Friday Estimates by Klady – A4
I know… this Avatar Domination is getting boring. Another day, another record. It will easily be the biggest Fourth Weekend in history. As far as I can tell, the best Fourth Friday in domestic history before this was Narnia’s $9.7m, which was on December 30, 2005. #2 on the chart seems to be The Dark Knight with $7.6 million, on which The ‘Tar makes a 78% improvement. Still, TDK remains in the day-by-day lead as of Day 22 by $29 million.
Avatar is already #2 only to Titanic internationally and is still playing strong. Even if it “just” does $1 billion international, it will be a remarkable number. Asterisk all you like, but the $1.8 billion Titanic number seemed insurmountable and here comes a film – an original – that will be the first to get as close a 2/3 of the way… and looks like it will get within a few hundred million… a much smaller bridge to cross. The leap from #1s to #2s can be huge, Dark Knight being the most extreme example ever. But it’s not hard to imagine Avatwo being the first $200 million domestic opening (assuming a summer release), with many more 3D screens available by 2013, and a $400 million opening weekend worldwide.
On the Domestic track, ‘Tard passed Trannys 2 yesterday… it is now past Spider-Man on East Coast matinees… by the end of the weekend, it should be past Pirates 2 and Phantom Menace to be the #6 domestic grosser of all time. Before next weekend, it will pass ET to become #5. Over next weekend, it will pass Shrek 2 and close in on Star Wars (which has an inflated gross by way of re-release). That will leave only TDK and Titanic in the way.
I expect next weekend – keep in mind that it’s a holiday – to be a tight race with The Book of Eli. The drops for movies in the range of “Tar are in the mid-20s to low 30s for the 3-day of the 4-day holiday. Titanic actually went up 5%. So put Avatar at about $30 million for the 3-day. Only Cloverfield, the Star Wars re-release, Paul Blart, and Gran Torino‘s expansion are at that number for a January opening/expansion. And Denzel has only one $30m launch on his resume’… American Gangster with Russell Crowe co-starring, not Gary Oldman.
Really, the date kinda sucks for Eli, but February is already chock full of testosterone (The Wolfman, Shutter Island, and the ew-this-could-be-ugly Percy Jackson & The Olympians: The Lightning Thief. And WB has Clash of the Titans to open in March. If the movie sucks, the should be moving forward. If not, it seems like a very good late summer kind of movie. Of course, Warners has the Chris Nolan movie, which is also a complex sell, in late July already. With 20 movies already on the schedule for 2010, WB remains the most prolific distributor in town… and sometimes, that leaves movies like Eli in an iffy slot. Or maybe they are happy with us all thinking the film is Mad Max Goes On The Road.
Nice number for Daybreakers, the movie they didn’t really want to release. Cloverfield, Paul Blart, and Taken dwarf this number, but paying attention to the economies of scale, this is a strong result for Lionsgate.
Sherlock, ‘Munks2, Complicated, Princess Frog and surprisingly, the unending fountain of green, The Blind Side, are all on the low side of expectations for the weekend.
Oscar contender Up In The Air had a 17% screen expansion and is still down and estimated 51% Friday-to-Friday. $70m – $80m domestic for a modestly budgeted movie is certainly a success. But it’s not a wildfire. After all, it’s likely to be outgrossed by It’s Complicated when all is said and done. You can kinda feel Paramount’s muscled up marketing department straining a little on this one. It is a terrific movie. But it’s not a straight rom-com, which is how they keep trying to sell it in tv ad revision after revision, now completely disregarding the real story of the film and using the third act wedding to pump up the rom-com cred.
Leap Year is, under the circumstances, not an outright disaster. But it’s kind of a disaster. It’s a major leap forward for Amy Adams, whose only other real “It’s Amy!!!’ opening was Miss Pettigrew, which opened to about a quarter of what the Leapy number will be. But it’s half of what Fox opened Bride Wars to last year on the same weekend… and Bride Wars was a bit of a bust domestically, considering the cast. And in the Leap case, I don’t see international coming to the rescue.
No estimate for “Doctor Parnassus”? It went national this week and at least semi-wide.
Avatar is now performing like Return of the King, percentage wise. Which would make a for a 70%+ increase today.
I hope one of those Bitch Slap theatres is in LA, I’m from Toronto, but I can’t wait to hear Lex’s review.
Also, not a bad number on Daybreakers. I plan on seeing it today or tomorrow.
Just think, in 50 years when tickets cost $40, the Titanic numbers will be beaten every year!
It’s about time for Wolfman. I need some monster movie shit.
“Star Wars” being inflated to re-release is similar to Avatar being inflated by 3D. FYI Tranny2 is being passed today not yesterday…but by the end of the weekend this “non-cultural phenom” will have passed Attack of The Clones, the top Harry Potter movie and the first two LOTR films adjusted for inflation.
The “Leap Year” number is especially depressing next to “Bride Wars.”
The “Youth in Revolt” number actually seems ok given the theatre count. Saw it yesterday and enjoyed it.
Poort Tim Allen. His directorial debut is a catastrophe.
