Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Let's guess Avatar's 1st weekend gross and 2nd weekend drop %

This is topic Let's guess Avatar's 1st weekend gross and 2nd weekend drop % in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=005986

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-14-2009, 03:42 PM:

I'm gonna say $62 million with a 40% drop in week 2.

Normally a movie like this would have a lot higher drop, but with Christmas in there, I think there'll be a lot of repeat business. (All this is assuming the movie is good.)

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 12-15-2009, 05:32 AM:

Nowhere near New Moon's opening weekend is my guess.

I'm saying $50 million opening weekend and a 40% drop as word gets out.

It'll do a "2012" and die quickly.

Posted by Jonathan Worthing (Member # 803) on 12-15-2009, 06:18 AM:

$46.5m Week 1 It will that over the hype.

55% loss week2.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 12-15-2009, 06:30 AM:

I'm going to say about $55 million for the first weekend, but I think it will top $250 million by January 3.

Keep in mind that the week from December 25 to December 31 is one of the busiest movie weeks of the year.

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 12-15-2009, 06:36 AM:

It's bound to do well. Not a lot of competition. 3-D screens (often "the best ones") booked for weeks. 3D surcharge. Busiest time of year with lots of youngster on holidays looking for cheap entertainment.

Even if the public "doesn't want to watch it" much, not a lot of alternatives. Also, it has been hyped to no end.

Should've made <$50m and <$200m at the end. But due to all the above etc, it pbbl will do much more. If it would've opened against Twilight Moon or Harry Potter ... then it would've made much less.

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 12-15-2009, 09:23 AM:

Maybe I'm just being hopeful, but I think it's going to have legs. I think word of mouth is going to be a big factor, because the general public just isn't that interested in what they've seen in the previews. But according to the reviews, it's a blast.

Transformers 2, which by all accounts was a complete turd, made $400m. Avatar will do better.

Weekend 1 $80m
Weekend 2 +10%

Or maybe I'm just giving the public too much credit. [Frown]

Posted by Todd McCracken (Member # 4718) on 12-15-2009, 10:21 AM:

My guess is that this movie will have legs aplenty. 2 months in the top 5.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 12-15-2009, 11:24 AM:

Nothing in the trailer compels me to see it, so I'm guessing a flop. I don't understand the appeal.

But, then, I didn't want to see "Raiders of the Lost Ark" the first time around, either. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-15-2009, 11:31 AM:

Roger Ebert gave it a 4-star review. (His top rating)

www.rogerebert.com

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-15-2009, 12:13 PM:

Roger Ebert wrote Beyond The Valley of the Dolls.

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 12-15-2009, 12:17 PM:

Roger Ebert's given out ELEVEN four-star reviews since October alone.

The man's gone soft.

Still, my gut says Avatar will surprise everyone opening weekend AND over the long haul. I'm going with $110 million opening weekend, $80 million Christmas weekend, and over $300 million total through New Year's weekend.

My gut also says I should go to Qdoba, so I am. Right now.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-15-2009, 01:11 PM:

Why are we concentrating on opening weekend gross and 2nd week percentage drop? This is one of the reasons why it is flat out difficult or impossible for a good movie to have legs anymore. It just gets overbooked up front and then runs out of gas by the 4th week.

If box office gross matters, the only thing that counts is the final tally after the movie has left theaters. I remember Tomb Raider grossing something like $70 million opening weekend a few years ago. Now that movie is practically forgotten.

Just to play along, I think Avatar will gross at least $100 million opening weekend. Maybe even $120 million. I would be surprised if it didn't. Isn't the opening weekend gross record something like $150 million? Avatar will have at least some chance of challenging that. Buzz has been going on about this movie for more than a year. A LOT of TV commercials have been airing. The movie also doesn't have much of any competition right now either.

Christmas weekend, Avatar will drop in the $66 to $75 million range and probably beat Sherlock Holmes on that weekend's business.

I don't see Avatar breaking the box office record of Titanic. I don't think there's enough cross-over appeal for women to make that possible. The movie should have little trouble reaching the $400 million mark in the United States.

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 12-15-2009, 01:48 PM:

I'm thinking $75M for the first weekend. Would have been a lot more one week earlier but it's the last weekend before Christmas. Probably drop off about 40% the second weekend ($45M)in a dead heat with Sherlock Holmes. Third weekend it holds up pretty well ($20M) and then it's over. I'm thinking about $250-300M domestic total.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 12-15-2009, 03:21 PM:

If the 3-D is as good as they say it is, how long can AVATAR play in that format until it has to make way for the next 3-D film? When is the next one due, and what is it? If it has to play in only 2-D after losing it's 3-D venues, how will this affect the movie's box office potential?

As far as predicting the total amount the movie will make world wide, I still predict at least 700 million.

-Claude

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 12-15-2009, 04:09 PM:

quote: Mark J. Marshall
Roger Ebert wrote Beyond The Valley of the Dolls.

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 12-15-2009, 04:13 PM:

Ebert actually liked the 3-D! [Eek!]

Hell must be freezing over!

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 12-15-2009, 04:23 PM:

Claude makes an interesting point. With all the hype about the 3D the 35mm auditoriums might suffer greatly. This would give it legs depending on how long they have the 3D screens. Perhaps someone can enlighten me?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-15-2009, 05:32 PM:

Ebert liked the 3-D because it wasn't "in your face" 3-D. (I actually noticed that when we saw the 16-minute preview of the movie in September....after a while I sort of forgot I was watching 3-D, except for the uncomfortable glasses.)

Another thing to keep in mind is, this has a 163-minute running time or thereabouts, therefore about one fewer showings per day.

As for this:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Why are we concentrating on opening weekend gross and 2nd week percentage drop?

Because that's the way things are these days and it ain't changing. Besides, the 2nd weekend drop is the best indicator of how the "legs" are going to be...although in this case it won't be quite as good an indicator because of Christmas week falling right in there.

And, one reason Ebert has given 11 four-star ratings since October is because of all those Oscar hopeful movies coming out in that time frame. How many did he give out in June-July-August? A lot less, I'd bet. (Haven't checked.)

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-15-2009, 05:52 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
And, one reason Ebert has given 11 four-star ratings since October is because of all those Oscar hopeful movies coming out in that time frame. How many did he give out in June-July-August? A lot less, I'd bet.

337.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-15-2009, 07:10 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
Because that's the way things are these days and it ain't changing.

Today's ADD movie business, brought to you by Ritalin™.

