my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Let's guess Avatar's 1st weekend gross and 2nd weekend drop % (Page 7)

This topic comprises 9 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9

Author Topic: Let's guess Avatar's 1st weekend gross and 2nd weekend drop % Justin Hamaker Film God Posts: 2253 From: Lakeport, CA USA Registered: Jan 2004 posted 01-03-2010 11:10 PM                        Everyone is making a big deal about ticket prices, but in reality the percentage change is slowing down. Between 1967 and 1988 the average ticket price rose $2.89 ($1.22 to $4.11). Between 1988 and 2009 the average ticket price rose $3.07 ($4.11 to $7.18*). From 1967 to 1988 the average price increased by close to 250%, but from 1988 to 2009 the average didn't even double. Ticket prices taken from NATO except 2009 average ticket price which was pulled from Movieline report for the weekend of 1/1-1/3 2010. Furthermore, in 1988 the federal minimum wage was $3.35 and today it's $7.25. Federal Minimum Wage history The point is that people keep whining about ticket prices, but the increases really aren't out of line with inflation.  |  IP: Logged Kurt Zupin Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 989 From: Maricopa, Arizona Registered: Oct 2004 posted 01-03-2010 11:54 PM                     Dark Knight had 900 more screens then AVATAR has. 3D surcharge or not, thats alot of butts in the seats.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 01-04-2010 09:07 AM                     quote: Justin Hamaker The point is that people keep whining about ticket prices, but the increases really aren't out of line with inflation. I'm not whining about the ticket prices themselves. My point is a $100 million gross doesn't mean squat anymore if movie tickets are running $7-$10 or more. $100 million was impressive when Jaws grossed over that amount way back in the mid 1970s. The average movie ticket price back then was probably not even $2. My parents, brother and I saw the movie for "$2 per car load" at the Crest Drive-In in Yuma, AZ. That's 50¢ per viewer. If Jaws was released today and brought in as many viewers to theaters as it did back then it would probably be the all time box office champ. But since people are more fixated on dollar grosses, Jaws probably doesn't even register on any all time box office champ lists anymore. Number of tickets sold should be the real barometer on a movie's true popularity. Not the gross. The dollars earned are really only meaningful to the theaters and studios for paying bills. The amounts don't mean squat to anybody else. I think "100 million tickets sold" would be pretty damned impressive.  |  IP: Logged Geoff Jones Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 579 From: Broomfield, CO, USA Registered: Feb 2006 posted 01-04-2010 09:21 AM                        I would pay $35 to see a clean, 2D 35mm print of JAWS on a big screen, done right. Would that help? I will be happy to whine about it as much as necessary.  |  IP: Logged Julio Roberto Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 938 From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain Registered: Oct 2008 posted 01-04-2010 09:34 AM                    That's part of the equation with Avatar. A lot of people are driven by the marketing into seeing it in an Imax theater and Imax adult tickets can be as much as $24 (not saying ALL prices are that high, but few are below $15 in an Imax), basically double your "average" of not-so-long-ago regular tickets. Of course when they see it, sometimes for the first time, in the best and biggest screens ever in 3D ... well, they like it more. Just about any good movie is even better seen that way. And Avatar has a few scenes that are SPECIFICALLY made to cause an "wow" feeling with the depth if for not other reason, like hanging on the edge of a cliff that you can't help but feel "dizzy". A lot of people like the movie enough that, if they've seen it in 2D first, they are willing to give it another try in 3D to see if "it's true what they are saying I'm missing". If they've seen it in 3-D and are bothered by it, they watch it a second time in 2D to "see it right, without the annoying glasses". Not having a lot of worthit competition at the box office this Christmas is certainly not hurting the healthy numbers of this movie  |  IP: Logged John Wilson Film God Posts: 5438 From: Sydney, Australia. Registered: Dec 1999 posted 01-04-2010 02:28 PM                     So Sherlock Holmes with $140m after two weekends and Chipmunks 2 with $157m also after two weekends are not worthy competition?  |  IP: Logged Julio Roberto Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 938 From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain Registered: Oct 2008 posted 01-04-2010 04:11 PM                    Avatar has a critics/public rating of about 8.5 (out of ten). 8.3 in rottentomatoes. Chipmunks has a 2.3 in Rottentomatoes. Sherlock has a 6.9 in tomatoesland. And those two only competed the last 2 weeks. For the first week, Avatar opened against "Did you hear about the Morgans", with a tomato rating of 1.5 and boxoffice intake of $25m in 3 weeks. And what opened this week? Basically nothing. If you are given the choice of Avatar, Sherlock, All about the Morgans and Chipmunks, for 3 entire weeks, which one(s) would YOU want to watch? A different story would be if Avatar had a Potter or Batman or Twilight or some cool action flick with vampires/werewolves/whatnot around to compete, or even a decent kid's film like Shrek or something. Sherlock was "promising", but ended up being your usual let's-blow-everything-up, I hear. Chipmunks I hear is pitiful. That's what I meant.