re wrong in the end and that Cars was the more financially successful film. Look at this way, Pixar is making Cars 2, not Finding Nemo 2. And Pixar generally doesn’t do sequels. Those merchandising dollars add up to a pressure from Disney that Pixar was unable to withstand.
I’m glad all Nielsen boxes aren’t handed out to Nicol D and his friends or we’d all be watching Reba on a loop. But, opinions can never be wrong. I, for example, personally rather enjoyed Holmes, but found Avatar to be a far superior movie in every way I can think of. So did the users of flixter.com (92% vs 81 %) and imdb.com (8.6 vs 7.7 /10) and the critics on rottentomatoes.com (82 % vs 69 % overall and 94 % vs 53 % among the most respected critics) and metacritic.com (84 vs 57 / 100). So both critics and the masses agree with me on the subject of Avatar and Holmes. Does that make my opinion more correct than yours? No, of course not. It just shows that maybe you shouldn’t go around spewing your opinions as facts.
I don’t get what you don’t get Dave. I’m sticking to the facts…and the fact is that a 20% difference or even a 10% difference in tickets sold between films released a year apart is significant…even if it’s only significant in that major outlets like Hollywood Reporter, box office mojo and Nikki will asterisk any record for now.
It’ll be insignificant in a couple months and I celebrate “Avatar’s” success. I think it will be the most significant box office film since Titanic once its run is over. I don’t get why celebrating attendance and inflation milestones is inappropriate.
Being able to call Avatar the most succesful film of this century without anyone being able to object and no qualifiers seems pretty cool. There’s no reason for you to keep making Avatar entries IMO.
As fascinating as it is to watch the AVATAR numbers game, thinking of this film as a game changer is myopic.
By design and luck, it became a cultural phenomenon. So few films can pull this off these days because of so many factors that went in Cameron’s favor. There was no other holiday season film out there for general audiences besides SHERLOCK HOLMES and no film this entire year that really caught on with the zeitgeist.
The really depressing reality is that these type of films are becoming more and more rare. Consider that in spite of all the accolades and favorable public reaction, STAR TREK still only grossed $257M. Which means less than 10% of the population saw it.
There’s no reason for you to keep making Avatar entries IMO.
I WILL END YOU.
…
Er, I mean, I disagree, and feel these entries are directly on target with the narrative theme of the Hot Blog, sir.
Speaking of “Star Wars”, that entire series may be upconverted for a 3-D re-release. The ultimate weapon for Hollywood — high profits at low risk, served with corporate synergy and tons of hype.
“Avatar” has been propped up by 3-D and this picture, Academy Awards or not, may mark the beginning of the end for theatrical exhibition.
The asterisk is being applied to Avatar because of the inflated premium ticket prices that apply only to Avatar.All other films in 2009-2010 are selling tickets at average price of $7.50 while Avatar’s tickets go for anywhere between $9-$18.The same is true overseas, Avatar dethroned Titanic in Spain while managing to sell less then half as many tickets. The fact that Avatar is on its way to toppling Titanic domestically while selling fewer tickets then Shrek 2 seems to me to be worth mentioning.
You can’t spend ticket sales.
“Avatar” has been propped up by 3-D and this picture, Academy Awards or not, may mark the beginning of the end for theatrical exhibition.
Huh?
All other films in 2009-2010 are selling tickets at average price of $7.50
Except for those 3D & IMAX showings. Which apparently is a crime for Avatar to rake in money from, but not Up, or Coraline, or Transformers 2, or Harry Potter 6.
Last report from Mojo is that 80% of Avatar’s ticket sales in the US are from the $9-$18 “premium” 3D screens. “Book of Eli” which officially finished second MLK weekend was competing at a lower price point.Due to the difference in pricing could “Eli” have sold more tickets MLK weekend? That’s why there’s an asterisk next to Avatar’s records.
There’s only an asterisk because there’s people out there who believe tickets sold is an important stat. But if it’s so important, why don’t they keep track of tickets sold? The short answer — it isn’t.
“As far as the Oscar, which it will win, the comparison is Rings, not Crash. The group of people who hate Avatar like many hated Crash is infinitesimal by comparison. And that was the triumph of a film that was a safe choice when voters really didn’t want to feel forced into voting Brokeback. Avatar came into a settled Oscar season and went from 0 to 120 in a week or two. The Academy will never regret handing this film Best Picture. And you can bet your bazookas that the whole show will celebrate this film, as the show gets its best ratings in years because of it.
Suckers!!!!”
Not too defensive, are you Dave? For someone who supposedly has no dog in the fight, you have certainly become the most vocal pro Avatar defender that there is on the web for it to get the Oscar. But, to quote you on an earlier comment board today, I know that you know what you know (but not everything…despite you not being surprised at any news in the film world…because you never see “any surprises”).