Posted by Jeremy Weigel (Member # 4208) on 12-15-2009, 08:03 PM:

We're not doing the midnight premier on this one and I haven't had anyone ask if we are. This makes me think its going to be a dud.

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 12-15-2009, 08:15 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
Ebert liked the 3-D because it wasn't "in your face" 3-D. (I actually noticed that when we saw the 16-minute preview of the movie in September....after a while I sort of forgot I was watching 3-D, except for the uncomfortable glasses.)

"UP" didn't have "in your face" 3-D either, but go read Ebert's blog after he saw that one. He was still preaching against it. The 3-D in "AVATAR" must have made some impression on him.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-15-2009, 08:44 PM:

There was another 3D recently he liked...Cloudy maybe? Or perhaps A Christmas Carol?

Something, anyway...

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-15-2009, 11:11 PM:

He liked "Up," But he apparently saw the 2-D version first, as hinted in this quote from his review:

quote:
The movie will be shown in 3-D in some theaters, about which I will say nothing, except to advise you to save the extra money and see it in 2-D. One of the film's qualities that is likely to be diminished by 3-D is its subtle and beautiful color palette.

About "Avatar," he didn't say he likes 3-D, but at least it didn't ruin the movie for him:

quote:
I'm a notorious skeptic about this process, a needless distraction from the perfect realism of movies in 2-D. Cameron's iteration is the best I've seen -- and more importantly, one of the most carefully-employed. The film never uses 3-D simply because it has it, and doesn't promiscuously violate the fourth wall. He also seems quite aware of 3-D's weakness for dimming the picture, and even with a film set largely in interiors and a rain forest, there's sufficient light.

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 12-16-2009, 11:59 AM:

The TV ads I've seen have been really lack luster, nothing even remotely interesting, just some odd blue people, it's got to be better than that.

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 12-16-2009, 02:51 PM:

Just came back from lunch at McD. Looked at the Avatar poster, the blue faces are basically cat faces, similar faces have been used hundreds of times.

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 12-16-2009, 03:18 PM:

Bill - What's the McDonalds angle? They have an Avatar toy for the kid's meal or a blue shake or something?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-16-2009, 08:57 PM:

Boxoffice is predicting $75 million this weekend for Avatar.

I'm surprised Fox didn't move the release date up to Wednesday.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-16-2009, 11:42 PM:

Just walked in to see the 1315 session coming out through the foyer...scenes more reminiscent of a Saturday night crowd than 1315 on a Thursday afternoon.

Big... [thumbsup]

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 12-17-2009, 05:32 AM:

quote:
About "Avatar," he didn't say he likes 3-D, but at least it didn't ruin the movie for him:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm a notorious skeptic about this process, a needless distraction from the perfect realism of movies in 2-D. Cameron's iteration is the best I've seen -- and more importantly, one of the most carefully-employed. The film never uses 3-D simply because it has it, and doesn't promiscuously violate the fourth wall. He also seems quite aware of 3-D's weakness for dimming the picture, and even with a film set largely in interiors and a rain forest, there's sufficient light.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Coming from him, and his notorious hatred of 3-D, that is tantamount to (face-saving) praise! As with is UP review (and I never said he didn't like UP, just he hates the 3-D), he has ALWAYS said that 3-D is an unnecessary distraction and makes movies less realistic, etc. After reading so many such diatribes from him in the past, his AVATAR review totally surprised me. I expected more of the same. Because there wasn't, it struck me as a very positive sign.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-18-2009, 11:44 PM:

Apparently midnight-show ticket sales for Avatar aren't anything spectacular...I wonder if the movie isn't going to be that big, OR if people are coming to their senses and foregoing midnight shows. There's also the fact that this isn't a sequel, which might have made a difference.

This is from the movies blog at the Orlando Sentinel :

quote: Roger Moore wrote:
The first hint that Avatar ain't Titanic II, or New Moon Redux?

It only sold $3.5 million in tickets, all over the country last night.

Hyped to death, and it made one ninth what New Moon made, one/seventh what the last Harry Potter pulled in.

The weekend will be big, but expectations may start tamping down right about now.

“Avatar” may be the highest-profile movie of the year, but it’s not one that got out hordes of fans late at night.
James Cameron’s new 3-D science-fiction flick grossed $3.54 million from shows that started at or soon after midnight last night in the U.S. and Canada, according to distributor 20th Century Fox.

Despite the huge hype for the film, there turned out to be a relatively small number of Cameron devotees who turned out to watch a two-hour-and-42-minute film after 12 a.m.

The top-grossing midnight debuts of all time, November’s “The Twilight Saga: New Moon” and July’s “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” started off with $26.3 million and $22.2 million, respectively.

Those movies, like most with big midnight bows, were sequels or adaptations with a built-in fan base eager to see the newest installment of their favorite series as soon as possible.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-19-2009, 12:22 AM:

The snow storm in the north east isn't going to help things this weekend.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 12-19-2009, 01:44 AM:

Looking back at the weekend before Christmas, many movies have not exactly been fast out of the gate. I think a large part of that is people are consumed with traveling and shopping. I also think many people wait until after Christmas to come with their families.

2008 - Yes Man opened with $18.2 million, grossed $97 million.
2007 - National Treasure 2 opened with $44.7 million, grossed $220 million.
2006 - Pursuit of Happyness opened with $26.5 million, grossed $163.5 million.
2005 - King Kong opened with $50.1 million, grossed $218 million.
2004 - Lemony Snicket $30 million, $118 million.

In 2003, Return of the King opened with $72.6 million and that was the last "blockbuster" opening for the weekend before Christmas.

Posted by Michael Voiland (Member # 5386) on 12-19-2009, 04:19 AM:

HERE IT IS
I am going to speak something that sounds odd....
I think weekend 2 will do better then weekend 1 on a 2 to 1 margin.
The word is spreading.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-19-2009, 07:40 AM:

I too think that people have other things on their mind than movies the week before Christmas and the current snow storm in the east is threatening to close many theatres.

I wouldn't give up hope yet on its financial success.

Steve

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 12-19-2009, 08:11 AM:

I can only say that the "grand opening" in an area of 50.000 people in Spain drew a crowd for the only 4 friday showings splitted in 2 locations (15 minutes apart) of less than 1000 total. Peak weekend-days in this area for a record hit-film can draw almost 4000 each day.

Still, it's not that unsual for the opening to be sort-of-weak and then pick-up. But there were no "external reasons" (no soccer games, no bad weather) and this film did slightly weaker than expected even when expectations were moderate to begin with.