I wonder if, in the immense silence of his mountain palace, sitting on a gold toilet in an italian marble bathroom, Cameron can hear the imperceptible buzzing of the haters?
I find it ironic that DP makes a note to asterisk Star Wars for its “inflated” total because of the re-releases, yet if we were really taking inflation into account, its original take in 1977/78 of $215 million would now be worth about $750 million, slightly edging out even E.T.’s adjusted first-run tally of $349 million (which converts to $744 mil).
If you’re going to try and make things relative, then go all the way instead of just bending it enough to make Avatar look better. And I say this as someone who hopes it breaks these record and supplants Titanic in the #1 spot.
I’m actually happy about the Leap Year #. Hopefully it will dissuade Amy Adams from going down the Meg Ryan career path.
Ethan – That Star Wars thing… not smart. For one thing, the re-releases make up a full third of the film’s domestic gross. This is not true of the 3D bump… and wouldn’t be even if it was a 100% 3D release.
For another, it’s an other one of those apples & oranges things, like inflation-adjusted grosses.
The first Star Wars films arrived two box office generations ago. The last set of films is from the last generation of box office. Dark Knight, Avatar, and Polar Express, etc, are part of this generation of box office, which includes IMAX, 3D and other ways to raise some percentage of ticket prices.
Perm exhibits the false thinking on this… if ticket prices continued to rise as they have in recent decades, the ticket price would still be under $30, even with 3D or IMAX extra pricing, in 50 years.
What people outside of the industry, including most journalists, forget completely is that no one who really has to worry about box office is doing all this parsing. They’re just trying to hit bigger and bigger numbers, however they can.
Really, you can go the opposite direction on this issue, if you choose to. For instance, Titanic had the opportunity to run at a high level domestically (over $1m a weekend) for 27 weeks. It also ran very long internationally.
In 1977, Star Wars went 29 weekends over $1 million in first run and then a bunch of weeks in second run.
By 1999, Phantom Menace could manage only 16 weeks at that level.
2001 – Potter 1 – 12 weeks.
2002 – Spider-Man had only a 10 weeks at that level
2005 – Sith… 10 week run. Pirates 2… 11 weeks. Dark Knight… 11 weeks.
Who can say that faster is better? But a bunch of events happened in exhibition to change the standards. The multiplexing of america, the death of second run, the arrival of sell-thru VHS and then DVD, the exhibition bankruptcies, the chance to a 555 flat system from a system that encouraged exhibitors to hold screens…
But all anyone seems to want to write about is inflation and estimated ticket sales via ticket price estimates… and now, 3D premium pricing.
Avatar will have more than double the domestic gross after 4 weekends that Titanic did. Does that mean it is 1/2 as successful? Stupid, right?
The picture almost always needs to be bigger, not smaller.
Laz – I am just pointing out that the Star Wars position at #3 all-time domestic is greatly different than say, Raiders of the Lost Ark, because it had a massively successful re-release which is counted in the number.
I compare grosses to grosses. And when I am offering #this or #that, do you not think that the re-release deserves mention?
I’m not bending anything to make anything look better. I write what I would want an author to note if I were reading something about the numbers without doing any research.
I never understand why people balk at having all the information. And I am 100% clear on NOT believing in inflation numbers or tickets sold as stats. I’m not tricking anyone. I’m not manipulating. And it’s not like Avatar isn’t passing Star Wars’ gross, all-in.
“I am 100% clear on NOT believing in inflation numbers or tickets sold as stats.”
Then what do you believe in? You can cover behind different movies existing in different box office “generations” but for as long as you continue to compare Star Wars to Avatar in any way the number of tickets sold will still be the BEST measure of all time success (and ajdusting for inflation is still the best way to get an estimate for the # of tickets sold when this information is not available). Even with all other things being UNEQUAL, he who brought most people into theaters is he who experienced the best feeling of success.
Yes, you were not necessarily wrong to point out the fact that Star Wars was re-released (in altered state no less) but let’s not forget that not every high grossing movie could be re-released as successfully as Star Wars.
And you know something else? I bet the 3D premium that Avatar has could come pretty close to 1/3 of it’s domestic gross. There are a lot of variables here like the number of people who choose to see it for the second time in 2D that cannot be measured very easily.
The 3D premium doesn’t even constitute 1/3 of the price of a 3D ticket. How would it constitute 1/3 of Avatar’s total domestic gross?
I wouldn’t be surprised if the number of 3D tickets sold far exceeds 1/3 of the total number of tickets sold, but that’s a different calculation.
(Not trying to be argumentative, just wondering how you’re arriving at that conclusion.)
“The 3D premium doesn’t even constitute 1/3 of the price of a 3D ticket. How would it constitute 1/3 of Avatar’s total domestic gross?”
I don’t know how much you paid for your tickets, Eric but I paid $16(IMAX) and $14(Real D) for mine. I also know at least two people who paid $18 for their IMAX tickets. Now, I know that only a relatively small proportion of population saw the Avatar in IMAX but even Real D tickets cost exactly 33% higher than normal adult tickets in the AMC theater where I live.