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-04-2010 05:50 PM                        Cameron definitely did get lucky with the competition. If Avatar had come out with, say, "Return of the King" following a week later, Fox would have seen different numbers. As for Chipmunks....yep, it's a pretty bad movie but it's filling a lot of seats and the intended audience is liking it, so what's not to like?  |  IP: Logged John Wilson Film God Posts: 5438 From: Sydney, Australia. Registered: Dec 1999 posted 01-04-2010 06:04 PM                     Yet they're still solid box office hits even with AVATAR's figures. Without AVATAR...where would they be? Worthy competition does not rely on a tomato score. It's what people want to see. Transformers 2 is the perfect example.  |  IP: Logged Julio Roberto Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 938 From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain Registered: Oct 2008 posted 01-04-2010 06:36 PM                    That's what I mean. In spite of Avatar-takes-it-all, the competition, which sucked according to critic and public, STILL managed to do very decent numbers. Imagine if they would've been any good and the public actually liked them and recommended them. Imagine if Chipmunks would've actually been an "8" movie (instead of a "2") and Sherlock a "9", instead of a 6.x We won't even talk about the Morgans or the total lack of anything worth mentioning this past weekend. There's been "nothing" to see that is really good at the box office for the past 3 weeks, other than Avatar. Sherlock is probably your only alternative if you've already seen Avatar. And perhaps The Blind Side, but that's too old and not a "popular action movie for the holidays". A different story would've been if Wolf or Daybreakers etc had opened earlier. Or some real strong competition like Twilight or Ironman/Batman etc. But for about 1 month, there are only 2-4 films potentially worth seeing. And it shows. No matter how bad they are, they all get pretty big numbers that, otherwise, would go even more to Avatar.  |  IP: Logged Claude S. Ayakawa Film God Posts: 2738 From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 01-04-2010 06:38 PM                        Based on the figures John Wilson had posted, AVATAR how has the potential to become the 2nd highest grossing film in history next to James Cameron's other film TITANIC within a month if the film continues to do the kind of business it is doing now.. It might come close to TITANIC 'S figures but I do not think AVATAR will outgross it. I still have not seen AVATAR and I think I will try to see it this coming weekend in digital IMAX 3-D. -Claude  |  IP: Logged Justin Hamaker Film God Posts: 2253 From: Lakeport, CA USA Registered: Jan 2004 posted 01-04-2010 07:39 PM                        I find the argument of competition affecting the box office to be off base. It assumes there is a finite size to the box office pie that all movies have to split. In reality, the size of the pie will grow to accommodate the movies that people want to see. How else do you explain a top 12 total weekend box of $129.8 million one weekend and $259.9 million the next weekend (weekends of 12/18/09 and 12/25/09 according to Box Office Mojo). boxofficemojo.com Furthermore, I often see people watching more than one movie in a day, and we have a number of regulars who will watch every new movie each weekend.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-04-2010 08:08 PM                        quote: Julio Roberto The Blind Side, but that's too old and not a "popular action movie for the holidays". That's not true. That movie is still working its way through the smaller towns; It did about 3x normal business in a neighboring town over the last couple of weeks; we're getting that print this Friday.  |  IP: Logged Claude S. Ayakawa Film God Posts: 2738 From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 01-11-2010 01:42 PM                        This morning's Honolulu Advertiser had reported AVATAR was No. at the box office four weeks in a row with $48.5 million domestic haul. The paper had reported AVATAR has already earned $1.34 billion world wide and now only behind TITANIC which took in $1.8 million. It took TITANIC months to reach that goal and at the fast pace AVATAR has already exceeded over a billion dollars world wide in only four weeks, I think the latest James Cameron movie will soon be the new box office champ. -Claude  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 01-11-2010 05:27 PM                     There's two very obvious factors that have helped Avatar make $1.3 billion worldwide faster than Titanic. 1: ticket prices are significantly higher than they were 12 years ago, meaning you don't need nearly so many tickets sold to make the same amount of money (that's especially true considering the price premiums of IMAX, "LieMAX" and digital 3D shows). 2: Avatar was released simultaneously in many countries around the world. Titanic had a slower, more staggered release. Avatar is certainly a qualified big hit movie. Still, I'm hesitant to call it a "blockbuster." It's not in the same league of popularity as Titanic and certainly isn't the kind of pop-cultural phenomenon as a true blockbuster like Star Wars. I think Avatar may have the "legs" to surpass the domestic box office dollar total of The Dark Knight, but I'll be pretty surprised if it can catch Titanic.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 9 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.