How The Avatar 3D Premium Should Be Estimated
After weeks of discussing Avatar and reading dozens of different notions of how the 3D premium fits into the overall grosses for the film, I decided to try to get some more objective information. So I decided to do a random look at the pricing across the country.
I looked at 10 markets:
Baton Rouge, LA
Chicago, IL
Denver, CO
Los Angeles, CA
Madison, WI
Miami, FL
New York, NY
Oklahoma City, OK
Seattle, WA
Tuscon, AZ
I used Fandango and MovieTickets.com to find out pricing. There were anomalies. For instance, the IMAX opportunity in Chicago is Navy Pier, which is only an IMAX. You might suspect that the premium for IMAX over 2D would be higher because it’s a standalone IMAX, but it’s the opposite. It was the lowest IMAX premium over 2D, at 36.4%. The highest IMAX premium over 2D was 66.7% in Madison Wisconsin.
IMAX 3D prices were between $4 and $6 over 2D
Non-IMAX 3D was priced at premiums between $2.50 and $4 over 2D.
2/3 of the sites that have the movie playing have 3D, but on opening weekend, fewer than half the screens were showing 3D (roughly 3200 against 7000, according to BO Mojo). Of course, 3D was more popular, and about 59% of the gross was for those non-IMAX 3D screens.
IMAX premiums are higher, but in all but one of the markets I looked at, the premium on top of 3D is only $1 or $2 over the other 3D option. IMAX clearly has had and still has the highest percentage of seats sold. But we’re only talking about 178 sites. In the first weekend, IMAX was about 12% of the overall take and the per-screen was almost $55,000 per. About 40% of that is the premium over 2D.
So… in the US, over opening weekend, about 71% of the overall gross was for some form of 3D… or about $55m of the gross. About $14.5 million extra was earned on the non-IMAX 3D premium. About $3.8m extra was earned on the IMAX premium. So $18.3 million in 3D premiums or about 24%.
That percentage may have gone up a bit in the weeks after, as the urge to see the movie in 3D became such a part of the legend. But as you look around the markets, there are a lot of places where there is no IMAX available and the numbers of 2D screenings being offered right now are about 25% fewer than the 3D. In markets like Los Angeles, the 2D availability is less because exhibitors are adjusting to less demand. But that’s definitely not the case everywhere. Someone is out there watching the movie in 2D… a lot of someones.
Internationally, where 2/3 of the gross revenues are coming from, the percentage is a bit lower still. So if we agreed, roughly, that the US number is 30% on the premiums and internationally, it’s about 20% (which I think is very, very fair to the naysayers on both counts), the adjusted gross of Avatar would be about $895 million after 22 days, still about #15 all-time. #2 all-time, using this adjustment, would be about $1.4 billion.
Now. Let us compare what DP said.
Before:
“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.”
And after:
“So if we agreed, roughly, that the US number is 30% on the premiums”
Which is exactly as I was saying. (And that doesn’t even take into account all the hype that surrounded the fact that movie was 3D).
Well, it’s not exactly what you said. Mine was a rough approximation, leaping from an pretty specific figure of 24% for the sake of being overly generous to the haters. And 30% is still not a third. 3.3%, in this case, is over $35 million.
And what does 3D hype have to do with it?
Classic defense, DP. Instead of acknowledging a genuine contradiction you go straight into attack mode. Which would be fine, still, if you weren’t wrong.
Here’s what I actually said:
“In the end, the 3D bump may not be exactly a third but I’d very suprised if it would be significantly lower either”.
And believe me, I know that there is difference between 30% and a third. When I said:
“I bet the 3D premium that Avatar has could come pretty close to 1/3 of it’s domestic gross” – (again as you can see I never claimed it to be exactly 1/3) I wasn’t exactly pulling that figure out of my ass either.
It was MY rough domestic estimate (which happened to agree with yours) and THE reason I brought it up in the first place was in response to this:
“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.”
Which brings me back to my very first response.
And by the way, I’m genuinly glad that once you actually went back worked the math your arguements started to make more sense.
Radio Raheem: Give me 20 D Energizers.
Sonny: 20 C Energizers?
Radio Raheem: Not C, D.
Sonny: C Energizers?
Radio Raheem: D, motherfucker, D. Learn to speak English first, all right?
Kim: How many you say?
Radio Raheem: 20, motherfucker, 20.
Sonny: Motherfuck you.
Radio Raheem: Motherfuck you? You, you all right, man.
