Avatar

[sauronsfinger]

If you read any good sources about the films of D. W. Griffith, it is estimated that a larger percentage of the population probably paid to see BIRTH OF A NATION than any film ever released. The major problem with this is coming up with any real sort of numbers - either total gross receipts or actual paid admissions. When the film first came out, the price of a ticket in major cities was $2.00 per ticket. Multiply that times a factor of 20 to give you its worth today.

When it was done in the theaters, it was common practice to sell prints of the film to traveling jobbers who would go from town to town in places with no actual movie theater and they would show it in town halls, churches, schools or even long and narrow stores. They would charge what they could get - often as little as a nickel for kids. The jobbers would pay a one time cash price for the prints and they normally did not keep records of admissions or gross revenues since they owed nothing to anyone other than themselves and a fee for the rent of the facility. Silent film experts guess that more people saw BOAN this way than did paying in a theater and actually having their money counted. The other thing about BOAN is that this practice lasted for several years and the film had an incredible shelf life.

So the point is that even the inflation adjusted numbers do not give us the real true picture of how many people actually saw a certain film.

[solicitr]

That's quite true. The list's author explains the assumptions he made and why therefore his ranking can never be anything more than approximate.

He also didn't mention the dramatic changes since the Thirties in the whole structure of film revenues, the change from single-screen theaters to multiplexes, the rise and fall of TV revenues, the rise of home video....

But at least it helps to remove one of the single biggest distorters, inflation, from the mix.

[sauronsfinger]

The AVATAR express continues to roll on at very high speed destroying everything in its path. The revenues from this past weekend have it on the verge of a few more records.

Not to sound like a broken record for a record-breaker, but Avatar maintained its blistering pace over the weekend. The box office colossus raked in an estimated $30 million, posting the strongest hold again for a nationwide release: down only 14 percent. That ranks as the highest-grossing seventh weekend ever, surpassing Titanic's $25.9 million (though Titanic was much higher in estimated attendance), and that pushed the total up to $594.5 million in 45 days. At its current pace, Avatar should exceed Titanic's $600.8 million by Wednesday to become the highest-grossing movie of all time (though not in attendance).


Avatar is already the top grosser overseas and worldwide, but it widened its lead with another mammoth week and crossed the $2 billion worldwide (domestic plus foreign) threshold in the process. Its foreign weekend came to an estimated $95 million, down a mere 12 percent, which lifted its total to $1.445 billion. Italy was its top market for the weekend with an estimated $10.9 million ($55.7 million total second only to Titanic), followed by China at $9.7 million ($126.3 million total), and the movie plowed past the $100 million milestones in Germany, the United Kingdom and Russia.

that is the Monday morning report courtesy of boxofficemojo.

[Alatar]

But at least it helps to remove one of the single biggest distorters, inflation, from the mix.

While inflation certainly should be considered, I would actually argue that the single biggest distorter is the advent of VCRs, DVDs and Home cinema. When films like Birth of a Nation and Gone with the Wind came out, you either saw them in the Cinema, or not at all. Nowadays you can normally get even the biggest blockbuster at home on your 60" screen, with surround sound, within a couple of months of release. That has to at least halve the number of bums on seats in the cinema, if not more!

I see roughly 4 - 5 movies a year in the Cinema, due to logistics, babysitters, RL issues. I see at least three times that at home, normally within 6 months of release.

[sauronsfinger]

Alatar brings us a very good point. I also wonder wonder how many movie tickets are not sold each year due to the ease that many people have obtaining bootleg copies that are fairly good in quality? In China you can buy a first run film for about a dollar or two on the street. As he wisely points out, the old films never had that to compete with excellent quality home systems.

This reminds me of the debate in sports about statistics. In baseball, they talk about the far more lively ball and the better bats that enable people to hit the ball farther (and lets not even bring the illegal stuff into it), the improvements in training and diet, and specialized coaching to make better players who hit more home runs. The old timers point out the long train rides, many double headers, and the new guys point to a schedule of mostly night games which some do not like. So there are points on either side. I always felt that a Babe Ruth or Ted Williams would it in any era even with all those changes.

In films, for better or worse, fair or unfair, Hollywood keeps score by gross box office receipts. Thats the figure that they worship. And AVATAR sits atop that list.

[yovargas]

While inflation certainly should be considered, I would actually argue that the single biggest distorter is the advent of VCRs, DVDs and Home cinema.

I'd say which aspect distorts things the most depends on what you're trying to measure. If what we're trying to measure is popularity, then you're probably right.

[solicitr]

In baseball, they talk about the far more lively ball and the better bats that enable people to hit the ball farther

I know it's rather OT here, but all the talk of a "juiced" ball in the 90's was an urban myth. Besides MLB and the manufacturers stating flatly that no change had been made to the ball, any number of university labs dissected baseballs and reached the same conclusion.

It wasn't the balls that were juiced, it was the players- note that since MLB started testing for steroids, HR numbers have fallen back to normal.

Bats haven't really changed at all in professional ball, except for a fad for using maple instead of ash, on which the jury is still out (maple is stiffer, but more prone to break). Rule 1.10(a) "The bat shall be a smooth, round stick not more than 2-3/4 inches in diameter at the thickest part and not more than 42 inches in length. The bat shall be one piece of solid wood" has been in place for more than a century, and it doesn't leave too much room for realistic variation. Louisville Slugger reports that the bat profile most ordered by big leaguers to this day is Babe Ruth's from 1924.