I could also make an arguement about the fact that Avatar being in 3D increases the number of people who choose to see it again because it’s in 3D or how the it being in 3D changed people’s curiosity level but these things are impossible to measure (and separate from the film’s overall qualitity level).
In the end, the 3D bump may not be exactly a third but I’d very suprised if it would be significantly lower either, subjective issues and all.
I’m no economist, and maybe this is overly simplistic but the “adjusted for inflation” argument for putting a 30 year old over a current movie seems bogus. The price of EVERYTHING has increased. The average amount of $$ a family needs to survive has “inflated.” Gas, electric, FOOD, clothing,shelter, health care….so if 100% of what we consume has increased in cost then you can’t adjust STAR WARS for inflation and claim it grossed more than AVATAR or whatever. To me it’s about the percentage of people per family who paid to see it, or simply what percentage of a family’s entertainment money was used on AVATAR
I don’t know if I’m explaining this well at all. But to simplify even further: say you had a $20 a week entertainment budget in 1979, and spent $5 on a movie. That’s 25% of your budget. In 2009 you have (if you’re lucky) $80. You spend $20 on a movie. 25% for each person who saw the movie, on average.
25% in 1979 is not more than 25% in 2009. It’s still 25%.
Again I know JACK SQUAT about economics. If I am wrong I’ll be glad to hear from somebody. But to me that seems pretty fucking logical.
Also, I don’t know if this is an indication of it’s popularity but my 10 y/o daughter fucking LOVES those Percy Jackson books. Devoured them like lonely single cos-playing women devour TWILIGHT. She is drooling for the movie. She loves sci/fi and fantasy anyway. But if the movie is even CHIPMUNKS level quality, and it’s not just Lily who loves the books….you never know. TWILIGHT numbers??? No way. But might not be the predetermined flop it’s being labelled as. But the geek segment always shits on anything that isn’t aimed at them. percy jackson isn’t for them or you or me (although I’ll be sucked in to taking the kids….). Go into any Borders or B & N and there are huge display tables with the books, card games, figures….
Steve, people who make adjustments take all of the things you’ve listed (which is really just a single issue) into account (at least implcitly). They usually take the real average price of tickets from the time from which they are adjusting and “convert” to real average ticket price of today. As you can see, because estimates are based on real ticket prices in both cases they reflect what people were actually spending during both times and aren’t just some.
Honestly, without going into too much detail, this type of estimation almost has more to do with Statistics (since avg ticket price does not noramally refelct actual ticket price anyone ever paid) then than economics*. The estimates may not be very precise, yes, and the error may vary from movie to movie but they are good enough for giving a general idea of a movie would have grossed during the same period under different prices/wages.
In any case, it is understood that when people talk about ticket price inflation they don’t forget that the price of nearly everything tends to go up with time.
*For what it’s worth, I actually studied a lot of economics and statistics.
Ahhhh. I didn’t take into account that the phrase “adjusted for inflation” meant more than movie ticket price.
That should have sort of been obvious I guess. But that’s why I have a Masters in English and not number-learnin’
Side note: i hate the Jets so much. Being a Dolphins fan makes that natural but they smell like a team that could make an unlikely run.
They also smell like poopy.
I’m sorry for the following if it has been discussed before but I just watched AVATAR for the first time and am a little disappointed with how LITTLE 3D it had and I’d like to know if others felt the same way. Here’s the thing:
I didn’t feel the 3D was utilised for much of the movie. In fact, the shots were the 3D was apparent were limited. For example; when Jake wakes up from cryo-sleep, when the characters are looking at their holographic monitors, when the jellyfish float down…
I watched PIXAR’S UP last summer, and although Pixar did the smart thing by making the 3D subtle, not gimmicky or in-your-face, I was still aware of the 3D in UP and quite enjoyed the effect. It was gentle but always present. But I just didn’t notice it in AVATAR, by that I mean, I could tell that I was looking at a 2D presentation for most of the movie.
My eyesight is fine, I don’t wear prescription glasses, and the projection in my theatre was fine as far as I could tell. And it was RealD.
Also, for such a colourful movie (from what I saw in the ads and stills), it was quite dim in the theatre. Was it because of the glasses, or maybe because the light in the projector wasn’t intense enough?
If anyone can chime in I’d be quite grateful. Thanks.
The reason why I don’t give as much weight to the ‘adjusted for inflation’ argument is that there are too many variables that make this too much of an apple to oranges argument, and its impossible to know the answer. Sure its an easy calculation to make, and you could put up a chart that says ‘tickets sold: 10M’. But then wouldn’t that give a boost to kids flicks that have lots of 1/2 price admissions, or what if a movie studio decided that for pride sake they would slash ticket prices to bump up admissions to prove that many people went to see the movie.
Money earned is a constant, and the parameter by which all business is determined. Even in the auto industry where units sold contribute a larger percentage toward the decision making, some car companies can survive on selling fewer units than others that need to move larger numbers in order to keep their head above water.
And as far as media goes, the penetration is not what it use to be, and maybe the definition of ‘cultural phenomenon’ needs to be tweaked. MASH, Seinfeld, Cheers, Who shot JR, all did audience numbers that would dwarf todays #1 shows, and while everyone can calculate how much Gone with the Wind would have made in todays dollars, no one can truly say what Avatar would have made had it been released 20 years ago. Sure, you could do the math, but then would that be fair?