Like a lot of stupid arguments, the truth lies somewhere in between probably more towards to Avatar as the one of top 2 film phenomenons of all time (the other being Titanic).
1. There is great Word of Mouth…as attested by the 20% drops and the largest 6th weekend of all time.
2. It will be the biggest grosser of all time domestic and worldwide in today’s dollars but as Dave said what does it matter. It is a tremendous achievement…this is the Google IPO of the film business and James Cameron had done it twice!!! And he has done it twice not during the summer season but in the shortened holiday season and regular winter season (when kids are in school during the week).
3. But, even though it will sell more tickets than The Dark Knight, Dave, you cannot say Avatar’s domestic gross is not boosted by 3d and Imax 3d ticket prices compared to Dark Knight (whose ticket price range had a boost only from IMAX ticket prices compared to regular movies). Yes, it is a silly argument as you state but it is still a truthful argument even if Avatar is only boosted by 5 to 20%. And as I reiterate Avatar will overtake the ticket sales of Dark Knight, but probably not Titanic domestically.
But, I do have to take issue with “The Academy will never regret handing this film Best Picture.” What are you freaking Nostradamus? Can you peer into the future 10 to 50 years from now and know that Avatar will not be looked on as 2009 version of “Around the World in 80 Days” or “The Greatest Show on Earth”? Hey, to quote you, “There is nothing wrong with you having an opinion. But don’t delude yourself into thinking that your opinion…..is a fact.” Follow your own advice, Dave.
In my opinion (see how I state it is an opinion not a fact), giving the Oscar for Best Picture & Director would not do anything to further enhance the reputation of Avatar because even though the vast majority of critical opinion is overwhelmingly positive…I believe that most critics regard it is a great technical achievement but not a great film (to quote Roger Ebert in the recent Slate.com Film Club discussion).
Compare the reviews of Titanic and Avatar of 3 film critics who were positive about both films: Roger Ebert, Owen Gleiberman, and Peter Travers. All three of them are were much more complimentary of Titanic when compared to Avatar – only Roger Ebert put both films on his top 10 lists for their respective years. Gleiberman and Travers are especially critical of the banality of the script in their positive reviews. Now, one can say well Titanic was equally banal or as Ken Turan stated at the time “a hackneyed, completely derivative copy of old Hollywood romances”. However, when people talks about Titanic compared to Avatar (again opinion not fact) even in derisive terms, they remember the performances along with the highly skilled story sequences…Leo’s possibly greatest performance, the high camp of Billy Zane’s Cal Hockley and Kathy Bates, Gloria Stuart & Kate Winslet’s Oscar nominated performances, the tragic last scenes of Victor Garber and Bernard Hill (as the architect & ship captain) respectively. Hell, even the score & theme song are remembered and will be remembered long after Avatar is remembered as a technical achievement. Titanic is a great film that touches your heart but Avatar is great technical achievement with memorable direction but no memorable performances.
Dave, you are probably right that Avatar will win the Oscar for Best Picture/Director…but all that would prove Academy voters can by myopic, short sighted, and as gullible as high school prom voters or Obama “Yes We Can” followers. It will prove that the Oscar contest is a popularity contest for either the most liked or the most successful as far as box office (which it is)…I mean there have been questionable Oscar Best Pictures before ala Gladiator & American Beauty. In closing, all I can say is go Hurt Locker, Kathryn Bigelow, and Mark Boal.
To satisfy Dave’s journalistic standards, this is not fact but just my opinion.
I’d be perfectly happy for Hurt Locker to win… been saying so from the start. No one has been more supportive of the film.
And djiggs, it is clear that all of this is your opinion. I don’t actually hold commenters to journalistic standards. I don’t even hold all journalists to them… just the ones who pretend that they are doing strong reporting when all they are doing is regurgitating someone else’s publicity spin without actually thinking.
I’m on record as not liking Avatar, but it’s DEFINITELY a better movie than Sherlock Holmes, which is all Downey, Law, and production design and nothing else of merit.
Here’s a thought. Maybe all the hating on Avatar not having great writing, etc is that the story is so well balanced?
I guess a select few would’ve preferred seeing something like There Will Be Avatar.
Doug, what do you mean ‘well balanced’?
No one gives a shit Nicol. Game over man.
I’m saying the elements are all well thought out and well done. Some of the dialogue may sound a little tinny, but we forgive it because it gets the story across. I think the 3-D gets us in the right state of mind to accept the story as well.
It’s like Casablanca. Or Terminator 2. Everything contributes to the story.
Nice Bill Paxton quote there tb.
“What is fascinating about Avatar is that it is doing both what The Dark Knight did domestically (and The Potters and Pirates 2 and Spidey 3, etc did worldwide) AND what Titanic did.”
That’s Titanic PLUS The Dark Knight, DP. NOT Titanic x The Dark Knight.
But hurray for hyperbole. I didn’t think I’d ever say this but right now you are as bad as Finke.