And as for “3D Hype”, I firmly beleieve that the increased amount of attention that was paid to Avatar due to it’s unique and “groundbreaking” presentational aspects contributed to it’s overall performance. Even among those people who ultimately bought 2D tickets there were probably those who became curious due to all the hype that surrounded the film. Leading up to the release there were literally thousands of articles that concentrated on the 3d aspect alone (most of them very terribly written but that’s beside the point). It’s silly to argue with the fact that leading up to the films release a lot of fanboys weren’t excited by the fact that Cameron makes a comeback in 3D (of course many of them would have been excited by the mere fact that it’s Cameron but). Conditional probabilities like the ones here are difficult to measure without conduction large scale surveys so it’s impossible to say what the effect of this was but it would pretty foolish of you to argue that what I call 3D hype didn’t have at least some effect on movie’s box office.
Look, I think Avatar is a great film that primarily draws people in based on the amazing word of mouth but that doesn’t mean that I can’t look a little deeper.
Hey my 25% guess didn’t look too bad. In answer to your question in the other post, I saw the movie at the AFC Hoffman in Alexandria, VA. Curiously, the theatre is charging $15.50 for IMAX tickets during the weekdays for “Avatar” but higher on weekends…and interestingly, you can’t access tickets for the IMAX weekend shows probably due to the higher prices as you can see:
http://www.movietickets.com/house_detail.asp?house_id=7845&rdate=1%2F10%2F2010
I guess they are getting away with this due to being the only 3D Imax venue in DC/Northern VA playing Avatar. Boo.
Mutiny wins an internets for referencing Do The Right Thing.
I find it humorous that so many Avatar naysayers are acting like the 3D premium prices, in terms of total gross revenue, are some kind of crutch or corked bat.
Cameron is selling audiences a luxury vehicle and people are willing to pay the luxury vehicle price. It’s economics 101. People are paying more because they value the product more. Are we now supposed to act like that’s unfair? Like theatrical ticket prices should all be regulated by some governing body or else it doesn’t really count?
If you want to argue how “popular” a film is then yes, you would of course have to measure by other yardsticks both objective and subjective (total tickets / units sold, perception in culture, etc).
But on a pure dollar for dollar level this film is earning its place at the top fair an square.
It is what it is.
Just because a film is offered in expensive 3D doesn’t mean crowds will pay for the expensive 3D.
The fact that they are, multiple times, is a testament to the film.
@mrmilan – it’s not perfectly econ101 because the industry doesn’t really allow for flexible pricing. For the previous #2, Return of the King, I’m sure that there were plenty of people who would have paid the premium to see it – 3D or otherwise – but that wasn’t an option at the time. However, as Tofu points out there’s no guarantee that if RotK was offered in 3D that it would be seeing similar grosses to Avatar.
It’s not exactly a “crutch”, but it’s an attempt to keep the figures in perspective. There’s nothing wrong with that, in so far as to gain an understanding of what the drivers for success are. People trying to somehow minimize the success, however, are another story…
milan and tofu great point. However, most theatres in my area don’t offer Avatar in 2D (such as the one I linked above) so if customers want to see it they have to either ante up or skip the flick, or seek out a film where it’s playing in 2D. In the vast majority of cases customers with begrudgingly pay up.
Then again Im not sure if this is the case in a lot of areas…
Ethan G: if you ever have a blog where you discuss stuff similar to the hot blog. Let me know. I will sign up there in a minute.
Wow. Someone felt some heat about ASTERISKTAR. Seriously, it does not matter, but claiming it’s dominating anything ignores that it’s Barry Bonds, while Titanic and TDK are Hammering Hank and The Great Bambino. That’s the facts of the matter. If you want to ignore it, then ignore it. I will simply continue to refer to it as Barry Bonds of Moviemaking (Which it it if you think about. Barry Bonds offered the people of San Fran a luxury vehicle and people are willing to pay the luxury vehicle price even if that luxury vehicle got to where he got because of ENHANCEMENTS. It’s economics 101. People paid more because they valued the product more. Are we now supposed to act like that was unfair? Like a ballplayer that used enhancements to hit homers that in term led to higher ticket prices should have been regulated by some governing body or else it doesn’t really count?
See? It’s BARRY BONDS.
IOI, do you have some kind of personality disorder, or are you just a genuinely unpleasant, stupid person?
Jeff, again, you are responding to me this way. It would be insulting. If it were not coming from you. Seriously, what about that upset you so much? It makes me wonder about you jeff. It really does.