I’m kinda looking forward to Percy Jackson. I think Columbus did a bang-up job setting up the Harry Potter films, and the supporting cast in Lightning Thief is worth the price of admission by itself (Pierce Brosnan, Sean Bean, Uma Thurman, Rosario Dawson, Steve Coogan, Catherine Keener, Joe Pantoliano). Plus, the lead kid, Logan Lerman, has a pretty decent track record. He was terrific as a young Ashton Kutcher in The Butterfly Effect, as well as Christian Bale’s son in 3:10 to Yuma. Sure, it’s a big question mark at this point, but I think we’re looking at something closer to The Spiderwick Chronicles than The Seeker: The Dark Is Rising.
I understand why some people don’t want to get behind the adjusted income idea, but the problem is that someone can just look at the initial Star Wars take of $215 million and think “well, that’s not so much”. By doing so, one completely fails to comprehend how huge of a box office behemoth it was. As David pointed out, it was making bank for over HALF A YEAR, and was playing in theatres for 11 months, which is a month longer then the next box office “champ” E.T.
Now I also recognize that home video sales have taken away some of that repeat business from more modern films, but of course something like Star Wars would have even more in its coffers if we include that.
David wants to talk about the bigger picture, and people having more information, but in the same breath you say you’re only writing about grosses. The bottom line is that without perspective, it means nothing. Anyone who was around when Star Wars came out knows very well that it was more of a phenomenon than Avatar will ever be, even if we’re in a smaller world now and international marketing is stronger to bring in more overseas dollars.
And it should also be noted that Star Wars made between 15 and 20 times its budget in that first release. To do that, Avatar would have to gross btw 3.5 and 4 billion, and that’s if we’re using a budget of $200 million, which we know is low. So there’s a profit angle that also isn’t being talked about.
I agree, inflation adjusting is a great tool for measuring both absolute and relative success. All of the so called flaws people point out are pretty weak and detruct from the overall picture.
Something else to chew on. Spielberg is the only filmmaker in history to have his movies top all time highest grossing worldwide list at three different times in three different decades.
And it took him only seven years to top the record his set with Jaws. The original King of blockbusters is still going strong.
DP a valid point as others have said, but my group of ten people paid 18 bucks for 3D IMAX at our theatre that usually costs 9.50 a ticket. I certainly don’t think a 45% increase is the norm for this movie over regular prices, but it’s impossible to tell what the figure actually is. Probably not 33%, but possibly 25%.
As for the adjusted comments, I just go by number of tickets sold. It sounds better;)
Laz – People being stupid is no reason to get on the merry-go-round of adjusted numbers.
Your argument about Star Wars is instructive. You can choose to look at the numbers as you have in your comment. Or you could look at what the actual profits are. Or you could look at how many people saw a movie in its first month, three months, year, or two years. Adjusting gross pretends that DVD doesn’t exists, just as Star Wars vs Gone With The Wind pretends that TV wasn’t mainstreamed in the meantime.
If you want to talk profitability, Star Wars had no VHS, DVD, or even pay-TV working against people coming to the movie theater or the revenue from those post-theatricals either. On the other hand, Avatar will never have the licensing muscle that Star Wars had.
It’s like baseball and the home run record. First, you can discount steroid use. Then start dealing with non-steroid training changes and better pure athletes in general. (Or not.) And then get into whether the player hit in the National League or the American League. What stadium was home to them and how much did that contribute to their numbers?
The bottom line for me is that it is remarkable that 61 home runs stood for so long, given all the advantages of the modern athlete. If you discount Sosa, Maguire, and Bonds for juicing, the amazing record still stands.
Finally, let me note again… tickets sold is a guess, not a reliable stat. It is the stupidest measure of all of this stuff because it proves nothing.
If the only time you could ever see Gone With The Wind in your life was at a movie theater and there was a second feature and an hour of other stuff with it and there is no other media aside from reading and radio to otherwise engage you, can’t we admit that it is a vastly different proposition than knowing that Avatar will be in Blu-ray in August and on your TV next Christmas as you are surrounded by dozens of new tech distractions.
It’s comparing apples and hand grenades.
I’m old enough to remember ET being sold for 3 television showings, sponsored by Sears, for $20 million or something like that.
Ethan… I am very curious to know where you paid that kind of premium. The only $18 ticket I saw was in LA and that was $6 over the regular price.
Steven Kar – I agree with your observation. I felt 3D meant more than you, but it is quite measured, especially in the action sequences.
Tickets Sold, for me, is one of those “additional insight” metrics along with Market Share that are useful but shouldn’t be used as a measure of success. Just as I’d rather have 20% market share with 20% ROI over 60% market share with 5% ROI, I’d rather sell 10mil tickets at $10 average than 12million at $7 average. From a looking-back perspective I don’t care where the money came from, as long as more of it goes into my pocket.