But Roxane, why should Avatar have to put up with endless asterisks next to its name just because James Cameron was smart enough to realise 3D was a viable option of making money. Isn’t that the exact reason why 3D is popular again? Because “diminishing box office” (as some called it) was plaguing the industry and they needed new ways of getting people to actually purchase a movie ticket and put their arse in a seat.
Avatar was always going to have a better chance at success than a movie like Legion whether it was 3D or not. James Cameron, sci-fi, amazing visual effects were always going to make it a blockbuster. That it will or will not sell as many tickets as Shrek 2 is COMPLETELY BESIDES THE POINT! People are actually paying the higher premium costs and making the movie so successful.
In case you hadn’t noticed, times are tough and the idea of spending EXTRA money on a movie ticket surely isn’t that popular with families, but they’re doing it anyway. That’s why the success is even more impressive and no asterisks are necessary.
And, yeah, where are the asterisks next to The Dark Knight or I Am Legend for their IMAX releases or Coraline and The Final Destination? The truth is that you don’t care about putting asterisks next their names because they don’t fit into your argument.
“As far as the inflation bores go, as far as i can tell, the only $2 billion worldwide grossers, even adjuster are Titanic ($2.8b) and Star Wars ($2.2b).”
I’d love to see the details on how you adjusted Star Wars’ international gross. No, seriously. Especially in light of the other comments.
Or the reasoning on why you downplayed “Gone With the Wind”, especially considering that it’s playing in revival movie houses across America virtually every year and nobody’s ever even began to estimate what that might have brought in over the decades.
Or why, you neglect to mention E.T. or Jurrassic Park, both of which probably have an adjusted international gross of a billion dollars alone?
Let’s see, estimates are pulled out of thin air. Yours a pulled from a deeper place, I assume? Average ticket sales are innacurate. And irrelevant.
Inflation is irrelevant too.
Why bother, Poland? You are trying to make every single type of comparison seem ridiculous all while trying to make an exact science out of your Avatar columns. Nobody’s arguing that it’s a huge phenomenon. Why are you still tilting at windmills?
Kamkkaze,
Avatar’s “premium” pricing accounts for 65-80% of its box office which is why it’s worth noting. The Hollywood Reporter also noted Avatar’s 3D “upcharge”.
With “Avatar” set to soar past “Titanic” worldwide, it’s worth noting the sci-fi epic’s extra-dimensional weapon: 3D ticket upcharges.
The pic’s 3D venues have contributed 80% of its domestic boxoffice to date and internationally 65%. Imax 3D venues alone have contributed $134 million in global “Avatar” boxoffice.
So because Avatar was more successful in it’s 3D run than countless others before, it’s the one that gets the asterisk? SUPER.
But hurray for hyperbole. I didn’t think I’d ever say this but right now you are as bad as Finke.
All good questions, but I wouldn’t go anywhere near this far.
You have a fascinating ability to slide into high drama, Gonzo.
For the record, I spun out the adjusted international numbers by using the percentages of the domestic numbers. But as I keep saying, it’s no science… it’s gobbledeegook. ALL of it.
Only a moron could even compare this to Finke. You are free to disagree with my math, but it is MY math, not math Fox gave to me.
Roxane… are you intentionally misunderstanding the math on this or are the stats you have from Mojo – oy – just too simple and unformed.
If they are saying that 65%-80% of tickets sold are for 3D – a high figure – the actual 3D bump is still only about 25% of that percentage of overall box office.
25% of 80% is 20% of the overall box office for that 80% of tickets sold. So it’s only actually about a 20% bump.
No one is saying there isn’t a bump… just that we are well past the point where it will be the primary consideration in 90% of the records Avatar breaks.
Bumps are where you find them. Sure, Avatar may be getting a 3D bump, but Dark Knight and Spiderman had over 4000 screens for their first 3 weeks. Avatar? Just under 3500. That’s almost 20% advantage to TDK and SM right there. I don’t see anyone trying to put an asterisk next to their totals for passing Passion of the Christ which had a mere 3000 screens.
Nor do I see an asterisk next to Return of The King’s #3 international box office record, despite it being released in 66 territories compared to Pirates 2’s #4 record being achieved in 43 territories.
I don’t have a problem using these kind of stats for analysis, and some attempt at leveling the playing field to try and make comparisons is useful… but the handicaps being handed out in trying to establish the “Top of All Time” just seem arbitrary. If you want to be completely accurate, there’s going to have to be an asterisk for every single entry… at which point you may as well just say “Screw it, we’ll just go with the raw numbers”.
fascinating debate.
though i think the producers of avatar will have a hard time caring since they’re busy swimming in profit like Scrooge McDuck.