IO, you’re integrating an ethical issue with the Barry Bonds analogy whereas none exists in the Avatar reality.
You are correct in stating that Giants fans payed more to see Mr. Bonds drop balls into the San Francisco bay — steroids or not — than they do without him, but your equation of a widely perceived ethical failure with a movie’s use of 3D technology is laughably disingenuous.
I didn’t get the sense that IOI was making a claim about Avatar or Cameron doing something unethical only that the 3D/IMAX gives the grosses a steriod-like boost to the totals. I think it’s what all the so-called haters are chiming in about. I don’t believe people are saying Avatar wouldn’t have done monster business but there’s a significant difference between having a career year of 55 homers and that of shattering one of the most hallowed records in all of sports at 73. Both excellent achievements but only one deserves to have one kindly remove your hat before stating.
@ethanG
amc at potomac mills has “imax” 3D for similar prices.
Does my nickname make me seem like I’m a huge fan of Hunter S. Thompson or something? Because that’s not what I’m going for at all (nothing against the man but I’m just using Gonzo for the heck of it).
I was just at the AMC Hoffman. We were going to see Avatar but it’s sold out until Monday. Fuck me, I guess. We went somewhere else and saw Sherlock Holmes. It was the epitome of “all right.”
I was the Red Rock Regal in Las Vegas, this evening – every show of Avatar in 2D, 3D, and IMAX was sold out in advance on its FOURTH weekend. Just how the hell do you put an asterisk on that????
It is now safe to say that this thing will crack $500 million domestic – when all is said and done, the film will likely be among the top 20 highest grossing films in history, even when adjusting for ticket prices and inflation. With about about 100 years of cinema, that’s pretty damn impressive.
And you know, saying that the higher ticket prices give it an unfair advantage….sorry, that just doesn’t hold water. Just got my first IPod a few weeks ago, love it, and one of the things that I dig the most is going to ITunes and getting a song for a buck or an albumn for $12. One of the things that killed the record industry is that people just did not want to pay $19 for a CD, anymore – price point is a very delicate issue and to just assume that a higher price ensures more success is foolish.
Unfair advantage advantage against whom, Geoff? Why is everyone thinking of box office in terms of costant rivalry, it’s really childish especially considering the fact that it’s very rare one actually looks at it objectively. Yes, the 3D pricing gave it an “advantage”, Geoff. Of course it did.
Most other movies don’t have an option of 3D pricing of top of their regular pricing. There’s no “itunes pricing if I don’t want to go all physical media” for, say “Freddy Got Fingered” or “There Will be Blood”.
Geoff, how far off the beaten path is the Galaxy Cannery? It’s an all-digital house and still has plenty of tickets left:
http://www.ticketmakers.com/tmschedgal.dll/zipsearch?choice=theater&theaterid=19008&date=today&TBP=19000
Good breakdown, Dave.
There’s only an asterisk next to Avatar if you see it as just another release. Avatar cracks the gross list in two, pre and post its release. We’re looking at a new field and as was laid out last week, all studios are tacking sharply. When Ridley was looking at Robin Hood, of all films, for a re-processing, the game is over.
The coming problem is something Dave alluded to on his AOTS appearance. If the studios glut the market just to jack ticket prices, people will balk. I have no interest in seeing an old-ass film restored to 3D, but that looks to be on the near horizon. So instead of getting more ambitious projects in development that can correctly utilize 3D, we’re going to to get the same tired vault o’ shit. Throw a few clunkers on screen at 15/person, and prepare for blowback.
@Big Perm and sammy
Good to know there’s some NoVa people on here haha.
I follow lots of industries for my Wall Street money management job. No other industry argues about revenue comparisons and inflation adjustments. Revenue is revenue and is you are going to inflation adjust then inflation adjust the costs. Avatar cost a lot more and is being priced at a premium. People are willing to pay it.
One other minor adjustment, DP…at least in Chicago weekday matinee pricing seems to be full bore, the same as evening prices, for all 3-D showings. Lots of the gross must be coming from “matinees” tath cost $14 instead of $6.75.
And I also got to the Consumer Electronics Show, yesterday – every major company had their new 3D TV models out there and EVERY one of them were playing the trailer for Avatar.
You could certainly make the point that the 3D excitment has driven this thing, but I really have to wonder if it as much the other way around – we’ll see in August (or whatever) if the purchases of certain hardware dramatically increase with the release of the DVD/Blu Ray.