Don't know if this was a trend nationwide or what. The film has been hyped to high heavens on TV with all the news reporting the "Amazing new technology that will knock your socks off like nothing you have ever-ever-ever seen before"

Predictions for those in the know for this film's first weekend in Spain are €7m, which is very good, but not record-breaking or anything. New Moon, which surpassed expectations, did better.

Still, this film has very little/no competition at the boxoffice right now and will be cleared in the top-houses 3D screens for months with nothing else 3D to be shown til March.

Avatar is bound to do well nonetheless. Complete different story would be if it opened against Full Moon and a new strong 3D film opened a month from now.

Let's not forget the ever-increasing ticket prices and 3D surcharges that inflate the numbers somewhat.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=2635&p=.htm

quote:
Avatar’ Shows Promise in Midnight Launch by Brandon Gray

December 18, 2009

In its midnight launch, Avatar pulled in $3.537 million at approximately 2,000 sites. 3D runs accounted for 85 percent of the gross. While such midnight grosses are not necessarily indicative of how the full weekend will play out, the initial sampling was nonetheless strong for a movie with no predecessors.

The three biggest midnight openings are The Twilight Saga: New Moon's $26.3 million, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince's $22.2 million and The Dark Knight's $18.5 million. However, those were sequels with rabid fan bases, therefore it would have been unrealistic to expect Avatar to come anywhere near them.

More comparable to Avatar would be I Am Legend, the movie that currently holds the December opening weekend record ($77.2 million). Its midnight start was $1.7 million at around 1,100 sites, a mere fraction of its $30.1 million opening day. Another epic adventure with a long runtime like Avatar, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, earned around $4 million in its midnight debut, leading to an $18.2 million first day (though it opened on a Wednesday). Earlier this year, Watchmen logged $4.55 million out of the gate at midnight but fizzled quickly, while Star Trek blasted off with $4 million from Thursday night previews and had generated $79.2 million by Sunday.

Avatar director James Cameron's last picture, Titanic, set sail on the same weekend in 1997. While no figures are available for its midnight showings, the romantic epic grossed $8.7 million on its opening day, or the equivalent of around $14 million adjusted for ticket price inflation. That was a blockbuster kick-off in those days, but it, of course, had legendary longevity as well, ultimately becoming the highest-grossing movie ever at $600.8 million.

Beyond its midnight start, Avatar strikes approximately 5,000 screens at 3,452 sites this weekend. That includes 3,129 screens at 2,038 3D sites (179 of which are IMAX), which is slightly less than A Christmas Carol (2009)'s debut at 2,045 3D sites (and 181 IMAX sites). Avatar also has a massive foreign campaign, striking 13,795 screens (including 3,941 3D screens) in 106 territories this weekend, and it's scheduled to reach 17,222 screens (including 5,360 screens) in 120 territories later on. Counter-programming Avatar this weekend is romantic comedy Did You Hear About the Morgans?, which debuts on around 3,000 screens at 2,718 sites.

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 12-19-2009, 04:45 PM:

News just in......

Boxoffice December 20 2009 Avatar opening

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 12-19-2009, 04:56 PM:

Well,

The $74m estimate for Avatar weekend total intake, considering the 3D surcharges and early openings since wednesday, would still be slightly behind movies like "I am lengend" that opened December to $77.2m. And that's not adjusting inflation. And, of course, quite behind true block busters like Twilight or Dark Knight.

Still, very strong performer. Sure hit.

As I said, this movie would probably "deserve" to be a $50m weekend maker but, due to the lack of competition, having the top-brand-new 3D houses for itself, the 3D surcharges, the massive marketing and outregous hypeing, sheer number of screens engaged, inflation, base of VERY commited fanboys buying 20 tickets each in advance, busy Xmas season, early showings, etc, etc, it's bound to do very good numbers.

But probably not record-shattering numbers. Read somewhere this film would have to gross over $800m in the theatrical run just to recover its production/marketing cost.

How much $$ are Imax tickets on the average for this film?

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 12-19-2009, 09:45 PM:

27 million for first day!

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 12-19-2009, 11:21 PM:

We are selling out 3D and have no demand for 2D at all, I think Avatar will have legs. Probably do reasonably well in the UK this weekend, but hold that number for two or three weeks. The BFI IMAX has sold out until January, that venue will probably gross over a million dollars alone during the Avatar run.

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 12-20-2009, 01:29 AM:

At an estimated $27 million on the first day, it would be the third highest grossing single-day film to open in December behind Lord of the Rings and I Am Legend (even less if we adjust for inflation and in number of viewers due to the 3D surcharge and expensive Imax engagements).

Of course, if we account year-round instead of just December, Avatar's projected $74m for the entire weekend goes way behind films like The Dark Knight ($158.5m), Spider-Man 3 ($151m), The Twilight New Moon ($143m), Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest ($135.5m), Shrek the Third ($121.5m), Spider-Man ($114.8m), Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End ($114.7), Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen /($109m), Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith ($108.5) and another dozen or two.

Avatar would pbbly rank around number 25 best weekend opening ever, not accounting for inflation (or for 3D surcharges). So VERY good numbers, just not super-duper record breaking at all.

We also have to remember that a lot of theatres world-wide converted to 3D just for this film and the patrons in that area are going to "check it out" since it's the very first time ever they see something in 3-D, thus the "novelty factor" that also attracts new viewers regardless if the film is that good or not.

To make matters even better, their "opening competition", Did You Hear About the Morgans, is getting TERRIBLE reviews and terribly low numbers.

Also, Avatar wasn't subjected to the common early-ish internet pirating. Until a couple of hours ago, there were no pirate copies floating around that I knew of (now there is).

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-20-2009, 10:38 AM:

As usual, the numbers would be way more meaningful if they would talk about actual number of tickets sold instead of dollars.

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 12-20-2009, 11:21 AM:

Definitely. A single Imax ticket pbbly grosses about two regular average 35mm tickets. How much popcorn does the Imax guy buys? [Big Grin]

Press is now downgrading $1m from Avatar weekend projection to $73m

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-20-2009, 12:39 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
As usual, the numbers would be way more meaningful if they would talk about actual number of tickets sold instead of dollars.

I agree 100% and have mentioned this point on and off few years.

A $100 million or $200 million gross isn't anywhere near as impressive as it used to be, largely because movie ticket prices are now a lot higher. A movie can gross $100 million with as few as 10 million people seeing the show. If the press release said "10 million people saw Avatar during opening weekend" it wouldn't impress very many people, but it would put a movie's popularity into a more realistic perspective.