Man, the audacity of a studio successfully hyping and marketing their product. Outrageous. Nicol, are you suggesting that people are essentially being duped into seeing Avatar, week after week? That they are simple-minded and easily led astray, and actually have no desire to see it but just can’t resist the pretty colors and the hype? Because of course you don’t know anyone who loves it, which is a rock solid defense of your contention that good WOM has nothing to do with Avatar’s success.
Roxane and a few of you others: Higher ticket prices for Avatar is why the movie SHOULDN’T have an asterisk… people always assume that higher ticket prices are giving an unfair advantage to Avatar, helping it build up its gross faster than other films can. But do people ever think that the movie’s higher prices are discouraging many people from seeing it (remember the kind of economy we’re in the midst of, people), and that the movie’s gross is climbing and climbing DESPITE its premium pricing, not because of it?
Maybe what I’m saying is a little bit of a stretch, but I definitely think that the higher pricing is a hindrance/discouragement for at least some people, yet the movie is still drawing people in, despite lower-priced competition.
If higher ticket pricing is this great, wonderful way to boost your grosses without putting more butts in the seats, uh, wouldn’t every movie do it? It’s correctly seen, then, as a potential millstone around a movie’s neck, and Avatar is succeeding despite it.
If Avatar’s grosses were the result of marketing then they wouldn’t be breaking records, would they? Because if there was some massive marketing machine that could simply generate money at will, why wouldn’t it be used for every movie?
The marketing department is the constant in this formula. The movie is the variable.
Spoken like someone who has never worked anywhere near marketing.
That argument is flawed because you can just swap the two nouns: They teach filmmaking, and if there was some formula that could simply produce excellent films at wil, why wouldn’t they do it for every movie?
Actually, I wish all hit movies spun off toys, video games and other merchandise. I’m still bitterly disappointed that, back when Close Encounters of the Third Kind came out, Burger King didn’t give away Francois Truffaut action figures.
I want my nail-your-own Jesus.
Jeez I thought we’d all settled this argument. Avatar’s bump is 23-25%.
TDK ended with about 12% of its tix coming from Imax. It’s bump therefore is 3-4%.
Dave, you are right about the inaccurate $7.35 ticket price average of today. For 2009, the national ATP actually $7.46.
Gross v ticket sales? Why choose just one? They’re different records, like batting average and home runs.
You’re not a “hater” if you watch the ticket sales races anymore than you’re a fanboy if you watch the gross race.
How is it “whiny” or “infantile” to pay attention to lots of different units of measurement?
An asterisk is a punctuation mark. An asterix is a comic book character.
That is all.
I’ve not given it too much thought, so forgive me if this is completely off-base, but isn’t the reason anyone would care about tickets sold simply to act as some evidence of a film’s cultural impact?
I guess if such a statistic were possible to generate, it would have some value in that regard, but there are so many other factors it couldn’t account for that I’m not sure that it would be worth the effort. For instance, repeat viewings. Is a film more of a cultural phenomenon if it sells 70 mil. tickets, 15 mil. of which are repeat business, or a movie that sells 65 mil. tickets with only 5 mil. repeaters? Does Avatar’s inflated price actually make it less likely to get as much repeat business as Titanic? If so, does that mean that it doesn’t need to sell as many tickets to have as much of an impact? Is the fact that a bunch of teenage girls reportedly saw Titanic as many as five or six times mean anything? And if so, does that demonstrate a greater cultural impact or less of an impact because it actually means less people saw it in the theater.
Sorry if I’m rambling, but I guess what I’m getting at is that although my knee jerk reaction would be that of course tickets sold tells you something about a film’s cultural impact or lack thereof, the more I think about the numerous factors effecting the end number, the less I think the stat means very much. I think a better barometer of a film’s impact is whether people get dressed up like the characters from the movie when going to see it. Using that simple test, adjusted for inflation or not, Star Wars will always kick GWTW’s ass. Thank you for reading my ramblings.
I’d say AVATAR proves that marketing is worthless. Go back and read most of the pre-release disses of the film. AVATAR is a word of mouth, like INGLORIOUS BASTERDS.
Mostly Lurking: Excellent thoughts. I hadn’t thought of how repeating viewings could foul up the conclusions one would draw from ticket sales figures. Yet one more angle that shows us how much we don’t know.
As for dressing up like the characters, I recognize that that comment was tongue-in-cheek, but it does indicate another complication: if the movie’s appeal is to a demographic that WOULD dress up as movie characters, and another doesn’t, you simply can’t compare them.
The same can be said of the merchandising angle that Nicol keeps bringing up like it’s the only stat that means anything. If a movie’s appeal is to a demographic that’s keen on toys and figurines, and those sell, great. But if another movie has equal appeal — but to a demographic that wouldn’t buy figurines anyway — you can’t compare the two on merchandising figures alone.