From a planning perspective, however, I really do care. If I’m making a 3D movie, I know that a reasonable chunk of my revenues are going to come from a bumped up ticket price – and if there’s relatively high competition for 3D screens on my release then that’s got a real potential to hurt my top and bottom lines (and maybe I should consider moving my release date). Similarly, if I’m releasing something with a strong kids demographic, I need my advertising dollar to go further – spending an extra $5mil on TVCs needs to pull in more ticket sales than for an adult feature to get the same returns. Are attendance figures for this genre trending up or down? What does that mean in terms of my production budget?
You know, in the hypothetical situation where you get to make these kinds of decisions. 😉
“From a looking-back perspective I don’t care where the money came from, as long as more of it goes into my pocket.”
Nah, if you are James Cameron, I guarantee you would care if your mutli-billion dollar movie grossed all of it’s money from 20 million people or from 200 million. Directors want to be seen by masses, which is why regardless of conditions he who packs the houses the most is the one who experience the ultimate joy from his success. It’s a very egocentric view but I stand by it.
How is the number of tickets any different from the adjusted gross? I was being ridiculous because they are calculated the same way. There’s no difference between the two and should be used as rough ideas rather than absolutes. Probably just as Avatar without taking the premium ticketing should be.
There are so many variations overall though. “Wedding Crashers” has a higher gross because the distributor made a deal to keep the movie in cinema drafthouses for waaay longer than the normal second-run window.
Or “Rocky Horror Picture Show.” There are tons of anomalies in box office that make it very difficult to compare pictures from different eras.
Eh… I think that depends on the director. There’s plenty out there who’d rather just do their own thing (Coens come to mind) than set attendance records, while others even turn their nose up at the thought of “selling out”.
I couldn’t possibly comment on James Cameron’s preference.
It’s a very sad thing that very few people here seemingly understand that when you do b.o. adjusting for a movie you don’t actually pretend like the movie in question is released now and ask look at how much it would have made.
No, the only thing, that it does is tell what the movie would have grossed THEN under today’s ticket prices. Now, what lends this technique validity is the fact that in both cases the numbers are based on what people are actually willing to pay.
It’s an estimate. Get over it. I mean you don’t see me going around proclaiming that Avatar is very favorable condition because US population has never been higher, now do you?
You can’t keep track of all these nuances. Sometimes so much changes within a single month (and let alone year) that the entire playing field becomes completely different.
At the same time, ignoring the fact that “Gone with the Wind”, “Jaws”, “Star Wars”, “ET” and yes, “Avatar” are special and that specialness TRANCENDS all of these differences is JUST PLAIN WRONG.
Inflation Adjusting is there just as tool for geeks to do an ultimate geek off among the ultimate. And I claim, that for that purpose it’s completely valid, warts and all. So to say that “I 100% don’t believe in it” is just silly. That kind of absolute certainty is simply unearned and when the % percantage margin of error is a lot smaller than one would think (these are always concervative estimates).
Can I be any more clear than that?
“Eh… I think that depends on the director. There’s plenty out there who’d rather just do their own thing (Coens come to mind) than set attendance records, while others even turn their nose up at the thought of “selling out”.
I couldn’t possibly comment on James Cameron’s preference.”
I call BS on both counts. If Coens were only interested in doing their own thing they wouldn’t have become filmmakers. Or they would have locked up their film in a vault ala “The Day the Clown Cried”. Turning one’s nose is a very public gesture. In private, everyone wants to be seen/read. Even Salinger.
And don’t be a sissy. I think we both know what Cameron would have preferred. And if you don’t check out the director’s roundtable he did this year.
And the very last thing. If people were this afraid to look at the data, make a leap and make a conclusion or a prediction we’d never have statistics.
Gonzo, unfortunatly it doesn’t even do that. While the adjusted gross takes into account the average ticket price in a given year, it doesn’t take into account ACTUAL inflation. Just ticket price inflation. So again it’s a fun stat, but fairly meaningless.
“If Coens were only interested in doing their own thing they wouldn’t have become filmmakers.”
I think there’s a degree of truth here – I’m sure they’re interested in being successful because that’s how you continue to get financing to fund doing your own thing. But beyond securing funding, they’re relatively well known for shutting out the studio’s commercial interests – which is why I argue that they’re more interested in doing their own thing.
And I honestly can’t comment on Cameron because I haven’t seen or read any interviews of his… ever. Sorry, just doesn’t interest me. 😉
Ethan, I don’t think you understand what you are saying. For one thing, don’t you thiink that there is a correlation between the ticket price inflation and the overall inflation?
Saying that “it doesn’t take into account ACTUAL inflation” is wrong. What’s ACTUAL? Overall inflation is made up for many things and saying that ticket inflation is not part of it isn’t taken into account doesn’t make any sense.
Gonzo on your specialness thing: how can you really judge specialness when one thing has a clear ENHANCEMENT over other special films? Avatar is doing good business, but let’s take away the enhanced price. What do we have then? We have a flick doing slightly better than New Moon and slightly less than TRANS 2. Is that really special? I guess, but Avatar is ENHANCED. You cannot shake it, and all it takes is one person to bring this up on one show to leave that stigma on the film. A stigma it deserves like the asterisk permanently attached to Barry Bond’s 756 home-run ball.