That said, I was actually not that impressed with most of the 3D TV’s – those with or without the need of glass. Except, I was really dazzled by the Panasonic Viria (sp) – it requires glasses, but they were comfortable. All of the other TV’s showed a decent amount of distortion, even the Sony ones amazingly. I got to play the Avatar game on 3D on that one, which was actually quite boring. Though I’m not a gamer.
Direwolf, could not have said it better. And something else that people forget that with other entertainment media, mainly the record industry – sure, success is also reported, per unit; however, prices have often been manipulated to up those units sold. When a record company does a special discount for an added Greatest Hits package so that they can report that it went double platinum, shouldn’t that get an asterick, too? Happens all of teh time.
As for Chicago, yes, the 3D gouging has been decent; though I live near a Classic Cinema in Oak Park that has Read D for years and they did not show any real bump for Avatar – the local crowd (which can be quite vocal) probably would have complained a lot. I’m wondering if more of the bumps have occurred at theaters that added new 3D screens.
Direwolf said: No other industry argues about revenue comparisons and inflation adjustments. Revenue is revenue and is you are going to inflation adjust then inflation adjust the costs.
Dave has been saying this too and I think you’re both right. I think that there’s a disconnect in forums like this between what people care about and the metric they’re using for comparison. The studio executives care about the number of dollars coming in from box office receipts vs. costs, period. Casual commenters like us here don’t really care about that. We care about “the score” that a movie can rack up. How did our favorite movie this week score against all the rest? How did this week’s movies score against our all-time favorites? It’s not real money in our heads it’s just a number that can be used for comparison, like any other scored game.
I think the reason people want to see adjusted numbers and tickets sold is because the movie industry is constantly promoting its grosses in relation to records. Biggest weekend ever. Best 2nd weekend in February non-holiday. Etc.
It’s one thing if you’re simply announcing weekend grosses and leaving it there. But when you start making all-time comparisons, you run into the reality that things are not the same now as they used to be. A generation ago, B.O. meant more than it does today because home video and cable were minor pieces of the game — but now, more people probably see individual titles, just spread over multiple formats.
That’s the problem. Comparing now to then is apples and oranges in a sense. That’s why it is legitimate, if you’re solely comparing B.O., to consider tickets sold.
Well said, mutiny. Media will either shut up about all the records a given movie breaks on monthly basis or I’ll reserve my right to put everything in perspective.
Anyone remember the interview that Cameron gave to Premiere about 12 years ago? He said that it was time to bite the bullet and raise ticket prices to $10, but ONLY for what he considered to be E-ticket ‘event’ movies. Seems he finally got his wish in a roundabout way.
Oh, and if the buzz on 3D really is accounting for the Avatar bonanza, then Disney – who have the Toy Story 2 re-release, Alice in Wonderland, and Toy Story 3 on tap, must be rubbing their hands at the moment.
Dr. Wally, I had the same thought about Toy Story 3 last night. Unlike those Avatar characters going in, Woody and Buzz are beloved characters. Hell, those movies are loved. So here’s to Toy Story 3 kicking ass and taking names later in the year.
Triple Option indeed got my intent. It’s about ENHANCEMENTS. Avatar has it’s box office ENHANCED. Again, obviously by now, this film would have made some cash. It’s obvious by now, but the ENHANCEMENTS aka 3D/IMAX Ticket Prices cannot be ignored with it’s box office in the US.
The grousing about matinee prices here sounds a bit like the scene in “Badass!” when the customer is complaining about having to pay one dollar for only one movie.
If everyone is so concerned about where Avatar ranks in the “all-time boffo box office” lists, why not compare tickets sold…?
So what if Avatar’s gross is ENHANCED? Grosses are just that, grosses. But to use this to argue that the film “shouldn’t” be making the money it has is bollocks. And why stop at just 3D? Let’s start griping about how the highest grossing films have other advantages to lesser grossing films. Action Adventure/Fantasy ENHANCEMENTS? It makes just about as much sense.
The Wizard of Oz was in Color! Gone With The Wind was in Color! The Jazz Singer was all-talkie! Comparing those to The Kid and Birth of a Nation is TOTALLY UNFAIR!!!!
I could never wrap my head around all-time numbers adjusted for inflation, because in previous generations WAY MORE people went to the movies. As decades when on the viewership dropped and ticket prices climbed. So basically his point of view only work if your calculating the same amount of viewers at different price points.
I paid the same amount for my TDK ticket as my Avatar ticket.
$15.
Both on IMAX.