Counting numbers of tickets sold would be a fairly inflation proof yard stick to measure the performance of movies over a long term period of time. It would give the general public a better picture of the overall health and popularity of the movie industry. Box offices grosses are flawed due to price inflation trends. Surcharges for digital 3D, IMAX and luxury settings are spiking those inflationary trends and making box office grosses even more unrealistic in ratio of actual number of tickets sold.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 12-20-2009, 05:27 PM:

The only real reason to publicly report box office receipts is to get people talking and for studio bragging rights. There is ample evidence that there is no correlation between a movie's quality and it's popularity.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-20-2009, 05:46 PM:

quote: Julio Roberto
Avatar would pbbly rank around number 25 best weekend opening ever, not accounting for inflation (or for 3D surcharges). So VERY good numbers, just not super-duper record breaking at all.

On the weekend of December 19, 1998...a little film called 'Titanic' had a $28,638,131 weekend. Now, I'm not saying this is another Titanic...but we all know how that ended up.

My point is it's going to have legs. Sure some folks hate it, but others are going to see it more than once...some more than twice.

I'd much prefer a reasonable opening and a long run to a 'Hulk' or 'New Moon' opening that does everything in its opening weekend and leaves nothing for the rest of the season.

I don't think anyone'll be complaining about AVATAR's opening results.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 12-20-2009, 11:20 PM:

I dunno 'bout everyone else of my vintage, but I still picture this guy, whenever I hear "Avatar?"

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 12-20-2009, 11:57 PM:

Yeah, Avatar seems to be polarizing (pun?) the audience. Some love it and rate it 9-11 out of 10. Some hate it and rate it 1-6 out of 10. Relatively few people is giving it a 7-8 out of 10.

I think it has to do partly with the uncanny valley. You either buy the blue aliens as "real" or you don't. Big difference in how you relate to the story.

Also, for some people the visuals are like "nothing they have seen before". For others, it's like any other animated movie (sure, with better facial performance tracking and updated to 2009). They are so impressed by the visuals that are willing to forgive the (objectively) weak and cliché story/plot.

Avatar will have well deserved legs on its own, but deserved or not, it will also be helped by not having a lot of competition and having the top 3D auditoriums engaged 'til March, as there is no other 3D film in the spotlight at all 'til then.

Avatar is "good" and deserves good BO numbers. It simply isn't the god-of-all-films-above-and-beyond-the-whole-earth that some people have been hyping for years. Just good or even very good to some, that's all.

But with the marketing the like I have never seen before (you guys catched that recent episode of TV series Bones where they spent an entire 15m subplot talking about Avatar?), the hype about the amazing 3D that prompts people to go and check it out in the most expensive engagements (Imax), the fan-base that is literally purchasing 5 and even 20 tickets in advance, etc, etc, will make this film more extra money regardless of how much people like it.

So far, combined critics give it an 8.4 out of 10 rating or so, so that's how much people like it in the average. It's getting BO numbers agreeing to that except that surcharges etc is making them 30% more than most-other films.

FOX is claiming projected $232m worldwide for the opening "weekend" (includes midnight showings and some countries opened it as early as Wednesday). Also, the US dollar is super weak worldwide generally speaking, so once again those numbers "look" around an extra 10% more than they really represent in number of viewers abroad. Also, this film opened super-wide in many countries. I think it may be a record of the highest number of "prints" here in Spain ever.

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 12-21-2009, 12:02 PM:

quote: John Wilson
On the weekend of December 19, 1998...a little film called 'Titanic'

Actually it was 1997. We opened the GCC Franklin Mills 14 that night. Had "Titanic", "Tomorrow Never Dies", "Mouse Hunt", "As Good As It Gets" that day and on Christmas Day I believe "Good Will Hunting" opened. Titanic on three screens and we interlocked a lot. Eventually it played on as many as six screens (including open captioned) plus interlocking. We were told we were the top grossing theater in North America with the title for many weeks. Being the first all digital sound, all stadium seating theater in the tri-state area we were THE place to go to see it.

A great guy named Jim was the booth manager and he turned me on to this site back in '98. I wonder if he's still there. Yeah, I lurked for ten years before I joined this forum!

FYI - I think I was the closest to first guess the weekend "Avatar" gross with my $75m prediction. What do I win? Let's see if my $45m for next weekend holds up.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-21-2009, 03:00 PM:

Like I said...1997. [Cool]

Actuals for AVATAR first weekend ended up at $77,025,481...interestingly, Australia did $11,962,000 Thursday to Sunday and a further $900,000 on Wednesday night totalling $12,895,497.

Ordinarily, we do +/- 10% of what USA/Canada do so it's more than just a bit off. The storms in the East they're only saying cost them about $1 million.

I'd expect the drop to be minimal next week (we sold out again last night (Monday) and that NEVER happens).

Upwards of $50 million for 2nd weekend.

quote: Joe Tommassello
"Titanic", "Tomorrow Never Dies", "Mouse Hunt", "As Good As It Gets"

Ha! That's EXACTLY what we were running too. [thumbsup]

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 12-21-2009, 03:50 PM:

Based on newspaper reports, AVATAR has already made 232.5 million dollars wordlwide and should recoup it's production costs in a few days and continue to do well for the duration of it's run. Because many people have expressed a desire to see it more than once, it should easily exceed the 700 million I had predicted. I have heard of people who have seen it in 2-D now plan to see it again in 3-D. There are also people who saw it in 3-D now want to see it in 2-D just to see how much difference there is between the two formats.

After it' theatrical run, it will do fantastic business when it comes out in Blu-Ray and DVD in about six months in 2-D only. When home video 3-D becomes established with new 3-D Blu Ray players and HDTV, fans will double dip and buy it again. There is no stopping this puppy.

-Claude

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 12-21-2009, 03:58 PM:

Claude - It wouldn't surprise me if Cameron held it back till the end of the year in order to make it the first 2D/3D hybrid disc.

John - I will always remember being in the industry when Titanic was released. Man did that film have legs. I wonder if we'll ever see another movie become such an event. I remember one week night in mid-February - about seven weeks after it opened - my cousin called and asked if she and her husband could get tickets for that night. The only available show was 10:30 and despite having to get up for work they came because they had been shut out several times already. Eventually that show sold out too. 300 people watching a seven-week-old movie till 2:00AM on a work night. It was a special time.