IOIOIO, as has been pointed out to you on numerous occassions, but clearly needs to be repeated, you are in denial.
You’ve been trying to downplay Avatar’s success from the very beginning but that won’t change the fact that Avatar isn’t a mere “enhancement”.
One would thing that even a person like yourself would finally get a clue after looking at Avatar’s weekly drop rates. But no, you still think that Camerso pulled a fast on the audiences and presented and sold them a lemon. He didn’t.
Why don’t you just come out and admit that you are a hater and would rather see this movie fail. Honestly, you’d get more respect that way. This:
“We have a flick doing slightly better than New Moon and slightly less than TRANS 2. Is that really special?”
is just dumb.
I gotta go with Gonzo on the inflation thing. If you say it’s all about grosses and dollars made and don’t take any historic shit into it, that just seems weird. If they made ticket prices 100 million dollars right this second and 12 people paid to see Avatar, you could say that it was the most sucessful movie ever, and teeeeechnically that’s true.
And also, not taking into account historic data is just weird. It’s like we can look back at Heaven’s Gate and see the budget was a measly $40 million…chump change by today’s standards, you can barely make a Seth Rogan comedy for that. So that means that Heaven’s Gate was a low budget movie, right? So why the controvery over it?
Gonzo et. al, just to add another data point– my AMC (pseudo-) IMAX 3D was $13.50, at a theater that charges $9.50 for a normal ticket. It’s a new screen so I don’t know yet how that $4 difference breaks down between a 3D premium vs. an IMAX premium, but if it’s like the other theaters in my area (Milwaukee WI) it’d be evenly split, $2 and $2.
I also agree with you that the 3D has added to the “event” feel of Avatar in a way that can’t be taken into account in strict ticket sales alone. I don’t think that can really be taken into account when talking numbers though, it’s just part of the package and is one of those subjective things nobody could ever pin down a number for if they tried.
Yeah, it would be crazy to use the 3D pricing as a negative. Cameron’s using it as the hook to make people see his movie…like T2 had the newest effects and biggest action scenes ever of the time, or Titanic was a huge epic. This is just an epic of a different sort, and costs a little more in certain venues, no big deal.
Does WB have an official name for that early March weekend where they drop a big fanboy movie every single year? V for Vendetta, 300, 10,000 B.C., Watchmen, Clash of the Titans? It may go back further than that, but it’s sort of a stroke of genius… They used to talk it up when a “big” movie would kick off EARLIER IN MAY than usual (like the first Mummy). WB just said “fuck that” and decided to drop some monster summer-type epic in early March every year. It’s become almost as dependable all their late 80s/early 90s “testosterone weekend” in Decemeber where they’d unveil some awesome bit of cop-movie shit like Tango & Cash, The Rookie, Last Boy Scout on the exact same weekend every year.
Hey, what IS with “Book of Eli”?
Some here have commented on it looking crappy with a certain annoying glee. Maybe it’s my predisposition toward Hard-R, widescreen, ultraviolent movies with Denzel and hot chicks, but throw in the Hughes Brothers too and the inevitable 2-hours-plus runtime, and this should have been a MUST-SEE. I’m still trying to convince myself it’s going to be AWESOME with that roll call, but, man, those trailers just look like TERMINATOR: SALVATION LITE, there’s zero buzz, and it looks like it was on an old 1957 TV Western backlot set.
Is it still possible it’s just one of those things that are too “hardcore” for critics, in a Death Sentence/8mm/Payback/Man on Fire kind of way (ie, violent and vengeful, which tweedy critics HATE)… or is it as standard as it looks?
Another boring question long as I’m off-track: EDGE OF DARKNESS? Looks exciting enough, like Gibson in this mode, like Campbell; But for something like 15 or 20 YEARS I’ve heard how the original British miniseries is some WORK OF ART and some transcendent television, some bit of sociopolitical brilliance and importance, like it’s THE WIRE of British miniseries. So, why does this Gibson flick, all respect due, just kind of look like TAKEN 2? Awesomely so, of course, but I see NOTHING that suggests the weight and import attributed to the original, which people talk up as one of the great moments in television history, some landmark, probing, intense, mind-blowing shit. This movie just kind of looks like 16 Blocks meets Departed meets Taken.
“V for Vendetta, 300, 10,000 B.C., Watchmen, Clash of the Titans”
I really doubt that 10,000 B.C. was really on anyone’s radar as one of the big fanboy movies of the year but WB really does seem to favor that particular spot for visceral types of films. It’s worth noting though that despite their attempts to chase the success of 300, so far it’s the only film among those you’ve listed to really make a big splash.
Clash of the Titans should come close though. And if they still had Kasdan I’d be the first in line for a ticket.
“Ethan, I don’t think you understand what you are saying. For one thing, don’t you thiink that there is a correlation between the ticket price inflation and the overall inflation?
Saying that “it doesn’t take into account ACTUAL inflation” is wrong. What’s ACTUAL?”