TDK WAS ENHANCED!!!1111LOLWTFBBQ
An AMC megaplex that I regularly go to converted one large hall to Imax just for “Avatar”. This AMC has “Avatar” in Imax 3-D, regular 3-D (two halls) and 2-D. Result: Imax 3-D sold out early-afternoon and late-afternoon, regular 3-D had plenty of tix available, 2-D is down to late show only. Based on the higher ticket prices for 3-D “Avatar” is definitely on the juice.
At least Mark McGwire is coming back to the St. Louis Cardinals, which will be great for baseball.
This is where this blog just gets goofy with some of you. TDK was a 2-D picture with limited IMAX engagement. Avatar is a 3-D picture with limited 2-D engagement. What’s wrong with questioning this film’s DOMINATION on that level? What gets you people so upset? Especially Brack who loves to be so level headed until he likes a movie, then he ceases to be level headed. So, yeah, get real people. This film’s entire gross is enhanced. It’s a bloated number in comparison to the other two movies ahead of it. If you disagree, then you are entitled. It’s too damn bad that you are that limited, but this is the hot blog. Home of the limited poster and Jeff McMahon’s WITTICISMS SINCE 2005!
Please purchase a sense of humor at the Hot Blog gift shop, IO.
Tofu was being funny, even though the point he makes in the joking is well taken… as is yours, however shrouded in flexing. Every movie has an asterisk. Every one.
IO – No one is denying the gross was enhanced. What you seem to be doing, however, is inherently discrediting the film (“Barry Bonds offered the people of San Fran a luxury vehicle and people are willing to pay the luxury vehicle price even if that luxury vehicle got to where he got because of ENHANCEMENTS.”). So because Avatar was intended for 3D, we should write off it’s success as nothing more than the fact that it’s in 3D? And how come Titanic and The Dark Knight are immune to this argument of being enhanced (with higher ticket prices compared to older films)?
Brack, Barry Bonds is still the all-time home-run leader. The only place he is not, is in mind of a lot of baseball fans. Their opinion does not change the fact that he hit 756. All their opinion states is that unlike Hammering Hank, Barry Bonds took a lot of things that aided him in ways Hammering Hank was never aided. That’s Avatar and TDK.
Avatar is being aided by 3D inflated prices. That’s the truth. It’s not like the freakin movie would not have made money in 2D, but the 3D price is simply adding more to their take. It’s been enhanced by 30 percent? 30 percent a lot of cash. Heck, it could be aided by more, but that does not change the fact it grossed a lot.
Again, Barry hit his homers, Avatar is grossing a lot of money, but both had help doing it. That’s what happened and is happening. Denying it is simply ridiculous.
IO,
You and I have disagreed in the past but dude, you have hit this one out of the park with your Baseball analogy.
I appreciate Dave’s breakdown of the 3D Premium but my Jan 8, EW says a whopping 75 % of the films worldwide gross is from 3D and IMAX screenings.
Which is right? I have no idea. But the notion that the 3D/IMAX/CAMERON RETURNS AFTER 10 YEARS ZEITGEIST factor isn’t a huge element in this film’s gross is silly.
Frankly, and this is just my own experience, for all of the “extremely positive word of mouth” quotes I hear in the press, I have yet to hear it in real life. What I hear is usually along the line of “great 3D but if you see it, see it in 3-D because the story and script stink.”
And I am also tired of the false modesty Cameron and Fox are putting out as though they were underdogs.
Cameron on MTV saying they considered Damon and Gyllenhall because they did not know if their little film could get media attention. Puuuulleaaase.
Like Chris Aronson the Senior VP of Distribution at Fox saying they didn’t have the advantage of Twilights fan base. Puuuuulllleeaasssee.
They had the biggest marketing machine of any film in history with the biggest budget of any filmmaker in history and the biggest filmmaker of the past decade back after a decade’s absence.
Avatar’s defenders are constantly defending it because deep down they know the truth. It is a film which sniffs in every way of having its “records” bought and paid for. It is the classic case of the Emperor has no clothes.
It has that whiff and always will. When it wins Best Picture and Best Director…it will only embolden that view. It will be the new Crash.
io and nicol, floatin’ down that river in egypt together on a little raft made of twigs, held together by spittle from infuriated flapping lips
“Frankly, and this is just my own experience, for all of the “extremely positive word of mouth” quotes I hear in the press, I have yet to hear it in real life. What I hear is usually along the line of “great 3D but if you see it, see it in 3-D because the story and script stink.”