As for Avatar I am going to wait till after the new year and take a day off so my dad and I can see it in the afternoon at the IMAX 15/70 screen at King of Prussia PA.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-21-2009, 04:05 PM:

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
There is no stopping this puppy.

Joe

We opened it December 18 and it sold out at Easter...750 seats. I love the apathy towards the movie now. Some even deny having seen it...why, I have no idea. But they did see it...many times.

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 12-21-2009, 04:35 PM:

John - From my own experience I think I can put forward a theory on that.

I saw it a few weeks before opening due to the fact that I was still in the video industry as well as the theater (working two full time jobs). I was immediately blown away by all the things that were great about it and there was a lot. I couldn't wait for it to open as - even that far in advance - I felt like I was going to be a small part of something very special. My family came to see it on Christmas Night.

It was only many months later - probably after it was out on video (laserdisc in my case)- that I started to be bothered by it's shortcomings. Today when I think of Titanic it is as much about the cheesy dialog and adolescent storyline as the epic qualities that made it such an overwhelming theatrical experience. I think it's time to give it another spin and judge it again to see if the years have changed my perspective...or my tolerance.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 12-21-2009, 05:32 PM:

I still haven't seen Titanic and have no plans to do so. [Smile]

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 12-21-2009, 05:51 PM:

Joe,

James Cameron already said he was releasing a 2-D Blu Ray and DVD in about six months and a 3-D version when there is a market for it later. It makes a lot of good business sense for him if he did that. He did it with TITANIC when he first released a bare bone DVD of the movie and tempted fans to buy it again when he came out with a multiple disc special edition. I am almost sure he will come out with elaborate Blu Ray & dvd editions of his two most requested movies, THE ABYSS and TRUE LIES.

I never got tired of watching TITANIC, I just watched it the night after I saw the British version A NIGHT TO REMEMBER on a Criterion DVD about two months ago. Cameron's version told a very simple romantic story and that was one of the reason I like the movie.

-Claude

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 12-21-2009, 06:16 PM:

quote: Mike Heenan
I still haven't seen Titanic and have no plans to do so.

Mike, I think you're right on the money.

I saw it, and while watching it, I thought I was going to have a diabetic attack 'cause of all the slulpy, sugary horseshit crap and lame acting. What a POS!

Cameron NEEDS to stick to sci-fi stuff...

I thought "A Night To Remember" was a MUCH better film.

My all-time favorite "sinking ship" film is "The Last Voyage" ...Fantastic!

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 12-22-2009, 02:02 PM:

Mike -

While I agree with Phil about those aspects of the story the film overall is a monumental achievement. Granted the "love story" strains the imagination as the writing is juvenile and there is no chemistry between DiCarpio and Winslet but the rest of the story and characters (I particularly liked Billy Zane and David Warner as a team) are solid and it is quite a visual treat. Of course a quality theatrical (or even superior home theater) presentation will enhance the experience. If you don't have an opportunity to see it in a theater I might suggest waiting for the inevitable blu-ray and seeing it on the best video/audio home theater system to which you have access. I'd be interested in your opinion.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-22-2009, 02:38 PM:

Titanic is sort of weird to me -- I really liked the film and watched various scenes repeatedly when we had it, but since then I've had almost zero desire to watch it again. I think this could be because I knew that seeing it on TV would never be "the same" as the awesome theatrical experience. I don't own the DVD but maybe someday will spring for the Blu-ray, since we have a big enough TV now to do it a little more justice.

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 12-22-2009, 08:11 PM:

I wonder if I ask Cameron really really nicely, would he send me out a special DVD of "Avafart" to play on my specially installed, just-in-time-for-the-DVD release 12" CRT 1D monochrome TV set with 1.0 sound system?

You never know- everyone else has specially made formats of this thing for their equipment. [beer]

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 12-23-2009, 01:28 AM:

quote:
I wonder if I ask Cameron really really nicely, would he send me out a special DVD of "Avafart" to play on my specially installed, just-in-time-for-the-DVD release 12" CRT 1D monochrome TV set with 1.0 sound system?

You never know- everyone else has specially made formats of this thing for their equipment.

You are lucky. He announced one of those for early 2010.

But only in the 3:4 (SIC) ratio. [uhoh]

Not perfect, but close enough to enjoy the fantastic CGI. [Smile]

Posted by Michael Voiland (Member # 5386) on 12-27-2009, 04:02 PM:

The numbers tracker page puts avatar for this weekend at 75 million 2 million less then opening weekend.

quote:
The numbers avatar page

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-27-2009, 04:21 PM:

At least my second weekend guess was real close.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-27-2009, 10:57 PM:

Yeah, I wish I could take back my 2nd weekend drop prediction. It went down 3%. With Christmas in there, I should have known it wouldn't take much of a hit.

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 12-28-2009, 08:03 AM:

Yeah, I was dead on for the first weekend. This weekend took me by surprise. Glad to see good business out there.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 12-28-2009, 03:33 PM:

Does anyone know how much AVATAR has made world wide after two weeks? I know it had already made it production costs back and from now, everything it takes in will go into the profit column. I predict the film will continue to do well during the coming weeks and perhaps months. After it's theatrical run, it has the potential to do gangbuster home video business first with a 2-D release on DVD and Blu-Ray and when the Format is established - in HD 3-D on Blu-Ray.

-Claude

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 12-28-2009, 03:52 PM:

Production cost for Avatar is an estimated $230m. Not sure if that includes financing cost, as the film took a long time to develop and interests on such large amounts add up quickly over the years.

Also, the studio has spent by their admission $150m in marketing for the film ($230+$150=$380). Some unofficial sources call the whole deal a $400m operation. You also have to factor the distribution fees and duplication costs for such a wide release.

The movie, up until today, when it has opened for between 10 and 12 days, depending on the countries, has GROSSED $623m worldwide (it opened VERY wide). As you know, about half of the money goes to exhibitors and taxes. In this case, some money goes to the Imax and 3D people (RealD) as well. I guess you can figure the producers are about to just have recovered the production cost, but are only about half-way to make the film "truly" profitable.

Unless there is a sudden 90% drop in attendance, the film will surely be profitable on the long run with video and TV sales and the rest of the theatrical life.

But if you look at films Chipmunks, i.e, it grossed $75m (locally) up to its opening weekend, just about as much as Avatar did, but you don't have to factor 3D surcharges/royalties and a much lower production cost. And Chipmunks is having truly awful critics and ratings of 2.3 (out of 10), while Avatar is generally liked with a combined critics index of about 8.5.