Ticket price inflation is different than actual inflation in that theatre owner inflation is a private sector that the public has no control over, has far outpaced the rate of actual inflation. So websites like boxofficemojo look at the average price of a ticket today and compare it to a 23 cent ticket back in the day, when unfortunatly the two are not equal because theatre pricing has far outpaced US government inflation.
The Math used to compare movies of today to movies of the past generally just looks at a ticket from 1939 to today’s tickets as if that is completely reasonable, such as comparing comodities that are traded such as oil, gold, milk that are traded on futures markets. Instead a private consortium basically decides what the industry standard is for selling tickets except in independently owned cases, and because of this the movie industry exists in a state of hyperinflation that keeps many people from seeing movies as much or as many times as they would DESPITE evolving forms of entertainment I suspect, because the idea of spending 75 bucks at a theatre for a family of 4 turns many people off.
From 1939 CPI inflation has increased by around 1,500% while movie theatre inflation has increased by around 3,300%. The hyperinflation of theatres has continued to outpace regular inflation ever since. Theatre owners believe that the higher costs balance out declining attendance. Many believe that the higher costs deter many folks from seeing films as often or as many times as they used to, and greatly contribute to online and other forms of piracy.
Unfortunatly there isn’t anyway to tell, which is another reason why adjusting for inflation is fun but should be taken with a grain of salt.
LexG, I’ve heard rumblings that WB forced Campbell to re-edit/reshoot parts of Edge of Darkness so that it was a more visceral hard-action movie like Taken (ironically, many seem to forget that Fox cut Taken in the US for a PG-13). They already replaced the composer. I hope that’s not true as A) Martin Campbell should get to do whatever he wants at this point and B) Warner has a solid reputation as a hands-off studio. Between this and the alleged massive tinkering with Terminator 4, I’m worried that the financial under-performance of Watchmen (and to a lesser extent, Where the Wild Things Are and said Terminator 4) is going to scare WB and turn them into a mirco-managing studio ALA Fox. Because of Campbell, I may be the rare Jew who is excited to see the new Mel Gibson movie (that’s a discussion for another day), but I’m concerned due to the rumblings.
First of all, Ethan your concerns are anything but new and second, and this is one point a lot of people don’t seem to understand – when you do ticket price adjustment ticket price inflation is all that matters (and all you can reasonably take into account). I’m sick of saying this but estimates are just that… estimates.
Gonzo, doing better than New Moon and slightly worse than Trans 2 is still pretty good. What’s dumb about it? That’s a lot of money, but it’s making a lot of money with an ENHANCED PRICE. It has nothing to do with being hater. It has to do with the truth. It would not have made 45 million dollar this weekend, if all it’s screens were 2D. Those are the facts. If you disagree, then you are just plain dumb.
I also cannot wait for this movie not to be number one anymore not for box office reasons, but movie reasons. A better movie deserves to make this amount of money. Sure that’s all subjective and personal to me but Avatar is ok. It’s another OK movie doing better than it should. Excuse me for not being overcome by the GREATNESS of something that’s not even great.
Huh?? So my concerns are anything but new but don’t matter anyway??? Righhhht lol. I didn’t say they were new did I? And no, ticket price inflation is not “all that matters.” It isn’t all you can “reasonably take into account” when debating this if you have any proper grasp of general economics. I suppose in the realm of fantasy statistics that could be the case.
What I brought up is something that’s debated frequently but I’ve seldom seen it brought up on hot blog. I find it curious that in your last sentence you agree with me…you don’t have to be sick of saying it if you agree…but the previous two sentences are in contrast to your last one. Bipolar much?
Ethan, with all due respect I don’t think you really get what bo adjusting is all about (both how it’s calculated – because this is EXACTLY how it’s calculated and why it is calculated this and not some other way as well as for what purpose it is ultimately used for).
I will not be dragged into another debate on this topic but I will say this:
When someone tries to figure out how much a given movie would have grossed with today’s ticket prices using today’s ticket prices is good enough. Think about it. And I would even argue that it’s not just the simplest heuristic to use but the most occurate one as well because it is based on real actual ticket costs.
There is absolutely no reason to come up with needlessly complex models that I guarantee you will not even be that much different for what is (for the billions time is just an estimate that’s not that cruicially important in the first place).
It’s not exact science anyway and nobody pretends that it is and the more important reasons for it have nothing to do with different rates of inflation or what have you so I wasn’t agreeing with you in that last sentence).
So my point is, no one will suffer if this estimate is a bit off but for comparison purposes it’s good enough.
Also, watch your tone. Just because I disagree with you doesn’t give you a right to call me “bipolar”. If you still disagree with me, fine but please spare me those kinds of responses.
What’s impressive about AVATAR isn’t merely the grosses, it’s also its legs. It’s got the best legs of a blockbuster since TITANIC. btw, it’s going to pass TRANSFORMERS even when you knock 30% off its final total… impressive no matter how you slice it.
And internationally, it’s even more impressive. $143 million 4th weekend? An increase over the previous weekend? It’s gonna clear $2 billion.
Yes Gonzo Knight I get what box office adjusting is all about, and I also get that the ongoing debate about skyrocketing ticket prices also factors into it. As you said in your last statement estimates are just estimates and this is another example of the difficulty of comparing apples and oranges.
