Box office analysts, those curious loons who spend each weekend with a calculator in one hand and their pleasure appendage in the other, thought that James Cameron has compressed all their Christmases into one and rendered it in 3D when Avatar inverted the trajectory of the average blockbuster. As any fule no, the release strategy for the Hollywood tentpole is now well established and has generated a model of return which is just as reliable. In days of yore, before home cinema and online theft, a movie, like a fine wine, was given time to breathe. Released in a few hundred cinemas in major cities, it would gradually tour, building word of mouth as it went. It might spread to the countryside, assuming anyone in the metropolis had bothered to see it and after a period of several months, sometimes years, it would quietly fade away, perhaps to be revived in rep a few years later, perhaps to find new life on television. Cinemagoers were often older and perhaps a little more adventurous, propelling movies like The Godfather and Doctor Zhivago to stratospheric box office.
Jaws changed all that. Hollywood learnt that a movie that appealed to a younger audience, a hyperactive, thrill seeking, devil may care audience, could generate enormous revenues, and fast. Jaws’ presence in America’s multiplexes soon expanded and its gross reflected the fact that audiences were returning to see it several times. Without intent, much like the serendipitous invention of Viagra or Penicillin, Spielberg’s film invented a new way of doing business. Now Blockbusters can expect to make most of their money on opening weekend. This is due to a blitzkrieg model in which a new release is relentlessly marketed in the months prior to its reveal then booked into as many screens as humanly possible, usually in excess of 3,000. In this opening “frame”, the movie can expect to make the lion’s share of its final take. Those analysts, who live for little else, keep their beady eyes on the so called sophomore frame, that second weekend in which good or bad word of mouth, coupled with the bulk of the target audience having blown their load, usually leads to a substantial decline. A movie can lose half its audience in the second week so any decline of less than 40% is deemed to indicate that the film has “legs”. Most don’t. Based upon this pattern of decline it then becomes fairly easy for the number crunchers to predict how much the movie will end with. If it flops, no matter – the cinema is only the first market anyway. Those ancillaries, DVD, Blu-ray and soon, legitimate download, may recoup costs, sometimes even turning a profit. But we digress.
What’s extraordinary about Avatar, and it certainly isn’t the plot or the characterisation, is the speed and consistency with which it’s made money. The opening weekend, $77M in the US, was solid but not extraordinary. However, Cameron’s film, just as Titanic had done 11 years earlier, broke the cycle of box office decline and has held on to its audience who seemingly can’t get enough of its gimmicked environs. In that sophomore frame it lost just 11% of its audience, virtually – no pun intended, unheard of and 5 weeks later it remains no.1 at the usually fickle US box office. It is the fastest movie in history to make $500m at US tills, the fastest to $1b worldwide in just 32 days. Screenings remained fully booked and sometime in February it will beat Titanic to take the number one all time spot in the US box office chart. By that time it will easily have assumed the same position worldwide. A gross in excess of $2b is attainable and highly likely. Now that all sounds marvellous and would seem to make Avatar unassailable, suggesting that cinema attendance is in rude health but it is of course, a lie because box office charts only reflect the actual figure amassed. They do not alter this figure to account for ticket price inflation. We, however, will do just that.
The truth is that Avatar is an enormous hit but no more so than several movies from the distant past. When one does account for inflation, as any honest comparison of box office tallies must, then Avatar is currently 32 on the list of US domestic blockbusters, sandwiched between Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and Ghostbusters, both of which made the equivalent of $519m in 2010 money. Assuming it finishes around the $600-650m range, as it likely, it would be no more popular than The Phantom Menace, Jurassic Park, Raiders of the Lost Ark or, wait for it, The Graduate. If Cameron wants to beat himself and there are many who wish he’d try, Avatar will need to bank $943,342,301 at US multiplexes to make more than Titanic did in 1998. You see, it’s not quite the clean sweep you thought it was.
HUG readers may be more interested to know how Avatar stacks up against their childhood favourites and this is actually a useful comparison because many movies, pre-1980, would only achieve their totals from multiple releases. Even Star Wars, which has a Rancor sized gross of $1.3billion in adjusted dollars – that’s US alone, has amassed that total from $320m from 1977 added to a further $138m from 1997. You then have to look at average ticket prices, attendance, a comparison of average prices if attendance figures aren’t avai- look, it’s complicated alright?