BFL (short ‘big fat lie’, in case that isn’t obvious)
“They had the biggest marketing machine of any film in history”
the biggest marketing machine? based on what, please show where you got that from. apart from the marketing for avatar was crap
“with the biggest budget of any filmmaker in history”
just making shit up
“Avatar’s defenders are constantly defending it because deep down they know the truth. It is a film which sniffs in every way of having its “records” bought and paid for. It is the classic case of the Emperor has no clothes.”
yes, whenever anyone defends something it’s because deep down they know they are wrong. no matter, feminism is to blame for avatar’s success anyway
“It has that whiff and always will. When it wins Best Picture and Best Director…it will only embolden that view. It will be the new Crash.”
lol. the whiff you smell is the shit you’re so full of leaking out your ass
IO – Did you miss my first sentence where I wrote “No one is denying the gross was enhanced”? Are you now just making up an argument for argument’s sake? That doesn’t seem beneath you, as this seems to be your nature on here. You didn’t answer any of my questions about Titanic or The Dark Knight for being enhanced by higher tickets prices. I probably know why, because your non-point wouldn’t carry much weight otherwise.
Nicol D the last time I checked Netflix Crash was still the most rented DVD. What are you trying to say?
I don’t know why this is so hard for you to figure our, Nicol.
“75 % of the films worldwide gross is from 3D and IMAX screenings.”
Nothing I have written suggests otherwise. But that 75% is not all money that comes from the 3D bump… unless you really want to argue that 75% of the people seeing the film wouldn’t have gone without 3D.
“They had the biggest marketing machine of any film in history with the biggest budget of any filmmaker in history and the biggest filmmaker of the past decade back after a decade’s absence.”
Just not true.
In fact, in terms of marketing, not even close.
Truth is, Fox was held back mightily in promoting the movie asit got closer to release and the wave didn’t start in a real way until the first press screenings, just 9 days before opening. Yes, there was the IMAX event. But I can assure you that more was spent on Sherlock Holmes going into release (including a London junket).
And both Pirates 3 and Spidey 3 were more expensive to make.
“they didn’t have the advantage of Twilights fan base. Puuuuulllleeaasssee.”
Oh, please you. You’re just full of shit on that one. They don’t have Twilight’s fan base. On the other hand, it’s good for them, as it doesn’t limit the gross. But it was much more of a gamble than Twilight. And the fact that Fox sold off a big part of the movie before release is the most obvious proof of that.
I was always of the position – after ComicCon – that $500 million worldwide was going to happen no matter what. Yes, there is a following and the materials, mocked in the press, were very effective with real people. But trying to color this as a slam dunk is the worst kind of bullshit. The Dark Knight was more of a slam dunk, even if I didn’t see it coming. The franchise’s history suggested it was possible. This one had no such history.
This film was under attack, including that bs NYT story about $500 million, which they back waaaaay off of since, until the night it showed to the media and the reaction was euphoric.
Seriously.
The problem with that analogy is that Barry Bonds (who I’ve only ever heard of in regards to stories about steroids) took illegal substances that gave him and advantage of other men who were doing the right thing. 3D – and Cameron’s development of the type of 3D that he uses in Avatar – is not akin to steroids. Why should Cameron be faulted for having the balls to utilise 3D, a cinematic endeavor that goes back decades and decades, in new and different ways. There’s nothing wrong or unfair or illegal about Cameron using 3D. Other directors could have tried to do what Cameron has done but none have.
Should he give back the money he’s making like Marion Jones gave back her medals? What would be your argument for that? None? Right. Because there is nothing about what Cameron has done that even vaguely recalls anything other than being ambitious and recognising a fountain of money willing to be made.
But, if we say Avatar deserves an asterisk for being “enhanced” does that mean movies adapted from books should be too. Let’s face it, Batman had a much bigger advantage in the box office landscape than, say, Darkman, which is an original superhero movie. Or what about movies that star Will Smith because he has the gaul to realise that a career is based on hits and so, heaven forbid, he keeps making action blockbusters.
Let’s put an asterisk next to any movie IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE! They clearly have a much bigger advantage than anything in French, Spanish, Japanese or Russian.
Brack, there’s a difference between TDK and Titanic ticket prices, and a movie with a rather extensive enhanced ticket price. Seriously, if you do not see the difference, then you do not see the difference.
Camel, do not forget how much the freakin Bollywood films make and those things are all PROFIT! Again, it has nothing to do with Cameron doing something wrong. He did not do anything wrong. It simply has to do with a stat. If we are going to proclaim something KING. Should we not make sure it’s really the KING based on something comparable to other KINGS?