Avatar looks like it's going to be a success, but not a super-blockbuster (considering its associated costs).

We'll see in the next weeks how much it drops.

But it is pretty amazing how nowadays just about any film grosses in excess of $50m in just a week or so and many surpass $100m w/o much difficulty. I guess we understimate the power of inflation. Even Sherlock Holmes made $66m in just 3 days this weekend.

Avatar is #9 in the ranking of worldwide grosses for films after 9 days since opening, behind a bunch of Spiderman, Harry Potter, Transformer, Pirates of the Caribbean, Twilight and Star Wars films, and barely ahead of Shrek. Once you adjust for inflation and 3D, you figure it's doing fine but not super-business. Also, Avatar was a very wide foreign release, so it's bound to make most of its money early instead of in stages as many other films that open much later in different countries.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-30-2009, 02:06 PM:

Well, needless to say it's huge here.

Up until (and including) Monday, it had grossed $32,594,716 and was headed for $40m at the end of its second week.

As I've mentioned here before, Australia generally does around 10% of North America's take so we are out in front of you at this point and really don't see that changing...that would be too difficult.

To put AVATAR's business into perspective, the highest grossing film in Australia's history is, unsurprisingly, TITANIC with (from memory) around $58m (or $77.5m adjusted for inflation). AVATAR is at $40m after only two weeks. [Eek!]

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-30-2009, 06:20 PM:

Final figures in for end of second week here...$38.6 million. [thumbsup]

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 12-31-2009, 02:06 AM:

It seems to be doing slightly better in Australia than "normal". I guess it may have something to do with the lead actor being from there and the whole New Zealand connection. [Razz]

So far, after about 2 full weeks, it's made $726m worldwide ($250m in the US).

Here is a list of how it ranked, NOT accounting for inflation or for 3D/Imax surcharges:
-5th ranking in best weekend Opening in 2009 in the USA.
-6th ranking in best weekend opening in 2009 abroad.
-9th ranking in best weekend opening in 2009 worldwide.
-15th ranking in best first week ever in the USA.
-76th ranking in highest grossing in a single day in the USA
-9th ranking in the Top grossing films worldwide after 10 days since opening
-26th ranking in the Top grossing films worldwide after days 3 days since opening
-21st ranking in the Top grossing films worldwide after 7 days since opening
-10th in the ranking of smallest drops for over 3000+ theaters
-24th in the ranking of fastest to make $100m worldwide
-10th in the ranking of fastest to make $200m worldwide

Those statistic are "fixed" as the timeframe to compute them has past. For other statistics, we still have to wait until the end of the theatrical run, but so far Avatar ranks:
-54th highest domestic gross ever
-39th highest worldwide gross ever
-7th top movies of past 365 days

Of course, those last couple of statistics are bound to change as the movie continues to run.

It seems Avatar has a very good chance of being in the top 10 highest grossing films, probably even the top 5. Once again, if we account for inflation or 3D surcharges, the more "equivalent" numbers to fairly compare with other films would pbbly be some 30% lower.

Extremely good number. Just not super-duper-all-records-ever-smashing numbers like some were claiming it was going to make.

During Xmas I've been having dinners etc with family/friends and they all said the same thing: they were "forced" to go see this movie as the marketing kept pushing the notion that this film MUST be seen and MUST be seen in 3D as there is absolutely nothing-ever-ever-ever-ever that came even remotely close and it's a "whole new extraordinary experience you-are-an-idiot-if-you-miss-it".

All of them said the same thing: "Sure, nice film, nice 3D, but what was all the fuzz about?" None of them are watching it a second time.

They all liked it very much and don't regret having seen it. But they all felt a little "cheated" by the marketing that promised a film way-and-beyond-it-all-ever and they found out a nice SciFi/fantasy semi-animated thing they liked, but may have skipped if it weren't for the pushy marketing false promises.

Posted by Elise Brandt (Member # 5552) on 12-31-2009, 02:52 AM:

In reply to the above; my dinner-table reviews have been quite the opposite [Big Grin]

thankfully. Direct quote from both my brother and my husband would be "best shit ever" but then they do like an action-bit that looks fantastic.

How embarrassing is it that I haven't seen it yet? Very.

What I did want to know is, have you noticed any more sick-ups than usual? I usually get to mop throw-up twice a year, now it was twice during the Avatar opening weekend. I'm sorry if it's been discussed before, these threads tend to get quite long to follow.

As for Finland, Avatar does really well, at our theater I think the second week was even better than the first?

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 12-31-2009, 03:01 AM:

Well, to be honest, one family member, a young male, thought it was the best s*it ever, but it was the second 3D film he ever saw. [Wink]

There are some people that get motion sick or headaches with the 3D. Avatar has gotten some of those, of course.

Posted by Elise Brandt (Member # 5552) on 12-31-2009, 03:52 AM:

I have heard of difficulty to adjust to "the whole 3D experience" (in movies that is, in real life it seems to go just fine for most haha) but I've never seen it with any other 3D movie before. I can't but think that it has something to do with the movie. Again, embarrassing as it is I get to see the thing myself next saturday (always either working, tired or home with the kids who are definitely too young to see that one) so by then I'll get the gist.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 01-01-2010, 01:36 PM:

The President of the United States and his family along with friends and their families saw AVATUR at Regal's Windward Mall 8 Theatre in Kaneohe at a private screening late yesterday morning before the first public show of the day at 12:45 pm. The presentation at the Windward Mall theatre was in Real D 3-D.

When the president and his party gets to enjoy a private screening of a film at a public motion picture theatre, is it free as a gesture of good will by the theatre chain or is the government or the president expected to pay for the showing?

-Claude

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-01-2010, 01:46 PM:

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
is it free as a gesture of good will by the theatre chain or is the government or the president expected to pay for the showing?

I call it neither. Gov't made the request and it became an automatic approval by REG. With the Pres and his fam in the Celebrity catagory, stuff like this usually hits the automatic expectation button.

The celebrity troop prob snuck in the back exit door, got conc items free and delivered to them in the auditorium and then snuck out the same door without too much hoopla.

'sides, we ain't gonna know if the Gov't made payment arrangements to REG on this one.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-01-2010, 06:24 PM:

I'm surprised they didn't just put 3D in the white house screening room.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-01-2010, 08:49 PM:

I don't understand why people with all the money in the world (be it the president or whoever) are always getting everything free.