A more pertinent question for the box office analyst, rather than why is Avatar doing so well, might be ‘why don’t more modern movies do as well as Avatar?’ Recent blockbusters, even those which are critically acclaimed such as Lord of the Rings, can only boast no.51 in the chart overall. Johhny Depp’s impression of Keith Richards might have propelled Pirates of the Caribbean to worldwide success but he couldn’t do better than Henry Koster’s 1953 biblical hit, The Robe. Have you seen it? No, didn’t think so. In fact if Avatar does finish where we imagine it will, it will be the only film released in the Noughties to finish in the top 25.
So how do your favourites compare to Cameron’s behemoth? It will end up in Return of the Jedi country ($691m adjusted) but far short of Jaws ($941m adjusted), E.T ($1.04b adjusted) and the all time champ, Gone with the Wind (an incredible $1.48b adjusted). The other bad news for Hollywood on the box office front is that they’re having to swim twice as hard to cover the same distance from a generation ago. JJ Abrams’ Star Trek easily surpassed its predecessor’s numbers with $257.7m last summer, but that looks less rosy when you look at inflation. The previous leader in the Trek canon, 1986’s The Voyage Home, made $100m at a time when tickets cost about half as much. On a $30m budget (about $60m today), it made 80% of Abram’s take. The 2009 film by contrast cost $62m in 1986 money, over twice as much and would have grossed $132m at 1986 prices. A victor then, but not by the margin we all imagined.
If you’re a Hollywood exec trying to work out why you need to spend twice as much and a third again on marketing just to match the kind of grosses movies were making 25 years ago, you could blame the proliferation of home entertainment and the internet, or, if you were being smart, you might think that today’s blockbusters don’t have the same legs because they offer audiences less in terms of plot, character, dialogue and ideas – those essential storytelling elements which endear a film to patrons, drive word of mouth and promote repeat business. The 80s movies that still rank in the top 30 did so with lower budgets, fewer screens and no 3D glasses. Makes you think.
Still, it would be churlish, I mean more so than I’ve been already, to underwrite Cameron’s achievement. The advance in technology represented by Avatar has mouth watering potential which is just waiting to be wasted by poor screenwriters. In any event, he’ll end up with two movies in the all time top ten, an achievement only matched by Steven Spielberg and with that boat movie, he still managed to rake in two thirds of Gone with the Wind’s gross in an era when less than half as many people went to the cinema. Imagine what Cameron could do with a great script as well the promise of never before seen spectacle. It might even beat inflation…for a while.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by HeyUGuys Movie News, Kneon Transitt. Kneon Transitt said: RT @heyuguysblog: Avatar's Inflated Box Office and Other Stories : http://bit.ly/7xwv12 […]
[…] post: Avatar's Inflated Box Office and Other Stories : HeyUGuys – UK … Category: Movie News […]
Do re-read Sircreate as you’ll see I have accounted for ancillary markets and the web as well as the fact that Gone with the Wind was released at a time when annual attendance at the cinema was 4b as opposed to 1.8b today. The case can be overstated though. First and foremost competition for the box office is nothing new. The advent of TV has cut into cinema’s numbers since the 1950s, hence cini-fightbacks such as 3D, cinemascope, vistavision, etc.
Cinema was still competing with TV and video in the 1980s when cinema attendance was lower than it is now; that despite the lack of the internet so comparisons are fair and justifiable.
Movie downloads cut into movie revenues but not to the detriment of run away hits. Look at Wolverine’s box office success despite the release of a full work print just one month earlier. The impact remains negligible and probably will remain so until Apple’s iSlate, or whatever the fuck it’s called, makes watching a movie on the move like listening to a track on an ipod. Even then, the impact is likely to be greater felt in the Blu-ray/DVD market, I don’t imagine that cinema attendance will suffer too much – it’s remained pretty stable over the last ten years. During the period you talk about it’s even gone up, so it would be premature to say the web matters in that respect.
As well as inflation Cameron’s BO for Avatar has also been inflated by higher ticket prices for 3D and more screens than was available for wide release when Titanic premiered in 1997. I do give his him due in the final paragraph, not that I like the movie very much (I doubt it will stand up once the technological novelty has subsided), but any talk of box office records has to be balanced with a bit of historical context and the proper adjustments, else it’s just a meaningless set of figures and that underwrites the past achievements of other filmmakers.
I doubt GWTW would have made that sort of money too, but having said that the template it established it still fairly popular. Cameron’s success with Titanic tapped into audience’s same predilection for spectacle and sentimentality which you can trace back, in box office hit terms, to Sunrise, so it was no fluke but of course cinema was dominant then and you have to take that into account.
Remember, downloading movies is theft kids.
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by heyuguysblog: Avatar’s Inflated Box Office and Other Stories : .