It also isn’t enough because it doesn’t take factors such as re-releases, premium pricing and the skyrocketing price of tickets. This isn’t rocket science.
And Gonzo when you contradict your own statement in a 3 sentence post and it’s basically incomprehensible I’m going to take you to task for it. Sorry if I hurt your feelings.
“Gonzo, doing better than New Moon and slightly worse than Trans 2 is still pretty good. What’s dumb about it?”
Your comparisons don’t make any sense and the conclusions you derive from them are equally illogical.
Avatar “slightly worse than Trans 2”? And it “is still pretty good”? Everything about this is idiotic.
You are too hang up on the 3d aspect of the film to accept that there’s a lot more to the films success (for the second time look at the weekly drop rates) and you let your obvious dismay towards the films performance try to downplay the films actual success, badly.
And lastly, 3D or not 3D, Avatar is not doing worse than any movie you’ve mentioned. Success is success no matter how it’s achieved.
And guess what, Tranformers 2 played on IMAX too and even if Avatar played only on 2d screens it would still have Transformers beat worldwide.
So you better get used to films earning extra $$$ due to higher tickets prices because it’s not going anywhere.
Gonzo, this is why this blog is weird. You simply are looking for a reason to fight and ignored my point. Slightly worse than Transformers 2 in box office is still pretty good. You simply like a movie, you want to defend it, and I get where you are coming from trust me. It does not change the fact that 3D is helping this film’s take. It’s gross is enhanced by all of it’s 3-D screenings. Heck, Ethan had to pay double ticket price for a 3-D Imax screening. Now extrapolate that out and it’s obvious that this movie… good nor bad… is being helped by a fluctuating 3D ticket price. Them facts, jack. I just wish some movie that was better than this could make this much scratch.
“So you better get used to films earning extra $$$ due to higher tickets prices because it’s not going anywhere.”
What that actually means is the Avatar fans better get used to the fact that the very same model that gave the film its success will give it its demise in the record books.
With more and more 3-D premiums that will only increase in price, Avatar’s records will not last. Woody and Buzz are around the corner, Skrek after that and then Batman, Spiderman and sooner or later something else.
Ultimately, what this tells me is that we live in an age where BO records are too easy to be bought, marketed and paid for. Does anyone really think Ice Age 3 is a well loved classic?
What it says is the old paradigm of modern gross is going to come to a close and the only way for true cineastes to judge gross will be based on tickets sold and adjusting for inflation.
I realize that the corporate bean counters will disagree…but bums in seats is the true measure of how well a film is loved. I give you Avatar is a hit. But perspective, please. Perspective.
One thing Avatar has over Toy Story 3 (which I reckon will be the summer champ, at this stage) is that Avatar had no real competition. The only week it had it was over the Christmas weekend and at that stage there was so much money flowing into the box office that there was room to breath. Are the 3D movies next summer going to be able to compete week in week out like Avatar has so far? Especially with a new 3D title popping up every third week or so. Avatar doesn’t only have no competition in general, but also in the 3D stakes.
The big question will be for when Avatar‘s Jonas Brothers 3D Concert Experience comes along and how much it is still making.
The difference, IO, between you and all of the people who are championing the box office is that if Toy Story 3 came along and threatened Avatar‘s record then I think we’d still all be equal amazement as we are now. And permitting the movie is good enough then what’s not to be happy about? If Spider-Man 4 makes a play for the record then I’m sure we’ll continue to look on in amazement.
If it’s Shrek 4 on the other hand…
SCOTT MENDELSON WROTE:
“I’m kinda looking forward to Percy Jackson. I think Columbus did a bang-up job setting up the Harry Potter films, and the supporting cast in Lightning Thief is worth the price of admission by itself (Pierce Brosnan, Sean Bean, Uma Thurman, Rosario Dawson, Steve Coogan, Catherine Keener, Joe Pantoliano). Plus, the lead kid, Logan Lerman, has a pretty decent track record. He was terrific as a young Ashton Kutcher in The Butterfly Effect, as well as Christian Bale’s son in 3:10 to Yuma. Sure, it’s a big question mark at this point, but I think we’re looking at something closer to The Spiderwick Chronicles than The Seeker: The Dark Is Rising..”
That IS a good cast for, admittedly, a second tier HARRY POTTER. DARK IS RISING had nothing approaching that sort of line-up. Plus, it was a turgid, ugly-looking turd.
Again, tough to gauge. I can only go on what I see at home. There is also a film adaptation of DIARY OF A WIMPY KID set for April, I think. That’s another massively popular kids series. We lined up outside of B & N on the morning of the release of the third book along with about 100 other kids. That is another one not to overlook.
Granted, some stuff gets lost in the glut of kids movies. But my girls saw ALIENS IN THE ATTIC and CHIPMUNKS 2. But the most asked questions I get is when PONYO and MR. FOX are going to be on DVD. Kids will watch crap, but quality always perseveres.
I really hated “Chamber of Secrets” but I hated the book as well….but as far as Columbus goes…umm…”I Lpve You Beth Cooper?”