[sauronsfinger]

Solicitr - there most certainly was the "dead ball era" of baseball which pretty much was the first 25 years of major league baseball. You are correct about the bats used in major league baseball. When I threw in bats i was thinking of the aluminum bats which do give hitters a technological boost over the wooden ones. As noted, they cannot be used in the pro game.

this from the wikipedia entry on Dead Ball Era

The ball itself
Before 1920, it was very common for a baseball to be in play for over 100 pitches, as in cricket. A ball would be used until it started to unravel. The early baseball leagues were very cost-conscious, so fans would have to throw back balls that had been hit into the stands. The longer the ball was in use the softer it would become, and hitting a heavily-used, softer ball for distance is much more difficult than hitting a new, harder one. There is also the argument that the ball itself was softer to begin with, making home runs less likely.

I think the major point that Alatar brought up about home theater is an excellent one. Every era has its advantages and disadvantages that make simple numbers something you must take a closer look at.

[Alatar]

While inflation certainly should be considered, I would actually argue that the single biggest distorter is the advent of VCRs, DVDs and Home cinema.

I'd say which aspect distorts things the most depends on what you're trying to measure. If what we're trying to measure is popularity, then you're probably right.

I was thinking of measuring a movie's success. Which isn't really just popularity, but also the willingness to spend money on it (as opposed to watching "Its a wonderful life" every Christmas for free).

[sauronsfinger]

AVATAR and HURT LOCKER both led the Academy Award nominations with nine each including Best Film nods. It is interesting that while both films have a military action theme, both could not be more opposite in terms of their box office success. Its a good sign that the Academy members do not simply have their eyes on the dollar sign.

[Padme]

And both directed by people who used to be married to each other. There's a weird oscar party in the making.

[yovargas]

Politicians are the true aliens:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/125617/the-da ... s-p4-sr-i1

[solicitr]

But Joe isn't an alien! He was born in a small mining town in Wales!

[solicitr]

JERUSALEM (AP) - Palestinian protesters have added a colorful twist to demonstrations against Israel's separation barrier, painting themselves blue and posing as characters from the hit film "Avatar."

The demonstrators also donned long hair and loincloths Friday for the weekly protest against the barrier near the village of Bilin.

They equated their struggle to the intergalactic one portrayed in the film.

[sauronsfinger]

Now that is cooool

[Aravar]

While inflation certainly should be considered, I would actually argue that the single biggest distorter is the advent of VCRs, DVDs and Home cinema. When films like Birth of a Nation and Gone with the Wind came out, you either saw them in the Cinema, or not at all. Nowadays you can normally get even the biggest blockbuster at home on your 60" screen, with surround sound, within a couple of months of release. That has to at least halve the number of bums on seats in the cinema, if not more!

I see roughly 4 - 5 movies a year in the Cinema, due to logistics, babysitters, RL issues. I see at least three times that at home, normally within 6 months of release.

I agree entirely with this. I only went to the cinema four times last year. DVDs are, within a few months of release, cheaper to buy than a cinema ticket. Although I really want to see Sherlock Holmes, I'll probably wait for the DVD.

[halplm]

I saw this again last night, and enjoyed it as much as the first time, perhaps more, but that might be because I missed the first 20min (who knew traffic would be so bad on valentine's day? ).

I also thus, had to sit pretty much in the front row, which was not nearly as bad as I had thought it would be. In fact, the 3D seemed to be more pronounced in that case.

The main thing I come away from the film this time with, is that the script was absolutely atrocious... at least on the human side. They could quite literally take away 95% of the human to human interactions of the film and it would be 10 times better.

Also, still, the motivations of the humans are utterly unbelievable, and not at all consistent with their actions. If they had been on a colonizing mission, as a large portion of the script suggests, things would have made a lot more sense (although not with the fact the air was poison).

[Pearly Di]

The main thing I come away from the film this time with, is that the script was absolutely atrocious... at least on the human side. They could quite literally take away 95% of the human to human interactions of the film and it would be 10 times better.

To be honest, I thought the Titanic script was just as bad.

(Worst line in movie history is Jack commenting to Rose -- who has these priceless Impressionist paintings on board, which all go down with the ship, LOL -- "didn't Degas have such a great use of color?" I pretty much in the cinema there and then.)

But you're right: the Na'vi and Sigourney Weaver pretty much get the only decent lines.

Also, still, the motivations of the humans are utterly unbelievable, and not at all consistent with their actions. If they had been on a colonizing mission, as a large portion of the script suggests, things would have made a lot more sense (although not with the fact the air was poison).

Oh, the bad guys were Greedy, Corrupt, One-Dimensional Bad Asses. Cameron's portrayal of the White Star staff in Titanic wasn't much better.

[River]

The main thing I come away from the film this time with, is that the script was absolutely atrocious... at least on the human side. They could quite literally take away 95% of the human to human interactions of the film and it would be 10 times better.

To be honest, I thought the Titanic script was just as bad.

Clearly, you don't need a good script to break box office records and clean house at the Oscars. But wouldn't it be nice if you did?

[halplm]

Don't get me wrong, the film deserves its money. They spent a ton to make something like no one has made before, and they deserve to get their investment back and then some.

Awards, on the other hand... alas they baffle me no matter what...

And yes, Titanic wasn't much for a script, I agree. However, I would say its success was less in the special effects area, and more in the characters themselves.