You have to account for the fact that these days we have tv and the internet that compete with the box office, theres no way in hell that Gone with the Wind would even come close to Titanics numbers if you brought it out today.
And you can't even compare beyond the last decade with other movies, with movies easily downloadable off the net cutting into many movies revenues, it only highlights the astonishing accomplishment that James Cameron has achieved with Avatar.
I don't like compensating for inflation. The movies that beat Avatar when adjusted for inflation came out at a different time. For most of them it took multiple releases to generate their B.O. Not only that but did those movies have to compete against other popular movies? Look at Avatar, in the month and a half it has been out it has had to go up against the star driven Sherlock Holmes, the popular with kids Alvin and the Chipmunks and the the ever popular Denzel Washington. Yet people are choosing to return to Avatar. The fact is what Avatar is doing in an era where opening weekends mean everything and long box office runs rarely if ever happen is incredible.
You cannot compare the success of AVATAR to movies of the past. Today there is so much more to keep people away from the movies than any other time in history. Pirated downloads from the internet, HD flat screens in millions of American homes, etc.
If Gone With The Wind were released today instead of 1939, it wouldn't be the top box office of all time. Big, but not that big. Released in a day with no TV -not to mention no DVD, TiVo, Cable, on demand, etc.- it continued to be rereleased every few years – 1942, 1949 and so on. Actually was released last year in Poland. Today's movies have a quick run and then they are moved to DVD. It is harder to get people to go see a movie again in a few years when they have it sitting on the shelf in their den, on their ipod, on their phone, and anywhere else you can think of. The only movie in modern times that has drawn that kind of repeat business over years is Star Wars and it wasn't really the same movie. The rerelease was a major budget, major differences, new version. It should count as two movies.
Well as I say in the article comparisons with the 1930s are erroneous because of re-releases, higher cinema attendance, etc. However, to say you can’t compare Avatar to movies from the blockbuster era, namely the mid-70s onwards, is fallacious. There may be more distractions but it’s a leap to say to they keep more people from the cinema. Attendance is up, not down. There are two eras of cinema spectatorship effectively, before and after TV. Don’t believe that? Look at the trends relative to attendance from the 50s to now. It bares out.
Regarding the negliable effect that illegal downloads have on cinema attendance, you’re ignoring the fact that Avatar is far less likely to be hurt by this because it’s been sold on a platform which isn’t available over the internet or at home, namely big screen 3D spectacle – a new technology. It’s fair to say its box office is therefore “pure” and so comparisons to over movies which wouldn’t have been affected by the web are fair and justified. But to be clear, the effect from downloads is probably overstated and even if that weren’t the case, which it is – a work print of wolverine released a month before the movie didn’t hurt its box office, such problems wouldn’t effect Avatar. Who’s going to want to download it in poor quality 2D? Even the serial thieves I talk to aren’t interested and they go to the cinema maybe twice a year. People still turn out for the big releases.
Cinema has had competition since the 1950s and it’s rather strange to assume that the home distractions of 25 years ago, namely TV and video, in some way took up the attention of a smaller proportion of younger cinema goers, meaning a higher proportion were more likely to go the flicks. Piracy is nothing new in that respect, it’s only the medium of delivery that has changed. What’s the evidence for that? Again, look at attendance. More people went to the cinema in 2006 than at any time since the forties. Plus, when you factor in the fact that cinema attendance was lower in the 80s and tickets were cheaper, the grosses of those movies are more remarkable. More people attend now and pay twice as much yet modern movies can’t match those grosses. Comparisons between the two eras are instructive – its not just the technology in the home, it's the nature of the movies themselves which has changed. Also, to NOT adjust for inflation underwrites the achievements of those filmmakers who had huge hits but have to read, incorrectly, that they’ve been pushed down the chart by Cameron and co. They haven’t. Again, the comparison is really with 20 years ago rather than 80 years ago but its worth checking the figures as it puts Avatar’s gross in perspective rather than it being just a meaningless and seemingly unassailable figure.
As an aside it's also worth us considering the way the web supports movies via sites like this one, aintitcool, etc, and the role the internet has in generating interest and awareness. Perhaps that neutralises the loss of revenue from illegal downloads?
Just a thought. Remember kids, downloading movies is theft. Peace 'n' fucking.
I liked the fact that you accounted for inflation. I was just talking to my hubby about that the other day. We saw Avatar last night. It was decent. But I paid $15 for a movie that I was less than blown away by. I sort of felt ripped off.
Avatar “experience”: pretty damn cool
Avatar “the movie”: eh, maybe not quite as epic.