The bottom line is that you can’t really infer anything but guesses and estimations from box office statistics unless what you’re looking for is exactly — no more and no less but exactly — what the statistic purports to say. That is, if a movie makes $100 million at the domestic box office, then the sum total of what that statistic tells you for sure is: how much money the movie made at the domestic box office.
Even then, it’s an approximation. But try to infer other things from the number, and your margin of error skyrockets.
Just curious: What percentage of the US population in 1939 went to see Gone With the Wind during its first-run release? What percentage of the US population in 1977 went to see Star Wars during its first-run release? What percentage of the US population in 2010 will wind up seeing Avatar during its first-run release?
“I’d say AVATAR proves that marketing is worthless. Go back and read most of the pre-release disses of the film.”
Not exactly. The standard model that marketing tries to move you along is:
Awareness -> Knowledge -> Preference -> Loyalty -> Advocacy
The marketing did completely balls up “Preference” (as your noting of pre-release dissing indicates), and I personally think the “Knowledge” aspect was screwed with respect to the 3D tech (the overwhelming immersive experience came as a complete surprise to many ). But they really did well with Awareness – people sure as hell knew that the “Jim Cameron movie with the cat people” was coming.
And word of mouth doesn’t get you a $77million opening weekend. We may live in the age of twitter and iphones, but that’s not enough to persuade over 5 million people to go in the space of 48 hours. Word of mouth may be a key driver in Avatar’s record breaking success, but starting off with almost 10 million people to spread that word I think helped quite a bit.
“As for dressing up like the characters, I recognize that that comment was tongue-in-cheek, but it does indicate another complication: if the movie’s appeal is to a demographic that WOULD dress up as movie characters, and another doesn’t, you simply can’t compare them.”
It was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but somewhat serious as well. Although I do recognize that not all movies appeal to a dressing up as the characters crowd, I still think that people lining up in costume at least offers anecdotal evidence of a movie’s cultural impact. If I were going for complete tongue-in-cheek, I would have called The Rocky Horror Picture Show the most culturally relevant movie of all time.
“Just curious: What percentage of the US population in 1939 went to see Gone With the Wind during its first-run release? What percentage of the US population in 1977 went to see Star Wars during its first-run release? What percentage of the US population in 2010 will wind up seeing Avatar during its first-run release?”
Based on his post from a few weeks back, I’m guessing that David would tell you that it’s impossible to know since the data for tickets sold cannot be accurately measured, especially from as far back as 1939. Even if it were, and at the risk of repeating myself so quickly, you still couldn’t know without accounting for repeat viewership.
Joe you know as well as anyone there’s no way to measure that statistic due to a bunch of factors including repeat viewings.
However if I had to bet on it I’d go with “Shrek 2” among films released since 2000=)
It would be kind of interesting to know what percentage of the population in 1939 even had access to movie theaters, vs. 1977 and 2010. I’d imagine GWTH wasn’t playing on 3000 screens, and a much larger percentage of the population was in rural areas with barely any roads, much less movie screens. And of course, african americans probably weren’t even allowed in many theaters (assuming they would even want to see GWTW).
“It would be kind of interesting to know what percentage of the population in 1939 even had access to movie theaters, vs. 1977 and 2010. I’d imagine GWTH wasn’t playing on 3000 screens, and a much larger percentage of the population was in rural areas with barely any roads, much less movie screens. And of course, african americans probably weren’t even allowed in many theaters (assuming they would even want to see GWTW).”
GWTW’s prints toured around the country, getting into small towns that often didn’t get even wide releases. It was a cultural phenomenon. They even declared a holiday in Georgia at its release.
You are right that African Americans weren’t allowed in many theaters. Famously, Hattie McDaniel (who won an Oscar for her role in the film) was barred from the premiere.
One of the reasons I like to compare ticket sales as well as total gross is that it provokes questions like this about film history. It’s important to keep touch on America’s cultural history.
Some people seem to be pretty angry that movies played a different role in 1939 and 1965 than they do now with differences at the box office. I find it fascinating.
When Gone With the Wind came out, there were no TVs or computers. So the only cheap and mass market forms of entertainment was radio and maybe print. Therefore let’s put a big asterisk on that since people didn’t have much choice expect to go to the movies, especially if they wanted free air conditioning…let’s call it the Lack of Options bump.
…except…
1. Based on what Ed Havens? Have you counted all the tickets sold and their prices?
2. Foamy – The idea of marketing as a constant is wrong, in that some marketing is better than other marketing. But where it is right is that budgets on the bigger movies tend to be comparable. The argument that the size of the machine – which is what Nicol seems to be going on about – is markedly different is not the reality.
Then the question is, did Avatar have the best marketing of all time? I doubt, as someone I assume is in marketing, you would think so. I think some of their ideas, which were slapped at in the media, were a lot more effective than the media thought or thinks. From the poster to the trailers to the TV spots, they left the audience wanting more, not less, and kept everything past the first act a surprise. Smart.