Again, Barry Bonds was enhanced as a ballplayer. While Hank and Babe were not. Avatar has a huge part of it’s gross collected from 3D/IMAX/REAL D/and whatever the Euros use fees. That’s a lot of cash the Dark Knight never had access too nor did Titanic.
If we are going to judge something on it’s dominance. We have to judge it on a level playing field and all of the up-pricing of Avatar’s 3D tickets, takes it off of the level playing film previous HUGE BOFFO MOVIES have had. This does not change the fact that it made a lot of cash, and would have made a lot of cash. It does not even change the box office gross or net for this film. All it does it throw out their an opinion. If it upsets you, if you disagree, then go right ahead. This is how I feel. I feel the same way about Oscar Robertson’s triple double ENHANCED season. That’s what happens with stats. You can disagree with them giving what happened at the give time they occurred.
IO – There’s a difference between the prices, yes, but the point you are missing is that it’s enhancement nonetheless. There is no real level playing field, you’re making one up.
“Avatar has a huge part of it’s gross collected from 3D/IMAX/REAL D/and whatever the Euros use fees. That’s a lot of cash the Dark Knight never had access too nor did Titanic.”
Never had access to? Not even The Dark Knight, which was released just last year? Why was TDK not allowed to be released in 3D?
Crash is the most rented movie on Netflix? That’s just too funny. Thanks for the laugh Junior.
Leah, I made a point, it’s my opinion, and I do not hate this film. I am just a baseball fan that sees a comparison with the inflated numbers of steroid area with the inflated numbers of the now 3D area in movies. It’s an inflated number. Even if the film made 300m, it still sells over sees, and makes close to a billion or more. So it’s not like this thing would not make money, but do not sell me on this film not having an inflated gross. 75 percent of 1.2 billion is like 900,000,000, that’s a still hunk of change, but notice the difference. #2 all-time because of an inflated gross is still #2 all-time, but it’s still an inflated gross.
Read above Brack. If you still do not get it, then you are just in love with a film. It makes you a Steelers type fan. Good for you. Good for you.
Brack, again, a level playing field in terms of a STAT. Do you not get how stats work? Again, Oscar Robertson got a triple double during a whacky rules year in the NBA. A Possible 900,000,000 of Avatar’s gross comes from an inflated ticket price. Compare that to the Dark Knight and Titanic which most of, if not all, of their grosses come from the standard ticket prices of the time in which they came out, and you got an uneven playing field. Why this is eluding you is not my problem. Sorry.
IO – You haven’t written anything to “get.” Get it?
Brack, yes I have. If a conservative Canuck can understand the cut of my Gib. You should as well, but you seem to act as if I am implying Avatar committed some sin by being in 3D. Again, the 3D is fine but 900 million POSSIBLY coming from 3D showings is one hell of a bump.
Oh yeah, if the next Batman movie is in 3D. Hell. How about IRON MAN 3 in 3D? What’s happening now will seem like a long time ago. I am glad you love Avatar this much to not have a discussion about this, but this is the hot blog.
IO – By who’s standard? Something like “standard ticket prices” doesn’t really mean anything, since the ticket price of Titanic was significantly less than The Dark Knight, so is TDK “really” #2? It shouldn’t be, according to your own standard.
You do realize that just because 75% or whatever was made off of 3D tickets doesn’t mean that a huge portion of that money wouldn’t have been made in 2D.
Where have I discussed my supposed “love” for the film? (as if that somehow discredits my points, which it wouldn’t). You argument is very flawed, and only used to talk about how Avatar’s numbers somehow aren’t real or significant, they’re just inflated. It’s baloney, and you know it.
The Dark Knight could’ve been in 3D. Oh it most certainly could have. That’s your level playing field. Oorah! There’s my Avatar “love”, just for you, I0.
It’s not baloney, and I do not know it. If it’s gross is that much inflated and it’s being compared to two films that in no way had most of their grosses inflated by something like 3D, then pleas explain to me how it’s baloney?
Again, I stated that the film would make money, I stated that it would still have made close to a billion, but close to a billion and a 1.2 billion are very different things. If you just want to accept this gross as being okay, then that’s okay for you. It’s not okay for me.
You also seem to have the ability that everyone on this blog has to read into something in a twisted way. I am not contradicting myself. You simply are seeing it the way you want to see it. I could fight more, but what’s the point? I made my case, I made it a few times, and you disagree. People on this blog have a rather weird tendency to never change their minds. You have decided that this is all crazy sauce and that 900,000,000 of a 1.2 billion possibly coming from an inflated ticket price is a cool and everyday thing. Sure it is.
