So Avatar is set to pass Titanic as the highest grossing film in U.S. history. For the last 12 years, this was a record that no one thought could possible be broken. Titanic grossed over $600 Million is 41 weeks. Avatar, after just 5 1/2 weeks is sitting at over $551 Million. That is by no means a small feat. However, the monetary numbers are very, very misleading for James Cameron’s latest money maker. There are so many extra factors that have led to that huge number. Let’s take a look and try to see what’s really going on here.
Titanic
Total Gross – $600,788,188+
Average Ticket Price 1997 – $4.59*
Estimated Tickets Sold – 120,000,000**
Avatar
Total Gross – $554,981,691+
Average Ticket Price 2010 – $7.35*
Estimated Tickets Sold – 58,000,000
Even at those numbers, Avatar is still pretty damn impressive. But there is one thing that the mainstream media is refusing to acknowledge. Most of Avatar’s gross is coming from 3D showings, 80%***. 3D prices, on average, seems to be about $10. At 80%, that number would put the 3D showings at $443.9 Million, while traditional theaters would account for no more than $110 Million. Not only that, a portion of their gross is coming from IMAX screenings. IMAX screenings are about $14*, which is nearly double the average U.S. ticket price. These are two, more expensive, revenue streams that Titanic didn’t have access to in 1997. In essence, only about 58 Million tickets have been sold for Avatar. That’s a far cry from the estimated 130 Million sold by Titanic. However, even if Avatar sold 58 Million tickets at standard theaters, the film would still have grossed over $426 Million. Unfortunately, official ticket sales are not released, so a fully accurate comparison isn’t possible.
So what does all this mean? In the end, it doesn’t mean a thing, other than movies are damn expensive now. Personally, I view modern movie grosses much like the steroids era in baseball. Inflated, but ultimately meaningless, numbers simply to look good. The numbers that really count are buried by glitzy box office grosses and inflation (Where Gone with the Wind would be the true #1). It’s just fun to throw around numbers and look at what is really going into those reports.
Number Sources:
+ Box Office Mojo
* National Association of Theater Owners
** Multiple news stories
*** The Hollywood Reporter
Yeah but then when you add in the “Twilight effect” (that of course being annoying teenage girls going to a movie a bagillion times because they want their life to be like the movie) What do you have then? And really money’s money.
But movies have always been built around the hope of repeat business. The “Twilight Effect”, as you call it, is a weak argument. This is not a new phenomena. In 1977, there were articles upon articles of people who saw Star Wars into the double, and even the triple digits in theaters. Hell much of the Star Wars saga’s numbers are built on repeat viewings. It just switches the demographic from young men to teen/tween girls.
So then the “3-D effect” is also a weak argument because it is no more than a gimmick to get to pay more for a ticket. I personally find this less degrading than shamelessly appealing to all demographics. Movies like “Star Wars” and “Gone With the Wind” got repeat viewings not because of they did that but because they were good movies. Also when “Gone With the Wind” came out it didn’t have as much competition as films today, I bet if Avatar (Titanic included) wasn’t going up against all theses other movies their box offices would be doubled. So in other words it is very hard to fairly adjust ticket prices. Am I saying that Avatar deserves all this money because it is better than “Star Wars” and “Gone With the Wind”? No. The movie was just a fun/O.K. movie. Did it/does it deserve to beat “Titanic”? Yes. Lots of other movies deserved that too.
I’m not sure what “3D Effect” you are talking about. The 3D showing, which have a more expensive ticket price than standard theater ticket prices have affected the box office numbers significantly for this film. No other film has had truly meaningful impact from their 3D showings, and a few movies that have sold more tickets this year would have trumped Avatar at the box office had 3D showings been offered (Transformers for one).
But you keep contradicting your own arguments. You claim “Money’s money”, but then give greater weight to repeat viewings of specific movies over others. Repeat viewings have been, and always will be an integral part of box office ticket sales, regardless of the demographic or film genre. However, Avatar is the first film to successfully take advantage of the higher ticket prices of 3D viewings while selling less overall tickets (meaning less people actually saw it) than it’s competition, both all-time and current. Transformers made a fairly Box Office insignificant $44 million from IMAX. Had even 40% of their gross come from 3D (remember Avatar is at 80%), Transformers would have easily eclipsed $600 Million. But Transformers didn’t go 3D, so their number actually looks less impressive, when more people saw it than Avatar.
I’m not knocking Avatar for being profitable. I’m just pointing out that the film has actually sold less tickets than its competition.
I agree with you that it sold more tickets I’m just saying that shamelessly appealing to all demographics is s no different than 3-D. They are both cheap and sneaky ways of making more money.
look at this list that shows the top grossing films “Adjusted for Inflation” rates. this brings all tickets to a standard rate and evens out every movie. Avatar is #26, Titanic is #6 and #1 belongs to Gone with the Wind. http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm
Sorry, and that’s Domestic Gross, Un adjusted Domestic is Titanic #1, and Un Adjusted worldwide is Avatar.