3. Adam Call Roberts – Because different units of measurement are grsndly imprecise… often because of a specific lack of detailed facts and more often because they factor out many relevant details.
No one should be downplaying Gone With The Wind or Star Wars or any massively successful movies of their era. That’s never the point of my writing on this. But the only number that’s close to solid is the one that is actively reported… gross. After that, it’s all narrow, weird alley ways. Star Wars wasn’t on TV much because beck then, network was a better deal than pay-cable. But more people watched TV. And with GOTW, there was no television, much less cable, VHS or DVD. How does one measure the tube (not TV… the feeding of the film to the public)? It’s an impossible guess. How many people paid to see a movie? How many people actually saw the movie? How many people bought bootlegs? How do you measure people in China, who chose to pay $4 a ticket to go to the movie instead of $1 or less to buy the bootleg on the streets?
Sam is right about the degree of error skyrocketing.
My thing is, I don’t care that much…but I HATE watching things like this get caught up in the misleading minutae of a lazy media that decides that even though there is no remotely official 2009 ticket cost number, Ed Havens has one, Mojo has another, Pauly D has another, etc…but NYT runs it as factual and sheep follow.
4. Lurking – We have NO idea what the repeat business is. We have surveying, which is always off by some percent, often more than 20%, and experiential evidence, which is always dangerous.
There is no way of measuring a phenomenon, unless media interest is your measure, which is a horrible measure of anything but media interest.
But it’s fair to say that over 150 million people seeing a movie in a theater in 38 days is something phenomenal.
I agree that none of these movies have a cultural impact like they used to have. Culture is too spread out. And then, it really is the gossip rags that push out fashion, etc. No movie star not wearing a t-shirt could hurt t-shirt sales much anymore. But you can bet that Paris Hilton and crew going pantiless sent a lot of young girls out without coverage for months afterwards.
Weird.
“4. Lurking – We have NO idea what the repeat business is. We have surveying, which is always off by some percent, often more than 20%, and experiential evidence, which is always dangerous.”
Just a point of clarification, in my response to Joe, I was trying to get across that even if you could accurately track number of tickets sold (which I’ve gathered from your postings that you can’t), it still wouldn’t tell you much without knowing about the number of repeat business (which I also presumed was not available).
Jeez, if I don’t stop soon I’m gonna’ have to change my name.
Actually, I wasn’t aiming to put fuel on the fire. Just trying to figure out what constitutes “a cultural phenomenon.” It seems fairly obvious to me that, at this rate, before very long, Avatar will make enough money at the box-office to render asterisks useless. It will be the No. 1 Moneymaker of All Time, hands down, no doubt about it. But cultural phenomenon? I honestly don’t know how you measure that. Do video game and toy sales really indicate that? What about a movie’s degree of influence on other areas of pop culture and/or everyday life? I mean, Bonnie and Clyde and Annie Hall influenced fashion crazes. Will Avatar do anything even remotely similar? For the record: I saw Avatar — is 3-D IMAX, on Christmas Day — and liked it. Not on my list of all-time favorites — probably not even on my Best of 2009 list — but I was entertained and felt I got my money’s worth. So I’m not hating on James Cameron. But then again… Well, put it this way: I remember when Love Story sold one hell of a lot of hardcovers and paperbacks. That was one great big flopping cultural phenom. But how much press did Erich Segal’s did get last week? Compared to, say, the death of Robert B. Parker?
So I guess we won’t really know if Avatar is a cultural phenomenon until we see if the Na’vi costumes sell out at Halloween?
Yeah but Joe, how many Love Story action figures got sold huh huh huh???
palmtree: Maybe if we see them in 2011 and no one goes, “what the hell are you supposed to be?”
There’s one other thing about the 3D/IMAX thing that I know can’t be measured but I think there’s a portion of the tix sold were all or nothing for inclusion in the total. The fact that some screens were sold old 2-3 weeks in advance tells me that people were willing to wait or not see it at all. What that means to the bo total I can’t tell you but that even in trying to calc the bump, I’m not sure it’s being done all that accurately.
I thought visually and from a technical stand point the film was remarkable. I thought the story, length, dialog and characters were so rudimentary, bad and played out that they detracted from my movie going experience. Anybody who asked I’d tell them all of this and say, “You should prolly go see it just to see it.”
I don’t know when repeat biz should be a consideration. I’d imagine w/all hit films there’s gonna be that. I think it creates an explanation for the bo total and weekly contributions Titanic had. We know teen girls were seeing it over and over again but to what percentage of the total, I don’t know if anyone could come up w/an accurate measure.
Dave… based on the North American Theatre Owners’ internal numbers, of which the company I am employed by is a member. And so far for 2010, we’re looking at a $7.75 average ticket price.