If some movie star or the president ever decides to come to a movie here, damn right he's gonna pay.

Posted by Michael Voiland (Member # 5386) on 01-01-2010, 10:20 PM:

Its called a tax deduction.

Posted by Jonathan Althaus (Member # 5042) on 01-01-2010, 11:11 PM:

FYI.....Initial reports have Avatar's 3rd weekend gross at last weekends numbers. Another great weekend for the boxoffice.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-02-2010, 06:45 AM:

I've shown MANY, MANY shows to the VP...their party ALWAYS paid.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 01-02-2010, 01:42 PM:

Brad,

Now that the word is out that the President and his family along with some friends saw AVATAR in 3-D in a commercial movie theatre here in Hawaii, I am sure the industry will come through with equipping the White House projection booth with the process. Discussions about the white house projection booth has been covered here at FT but no one seem to know what kind of projection set p is being used there. I would not be surprised if the WH is already set up for digital projection and if that is the case, it should be a simple matter to set up the booth for 3-D .

-Claude

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 01-02-2010, 10:49 PM:

Perhaps they wanted to see it on a massive size screen?

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 01-03-2010, 01:21 AM:

First I doubt they snuck in the side door. The process and security measures for the president to go any where are just mind numbing.Second, Mike as much as I respect you. I've got to call bull. If the president wanted to come to The Roxy you would welcome him with open arms. Hell any of us would, and if they paid even better. But nobdys going to go "Hey Prez! Thats $37.50 for the wife and kids. No pay, No play."

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-03-2010, 01:16 PM:

Well ... all right, if I had voted for him, maybe I'd let him in free. [Big Grin]

Either way -- it's never gonna happen, so I don't have to worry about it!

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 01-03-2010, 04:20 PM:

Avatar's over $1 billion worldwide.

Watch out, Titanic...there's a new James Cameron movie in town. [thumbsup]

3rd weekend was only a 9.7% drop. [Eek!]

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 01-03-2010, 05:17 PM:

Avatar's made $352m in the US after 17 days right behind The Dark Knight's $394m for the same time frame [Eek!]

(again, not counting inflation or 3D surcharges)

But what's more impressive is that in 3 weeks Avatar has made $394m but in just 2 of those weeks Sherlock Holmes has made $141m and The Chipmunks $157m.

And the Blind Side still going strong with $209m !!!!

Merry Xmas/Happy New Year to all cinema owners [beer]

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 01-03-2010, 08:25 PM:

quote: Julio Roberto
But what's more impressive is that in 3 weeks Avatar has made $394m but in just 2 of those weeks Sherlock Holmes has made $141m and The Chipmunks $157m.

I personally find it more depressing than impressive that the Chipmunks made $157 mil.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-03-2010, 08:50 PM:

Cheer up, Sam. Today it doesn't take anywhere near as much in terms of actual tickets sold as it did 10 or 20 years ago for a movie to gross $150 million.

Today it's pretty easy for a movie to be a financial flop with a $150 million gross.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 01-03-2010, 09:26 PM:

That can only happen when the production and distribution cost exceeds the final gross of the film, Bobby.

-Claude

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-03-2010, 10:47 PM:

It's pretty common for big projects from major studios to exceed $150 million in costs for production and marketing. The $200 million mark for costs doesn't evoke gasps of shock like it did when Titanic was surpassing that budgetary mark nearly 13 years ago.

Movie gross numbers simply are not as impressive as they used to be. The $100 million mark was impressive over 20 years ago. Now it doesn't mean anything, especially for any wide release. Sure, a low budget movie making $100 million is great in terms of profit. However, the general public still isn't going to care.

A $500 million gross is pretty impressive since $500 million is a nice round number. But $500 million isn't nearly so impressive in terms of marketing hype when that's the worldwide gross. Lots of movies have done that already. It's common. Who cares? The only way I'm going to care about that is if I get paid a chunk of that money.

I don't think I'm going to find a box office gross number truly impressive until a movie's gross for the United States alone surpasses $1 billion. That mark may be achieved sometime during this new decade especially if trends in rising ticket pricing continue.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 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.

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 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.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 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.

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 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.

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 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 [Wink]

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 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?

[Eek!]

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 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 [Eek!]

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? [beer]

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.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 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?

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 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. [puke]

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 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.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 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

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 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.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 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.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 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

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 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.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-11-2010, 10:07 PM:

I don't think it'll catch Titanic in terms of tickets sold, but it might do more $ due to the higher prices. Of course the media will crawl all over the new "record" which will be even more meaningless than usual due to the 3-D premium price.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-11-2010, 10:52 PM:

I think it will be a sad occasion if Avatar manages to pass The Dark Knight in box office earnings.

The Dark Knight was a really good movie. Well, at least I really enjoyed watching it. I certainly enjoyed watching The Dark Knight more than Avatar. The Batman installment gave me quite a bit more of that elusive "movie high". I didn't really feel that at all with Avatar, even though that largely CGI movie looked and sounded great. It just didn't reach me emotionally anywhere to the point The Dark Knight did. When the Batman sequel was finished I wanted to see it again. I didn't feel that way about Avatar.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 01-11-2010, 11:05 PM:

Bobby, considering Avatar's domestic gross is only $100 million below The Dark Knight after a $50 million weekend, I don't think there is any question about it passing TDK.

I'm not convince Avatar will top Titanic yet - at least domestically. If by chance Avatar does top Titanic, that would put it at #21 on the all time inflation adjusted list. And if this happens, I don't think its inconceivable for Avatar to wind up around #15 on that list.
Top 100 Domestic Adjusted for Inflation

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 01-12-2010, 01:11 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
even though that largely CGI movie looked and sounded great

Why can't people just call it a freaking movie. Just say damn that movie looked and sounded great. Thats what it is, get over the fact that they are not "humans" on screen. They are real people acting out every scene that you see on screen. Everyone's complaining about them being CGI, but if he had painted a bunch of people blue and taken them out to the rainforest like you all want then you would all be complaining that he didn't use CGI. Stop looking for things to complain about. [Roll Eyes]

You know I wonder if the first movie that passed "Gone with the Wind" 198Mil gross bitched about inflation and that it wasn't fair.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-12-2010, 10:41 AM:

He was taking note of the fact that a large number of CGI movies don't look and sound great.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-12-2010, 05:31 PM:

Movies can look and sound great yet have a horrible script, horrible acting and horrible direction. Movies that are good, yet kind of forgettable can look and sound great. We see lots of those flicks come and go every summer.

