Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Avatar is poised to top Titanic on 2/2. How long do you think it will hold?

This is topic Avatar is poised to top Titanic on 2/2. How long do you think it will hold? 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=006043

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 02-01-2010, 09:59 PM:

I'm just curious for thoughts on how long Avatar might hold the domestic and world wide record? Especially since Avatar will likely set the new mark at $700-$750 million or higher.

Even getting looking at inflation adjusted grosses, Avatar will likely slide into 17th place ahead of Jurassic Park following this weekend. By the time it's all done, it could conceivably crack the top 10 - $813 million for Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-01-2010, 10:23 PM:

To answer the question, I think this new record will stand for awhile. Maybe if George Lucas makes the oft-denied parts 7-8-9 of Star Wars, or if Peter Jackson ever gets his Hobbitt on, we'll see some challenge.

It really doesn't make too much sense to compare today's blockbusters with the likes of Gone with the Wind and such, because aside from the obvious inflation issues, people simply didn't have 42 different venues to see movies in back then.

In the "golden age of movies," people didn't even HEAR about movies sometimes for months after they were released. On the other hand, during that era the theatre was the ONLY place to see a film. Then add in the fact that there were way fewer people then.

In the old days it was impossible for a film to do huge amounts of dollars OR ticket sales in an opening weekend or even the first month or two, because the release patterns were so different and there were maybe just a few hundred prints working, compared to the thousands of prints on even a minor release today.

The world is just too different now to even make a "chart" for the whole entire history of movies meaningful. Maybe dividing movie history into different "eras" (same as the music industry has done) would be good. So you could say that "Avatar" is the highest grossing movie of the modern era. But it certainly hasn't sold (and won't sell) the highest number of tickets in history, despite pulling in the most dollars.

If you could rank movies solely on the number of eyeballs which have viewed them (divided by 2) then the "top ten" list would probably be far different than it is now. But it's impossible to do, since there's no way to know how many people watch a video.

Posted by Jonathan Althaus (Member # 5042) on 02-01-2010, 10:38 PM:

Its the same as with sports records. It's just too different between then and now. Maris' record of 61 seemed unsurpassable, but in the past 12 years, its happened 6 times. I think its time for a new "era" for BO records. Maybe we start with the year 2000 and stop comparing movies from now and pre-y2k. Or whatever year that everything seemed to change.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 02-01-2010, 10:48 PM:

Jonathan, I think the "modern era" should probably start around 1985 when home video and cable started to become widespread entertainment alternatives. While video release windows were not an issue in the early days, it marked the end of major re-releases for the most part.

If we're going to segment the movie business, I see three significant time periods: pre-television, pre-home video, and current.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 02-01-2010, 10:53 PM:

Mike brought up a very interesting points about the number of prints released when I was a child. Back in the forties and fifties in Hawaii, a top Hollywood film would open at the Waikiki (Waikiki #3 in later years) & the Kuhio with only one print. After these picture play a week, they are sent to the down town Honolulu theatres and play at either the Hawaii or the Princess and play during the 2nd week. After that the same print will make it's run at the neighbor theatres starting first at either the Waipahu or the Wahiawa where they will play on a Saturday or Sunday. after that the same print is sent to the Varsity, Kewalo, Kalihi, Palama, Lilihi, Pawaa (Later The Cinerama Theatre) and the Kapahulu. After the film plays on Oahu, it is shipped to the other Hawaiian islands and play for a day during the weekend. There have been times when a theatre would only get one print and would show it at two theatres very close to each other by driving every reel of film back and forth. I know this sounds crazy but they have done it. Today, they do it on two screens in the same theatre complex by interlocking a print.

-Claude

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 02-02-2010, 12:01 AM:

I think Avatar has about £10m to go to beat Mamma Mia! in the UK, which did £69m, with Titanic close behind. Whether it does depends on the next two weekends and if it can hold out against kids films.

Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 02-02-2010, 01:40 AM:

People should compare ticket sales in ticket units and not money. Based on the 3D markup and all other aspects of course it is bound to yield higher sales!
Demetris

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 02-02-2010, 03:26 AM:

I started working at my theatre one month before Titanic opened. In a geeky way I feel 'lucky' to have experienced that. My theatre is currently playing Avatar 3D and while it doesn't match up to Titanic's business in raw ticket sales I'd say its about the closest I've seen in the last decade to matching that. When one takes into account the number of screens in a half hour radius of my theatre have almost doubled in the last decade I have to say I'm pretty impressed by Avatar.

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 02-02-2010, 02:51 PM:

I think tickets sold is the best measure and is evident in the "adjusted for inflation" charts. As for how long Avatar will hold the record...not as long as Titanic did! With the 3D premium counted in something will surpass them both in the next year or so...maybe even one of the Harry Potter films.

Let's face it kids...if not for the 3D photography this film would have been lucky to do half the business. The story sucked and the visuals wouldn't have had near the impact.