Joe… I can’t tell you what percentage of the US population in 1939 went to see Gone With the Wind during its first-run release, as those records are, alas, gone with the wind. But I was able to find in a 1957 book by Bosley Crowther about MGM called “The Lion’s Share: The Story of an Entertainment Empire,” where he writes MGM proudly proclaimed to him in 1950 that GWTW had sold 50m tickets in its first ten years of release. I had no reason to doubt the good word of Mr. Crowther, so I will accept it as fact.
In fact, I once planned on writing an article about the fallacy of adjusted for inflation grosses, using GWTW as my template. I started going to the Academy library on La Cienega and poured through every issue of Variety from December 15, 1939 on, to get the ticket sales and prices from each roadshow engagement of the film, but it proved too much of a task at that time. I may go back to it once my main professional life simmers down, but that’ll still be a few months away.
Yeah, but remember: Bosley Crowther panned Bonnie and Clyde… LOL.
DP – I think you’ve misattributed one of Eric’s comments to me, specifically “marketing is the constant”.
Having said that, leaving “people wanting more” is definitely a good idea – however, one of the touchstones of marcomms is that you shouldn’t hide the “secret sauce” if at all possible. In this case, the immersiveness of the 3D experience came as a surprise – primarily, I think, because they chose for whatever reason to emphasise aural communication (people talking about how good it is) over visual (people showing how good it is – an anaglyphic youtube trailer might be an example).
That may be cool for a post-experience high (“holy crap, that was so much more than I expected!”), but it doesn’t help in convincing people to hand over their money before the experience. It may be the best experience in the world, but if consumers don’t know that ahead of time you’re going to have an uphill battle. It’s hard to find a balance though – the annals of movie marketing are filled with overpromising and underdelivering.
I don’t think they did a BAD job – the opening weekend numbers are a testament to all the good stuff they did (and they were bang on from an awareness and premise perspective). However, I don’t think they did a PERFECT job either. I’ll happily take to task people who say either “marketing had no impact” or “the marketing was flawless”.
Incidentally, I don’t work in marketing – I work in consulting (which is probably worse ;)).
I ought to clarify what I meant when I said that “marketing is the constant” because it was imprecisely worded and thus understandably misinterpreted. I didn’t mean to imply that there’s no difference between good marketing and bad marketing, only that all movies are marketed and thus attributing Avatar’s success to an unfair advantage is silly.
Perhaps that statement is so simple as to be axiomatic but somehow Nicol can remove the movie itself from the equation altogether. That’s what I meant to respond to. Six weeks ago Nicol was saying that audiences would reject the movie because of its extremist liberal content. Now that he’s been proven wrong (as usual) he’s changed his argument (as usual) to say that audiences are indifferent to the movie’s content and are instead somehow coerced into buying tickets by an unprecedented weapon of mass hypnotization.
The U.S. population in 1949 was 149,188,130. So if Gone With the Wind did indeed sell 50 million tickets in its first 10 years of release — we’re talking about a third of the population. (Keeping in mind, of course, there are other variables to consider: Multiple viewings, fatalities — some people who saw the film in ’39 or ’40 were no longer alive in ’49 — and so forth.) The current U.S. population is 308,559,505. How many tickets has Avatar sold so far? Well, if we use the NATO figure of $7.75 per ticket — thanks, Edward — and divide that into a North American box-office tally (so far) of $551,741,499, we get — well, considerably less than a third of the current U.S. population. Again, there are other factors to consider: Multiple viewings, fatalities — at the risk of sounding ghoulish, some people who saw the movie have already joined the Choir Invisible — and so on.) And, more to the point, Avatar is still in first-run release, and conceivably could sell another 30 million tickets before 2019 through sporadic reissues. (Just wait until we get the 2015 re-release with holograms!)
But, then again, who can tell what the population in 2019 will be?
BTW: I’m not including homevideo, cable and broadcast TV exposure in this calculation, by the way, because that really wouldn’t be fair to Avatar — GWTW has a 30-plus year head start in that area. In fact, I’d venture to say that if you did include the other exposure, you might find that, counting only people who are alive right now, this very instant, more people have seen Grease or Top Gun than Avatar. Disagree? Well, at the risk of sounding like Criswell at the end of Plan 9 from Outer Space — can you prove you’re right?
I don’t have the figures to back this up, but “common wisdom” is that a lot more people went to movies — and more often — in the 20s and 30s than they do now. Even during the Depression, people somehow found money for the escape that the movies provided. That’s why so many 30s films are about the upper class and high society and so forth.
I suppose there are several reasons for this: one, movies were a relatively new form of entertainment, so there was real novelty value that they don’t have anymore; two, far fewer entertainment alternatives (you had stage shows and concerts and the beginnings of radio drama, but no television, computers, or video games); three, the movies made then tended to appeal to much wider demographics than most individual films do today.
The two major drop-offs in attendance, as I understand it, were in the 40s (not sure why) and in the late 60s and early 70s when films started getting more explicit with sex and violence and thus alienating a huge segment of the population (presumably seniors and parents) that started to feel like nobody was making movies for them anymore.