Avatar is not a bad movie, but it isn't a great movie either. I found it reasonably entertaining, and it absolutely was helped by its great visuals and sound. Without all the layers of technical "cake icing" Avatar might have fallen flat with a lot more people.

And that's what some find frustrating. Avatar is going to end up at #2 or #3 on the "all time box office champ" list but isn't a truly great movie or a movie that has sparked a major pop cultural phenomenon. It feels pretty anti-climactic for Avatar to be leaping up the ranks on that box office grosses list.

On the bright side, if any ordinary piece of forgettable fluff can grab a high rank on an all time list it will do more to de-value the use of box office grosses to measure movie popularity.

quote: Kurt Zupin
You know I wonder if the first movie that passed "Gone with the Wind" 198Mil gross bitched about inflation and that it wasn't fair.

Actually, the bitching has been going on for decades. I remember seeing criticism about it when movies like Jaws and Star Wars were setting new box office records. The box office gross statistic wasn't so great a marketing item until the $100 million barrier was broken in the 1970s.

Further the bitching is correct. We should be counting tickets sold, not dollars. I really don't care if that means Gone With the Wind would remain the all time true box office champion. If the movie studios and "filmmakers" care enough about beating the old record they'll figure out a way to do so. But I don't think they care so much about selling countless millions of movie theater tickets. They seem more fixated on the home video end of things. While they keep doing that Gone With the Wind will remain as the real all time box office champion.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-12-2010, 06:03 PM:

Y'know, everyone keeps talking about how great Avatar's sound is, but I don't really remember much about it. It wasn't bad, but I don't remember being impressed. I remember hearing a few surround effects, but very little, if any subwoofer. My brain just may not have felt like retaining such information about the sound, but then again if it was there I'd probably remember it.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-12-2010, 08:46 PM:

I've probably talked to two dozen people who have seen it but none of them has said anything about the sound either. I even asked one friend of mine (who is a sound nut) how the sound was and he just said "eh, it was OK I guess." He saw the movie in the nearly-new theatre in Billings so it should have had good sound there. (Bad popcorn, but good sound.) [Big Grin]

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 01-12-2010, 08:48 PM:

I agree...from what I've heard it's no Titanic sound-wise.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-12-2010, 09:43 PM:

Maybe it's just me. I thought the sound mix was pretty good. Interesting sound effects, good atmosphere, better than average amount of directional surround sounds and decent bass response.

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 01-13-2010, 12:13 AM:

quote: Kurt Zupin
I wonder if the first movie that passed "Gone with the Wind" 198Mil gross bitched about inflation and that it wasn't fair.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Gone With the Wind will remain as the real all time box office champion.

Well, if you really want to nit pick, shouldn't only the first run count for the all time champ? All the re-releases skew older films' totals (and admissions), as they did not have home video.

If we're talking about gross, then let's talk about gross... when I talk about how much I spent on my first car (well, vehicle), I don't convert the cost to today's dollars, or twist it with some what-it-cost : what-I-was-earning-at-the-time ratio ...

If we want to talk about busiest movies of all time, then cool... but it should be in a different thread. [Razz]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-13-2010, 11:16 AM:

I think the record holder for "most people seeing" a movie is "The Wizard of Oz," due to all the TV airings, video releases, and about six or seven theatrical releases.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 01-17-2010, 03:30 AM:

As of Friday 1/15, Avatar is now running ahead of The Dark Knight through the same number of days.
BOM Top 5 daily show down

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 01-17-2010, 12:38 PM:

$492 Million in 31 Days. Another $41 million weekend and people are still doubting that it will make another $109mil in the course of its run?

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 01-25-2010, 03:39 PM:

I read the box office report for AVATAR during the past week and the film is now the 2nd highest grosing film behind TITANIC. The article also stated if it continues to do the kind of business it is doing now, it will top TITANIC by the middle of February. The money the film has earned so far did not include mine because I have still not seen it yet. I hope to see it soon and I have a feeling I will enjoy it based on what all of my friends have told me about the movie. Unlike many of you, they love the film including the 3-D.

-Claude

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 01-25-2010, 03:51 PM:

Let's see, way back early in this thread we talked about $700M worldwide, not domestic. $700M domestic? Get out! Well it's looking now like it could hit $700M domestic by the time it's done and wins some awards and finishes subrun etc.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-25-2010, 06:08 PM:

quote: Kurt Zupin
$492 Million in 31 Days. Another $41 million weekend and people are still doubting that it will make another $109mil in the course of its run?

I'm not. While I still don't understand its appeal, it's definitely putting the butts in the seats. The only question now is where it will wind up on the charts in terms of tickets sold. 3-D has added an asterisk to the top-grossers charts.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 02-16-2010, 03:31 PM:

This is an interesting thread to go back and peruse knowing now what it's done and what it's within a whisker of achieving.

Domestic: $666,388,502 - (28.4% of total)
Foreign: $1,684,000,000 - (71.6% of total)
Worldwide: $2,350,388,502

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 02-17-2010, 01:48 PM:

All this discussion of the box-office performance of "Avatar" and the complaints/comments about the industry not using a number-of-tickets-sold technique for evaluating box-office performance reminds me of the book "Blockbusting"**. The recently-published book is interesting because it covers a 100-year period and attempts to level the playing field by citing an adjusted-for-inflation figure for each film listed.

When everything is adjusted for inflation, "Avatar" has quite a way to go before it can be considered #1.

** The complete title of the book is "George Lucas's Blockbusting: A Decade-By-Decade Survey Of Timeless Movies Including Untold Secrets Of Their Financial And Cultural Success."

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 02-17-2010, 01:57 PM:

*Rubs eyes*

Michael?

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 02-17-2010, 08:40 PM:

Welcome Back, Michael [Smile]

-Claude

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 04-07-2010, 08:37 PM:

We can not install 3D and the nearby multiplex has, so we left 15 weeks between the release of Avatar and our date.

The resulting excellent houses indicate that the film could have been a huge success as a 2D feature. The additional cost of filming in 3D was possibly recovered by the additional ticket charges.

Other companies rushing into 3D reminds me of the success of The Lion King which prompted studios to invest in animation, mainly without profit.

Posted by Jonathan Althaus (Member # 5042) on 04-07-2010, 08:55 PM:

TheNumbers has Avatar at $731m on its inflation-adjusted chart, good for 4th on the list.

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 04-08-2010, 11:03 PM:

We open Avatar second run tomorrow