The film made money. Most of it’s money comes from 3D. If most of it’s money comes from 3D showings with an inflated price then how do you compare it to others film that never had an opportunity to jack up 75 percent of it’s gross with an inflated ticket price? How is that not an honest question to ask? If that’s baloney. Make me some sandwiches!
IOIOIOI If you come across as a person who hates any opinion that’s wildly accepted. I’m thinking you probably wrote this article. http://www.flickfilosopher.com/blog/1999/12/its_a_wonderful_life_review.html
Again Brack, you seem to think it’s about the 3D. It has nothing to do with the 3D. It simply has to do with the inflated BUMP this film gets from the 3D. You also are obviously not reading my posts. If you were, you would have caught that I was referring to the next Batman film.
If you just want to be a jerk to me. Be a jerk to me. Why go through all of this trouble? We disagree. Oh the drama!
Junior, no, I just question things that need to be questioned. I have no idea what’s so difficult to understand about someone asking a question and having an opinion.
Oh yeah Junior I love that film. I even love a film called Casual Sex. It’s an under appreciated Lea Thompson classic. It always cracks me up that Victoria Jackson starred in this film. Especially given the fact she has become a right-wing comedian.
“Most of it’s money comes from 3D.”
no, io, your figures are askew, that’s just plain wrong and perhaps where you’re just not getting it or deluding yourself; the 3D premium varies from a couple dollars on top of regular ticket prices to up to an additional third at the most expensive. in what maths world does say an extra 1/5 to 1/3 of the ticket price add up to “most of it’s money”? it simply doesn’t
Leah, again, we have no idea how to JUDGE the premium because it’s different from place to place. Again, you have Ethan stating it’s double where he lives, and I have a friend who had to pay double as well. Here in Memphis, it’s about two bucks, but it varies all over.
Again, you love the movie, all of your country loves the movie, and the movie would make money. None of that changes the fact that this film got a unprecedented bump from being a primarily 3D film.
io, in no place is the 3D premium for avatar most of the ticket price, so you’re theory there is just poop (and i do hope you’re intentionally being shit-stirring dork and actually realise that loving avatar or not is a completely separate topic from 3D ticket prices)
Avatar probably wouldn’t have even been made if Cameron couldn’t it in 3D so it’s not like you can take the 3D out of the equation. It didn’t get a “bump” from being in 3D since the 3D is such an organic part of it that.
How can we compare Avatar grosses to those of Titanic or The Dark Knight that didn’t have 3D? Easily. By putting the two side by side and comparing how much money they made. There, easy. That’s how Hollywood works.
The simple fact of the matter is that Avatar has made that much money. People are putting that money down onto a counter (or on their card online or wherever ppl purchase tickets these days) and asking for a ticket to Avatar. These people are paying the extra to see it in 3D, which gives the film a major HURDLE more than anything when it comes to repeat viewings (which is the thing keeping it so boffo I would hazard to guess). So why shouldn’t we consider it’s box office to be incredibly bloody impressive. Why should it be seen as having some unfair asterisked advantage when this so-called advantage makes it MORE EXPENSIVE! That any movie makes that much money with ticket prices as they are is just astonishing and it would be astonishing no matter the film.
Yes, there is a big difference between “close to a billion and a 1.2 billion” but IN REAL LIFE that difference does no exist. It has made $1.2b (well, $1.35b now I think) and that.is.that. There’s no sake in debating what it would or would not have made due to various circumstances. It’s made its money and will continue to do so and that’s just it.
BTW, if you wanna go down the “3D bump” road, why not then admit that the film would have been cheaper to make if it weren’t in 3D, hence making its success equally impressive. But we can’t have that, can we?
IO – Not being a jerk, you just think that The Dark Knight was denied 3D premium ticket pricing. 3D has been around a while. It’s been used a lot in recent years. Your theory about the unlevel playing field simply doesn’t work.
Yeah, it’s like Cameron put a gun to people’s heads and forced them to pay more for 3D. How unfair. I’m loving the logic pretzels the haters are using to denigrate the movie’s success. Hilarious.
Resolved: 3-D is Hollywood’s version of steroids and the most obvious example is being juiced by Avatards.
Look closely at the photo — you will understand why I refuse to see “Avatar”.
Good, that way when I see it there’s not a chance I’ll have to sit by the ugly guy who smells like he shit his pants and keeps whispering to himself the whole time.