All of this, especially the last paragraph, is based on what I understand from what I remember learning from various references I can’t cite, so it’s all subject to debate. But I think the gist of it is correct, which boils down to the fact that audiences of the 1920s were a lot more attached to movies than audiences of today, and so it does not surprise me in the slightest if Gone With the Wind was seen by a substantially higher percentage of the population than that which saw Titanic or Avatar.
It seems unlikely that the movies will ever reclaim those audiences, either. One, it’s inconceivable that the number of entertainment outlets available to us will ever decrease; two, there is too much financial safety in catering to niches to risk producing only four-quadrant pictures. But chasing lucrative niches means other niches get left out.
Sam: Movie attendance dropped in the late ’40s, and continued to drop throughout the ’50s, because of TV.
Joe: That would have been my guess, except that I thought attendance started dropping around ’43 or ’44. TV shouldn’t have had an impact until ’48 or so. Then again, maybe I have the start of the decline pegged too early.
Sam: Movie attendance actually spiked during WWII, for a variety of reasons. (I would imagine many folks went to the neighborhood Bijou to watch newsreels.)
Sam, also take into account that this was the audience’s only chance to see the movies, there was no television, no home video, once it was gone it was percieved to be gone forever unless it was popular enough for revival.
@Eric: Nicol is spot-on. It’s not that hard to figure out why “Avatar” got so big.
Breathless Hype! Corporate Synergy! Hard Sell! Name-Checking! Product Tie-Ins! Worldwide Day-and-Date Release!
Allow me to retort: shut up, loser.
Well…”Avatar” is officially a cultural phenomenon in China. The country renamed one of its most famous mountains “Hallelujah Mountain” in honor of the movie and is now offering Avatar-themed tours.
It doesn’t get much bigger than that.
Not really an important issue or question, but just an observation:
Even after all this hype and success… DOES ANYONE IN THE WORLD KNOW WHO SAM WORTHINGTON IS?
Just odd that after all this success and hype and talk of it being a phenomenon, that’s the male lead isn’t even enjoying the usual premature hype that comes with fronting a big hit… like when suddenly Vin Diesel was THE NEW MULTICULTURAL FACE OF AMERICA and a 20mil sure thing after the first F&F, or how Gerard Butler went from B-lister to MAJOR STAR after 300.
We all know Worthington’s already got a bunch of other sure-to-be-hits lined up, but has any perfectly likable, viable (if generic) leading man come out of a MASSIVE INTERNATIONAL HIT with as little name recognition?
I guess it doesn’t help that he’s in blue Navi disguise for half the movie, but during Titanic Mania, Leo was bigger than the Beatles.
Sam Worthington’s barely bigger than Lochlyn Munro.
Holy shit, EthanG…I hadn’t heard that. Yeah, if you get a fucking MOUNTAIN named after your movie, you’re a phenomenon.
And yeah, no one knows or cares who Sam Worthington is. But I’d say that few know or care who Christian Bales is either, and he’s been in two Batman movies. I don’t know, these guys just sort of seem like wallpaper. Michael Keaton stood out as Batman even against Nicholson and weird ass production design and Prince.
Yeah it’s actually “Avatar Hallelujah Mountain.”
http://www.newser.com/story/79256/china-renames-mountain-after-avatar.html
Re: Worthington, I’d say the most similar movie to it is “Jurassic Park” in that that movie didn’t make Sam Neil and Laura Dern household names and was just as big in its day…
what’s really bizarre though is that Worthington is getting casing leads in “Terminator,” “Clash of the Titans,” and “Dracula: Year Zero.” That just blows my mind.
This goes back to my much disputed post in an earlier thread. Worthington has no recognition? Of course not! He’s never mentioned in a trailer, and all the credits of his films are at the end when people are walking out. So how is anyone expected to know his name?
I still haven’t seen AVATAR or any other Worthington films, but I’ve seen plenty of clips and photos and whatnot — and I still couldn’t pick him out of a lineup. He showed no charisma or presence in his Golden Globe presenter spot either. His name isn’t memorable. I haven’t seen one review that seems overly impressed by his acting or star power. It’s an odd thing. Until I see one of his performances for myself, I just have to assume he’s fantastic in auditions and meetings.
I took notice of Worthington (and Abbie Cornish) when I saw Somersault about three or four years ago. Good movie. He’s also in the awesome killer crocodile flick Rogue, quite amusingly portraying a moron.
ABBIE CORNISH YEP YEP.
YEP. HOT CHICK. WANT HER.
Chucky: Wait, Avatar is making bank in part because of name-checking? I thought you were always saying that name-checking causes audiences to stay AWAY from movies.
Oh fuck, Chucky has been caught.
I’d love it if he would respond, but we all know he won’t.