Regardless of how much one liked or disliked Avatar (notice the past tense there; an assumtion everyone's already seen it ;), I must say that Ed raises some extremely valid points. In fact, when I first learned the measuring stick was Box Office gross figures, my initial thought was, “Well that's just stupid! What an inaccurate assessment.”.
I suppose it's kinda like the DOW Industrial Average – where the total cost of 30 stocks was divided by, well, 30 and made perfect sense… in 1890. Conserving tradition and the original method of measure – for those following along closely – became more important than how odd the system appears to newcomers. I'm just not sure when the Box Office methods looked normal (or if they ever did). If there was a 20 year period when ticket prices were basically stable (25 cents or whatever) OR if ticket prices fluctuated for different movies, then I could see how the BOG [Box Office Gross] method started.
Today, I'd think counting straight up ticket numbers sold would be a much better indicator. There are far too many variables with dollar figures alone. Besides, don't movie theaters (perhaps in different economic zones) charge whatever they want? Also, how much of your $100 million BOG goes to the theaters? I'm thinking both attendance numbers and dollar figures would be needed for a thorough picture of how well a movie did.
FWIW, I'm in the camp who goes to an actual cinema maybe 5 times/year, depending on how many movies come out that I really want to see on the big screen. I watch most movies via DVR or Netflix, usually at someone else's place, which I suppose doesn't give studios a penny more than if it were obtained illegally. I also have a small collection of DVD & Blu-ray.
So anyway, I'm a sorta hard sell…
BUT when a movie like Avatar comes along, then $30 to see it twice on IMAX 3-D. Bam! Done. Once for myself and once to turn someone else on, especially someone who'd otherwise miss it – may even pay their way. I also paid $10 each to see Terminator Salvation, Star Trek, District 9, Ice Age 3-D, Up …and maybe one more I'm forgetting. Expectations are the biggest factor for me and just those 5 run the gamut from above to below [expectation]. When movies fail to deliver, then it takes a little more effort to get me out next time around.
Come to think of it, BOG figures don't take into account whether audiences even liked a film… it could've sucked. Money flows into theaters' coffers is ALL that it measures. That makes it seem like a blatently shallow goal to elevate as a golden yardstick. If Hollywood only focuses on dollar signs instead of quality, then they'll prolly join the RIAA in watching their numbers dwindle downward.
I used to buy music and go to concerts, spending easily $500+ in a year but grew tired of the crap being churned out (plus, let's face the sadness: no shows today can match Pink Floyd or even the early Rave Scene before a swift gov't stomping).
Combined with the generally nasty attitude of the music business side, and I'm proud to say that I've not spent one dime enriching them in about 10 good years and barely miss 'em.
When Hollywood makes something worth seeing in IMAX-3D, on the big screen, or even just on Blu-ray… then I'll be ready and willing to pay [a fair amount]. Hollywood execs can tally it up however they want so long as they don't come to expect profits when material sucks. I'd rather not read a book, but will if I must!
i think as mentioned in the article the speed at which Avatar is making money is incredible. Titanic took 252 days to make 600 million domestically. Avatar will smash that. If Avatar was to be allowed to run the length at which Titanic did it would no doubt in my opinion become the all time grossing movie…inflation, ticket prices and attendance included. im not a finance major nor do i pretend to be but
that was not some much a reply to your comment DA as a general comment. hit wrong tab. sawwy
[…] wrote a great post recently about inflation and how even though Avatar has higher figures than Titanic or a movie like […]
The BBC mentions inflation for the first time in its reporting on Avatar's box office. They've been reading HUG obviously:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/848205…
Stop looking at US only figures. Star Wars worldwide adjusted for inflation – (US box office was 60% of it's total) is around 2.5b. Avatar will be past that by end of March. In fact if it makes 805M in the US on a 26/74 ratio (that's 26% of its gross in the US) then it will become the number one grossing, adjusted for inflation movie of all time beating Gone with the Wind (3.09Billion worldwide adjusted). And before you go one about the inflated 3d prices, it was filmed in 3d – it costs more to make so it costs more to see it in 3d, get over it. And (must stop starting sentences with and) before you go on about number of tickets – again look worldwide, how many people in India or China saw Gone With the Wind?
Avatar isn't the greatest movie of all time (imho) but it is close to becoming the number one all time grosser – enjoy it, accept it and stop putting asterisks next to all it's records!
No.
Regarding the negliable effect that illegal downloads have on cinema attendance, you’re ignoring the fact that Avatar is far less likely to be hurt by this because it’s been sold on a platform which isn’t available over the internet or at home, namely big screen 3D spectacle – a new technology.