people use inflation to defend titanic, but titanic falls if you factor in inflation also.

basically nothing will ever beat the inflated domestic haul for gone with the wind. ever.

so please stop acting like titanic was the be all end all of films.

Inflation.

In other words: this means absolutely nothing.

Also, IMAX/3D premiums.

Again, this means nothing.

Average movie tix in 1997 = $4.50, Average 3D movie tix 2009 = $16.50. You do the math.

Here's some perspective.

Avatar is still going strong in cinemas.

Any way you look at it, it's a cultural phenomenon, and it will be remembered.

Most important point about Avatar: 80% revenue from 3-D ticket sales. Even with the 2 buck markup, that's significant.

Game-changer.

A quote from a news report on BoxOfficeMojo you may find interesting.

"All told, Avatar's estimated admission count is 60.7 million thus far, or less than Titanic through the same point (47 days in). It's also less than half of Titanic's 128 million total estimated admissions. Emphasizing the impressiveness of Avatar, it took such recent blockbusters as The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, Spider-Man 2, The Passion of the Christ and Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith their entire runs to reach around 60 million admissions.

Unfortunately, the industry does not track admissions, only dollars. Absent proper admissions tracking, estimated admissions are determined by dividing the grosses by the average ticket prices, but this method is certainly iffy and should not be seen as definitive. It's best used for recent releases that have complete box office records, but, even then, one may know the national average ticket price but not the average for an individual movie. The audiences vary demographically and regionally for each movie, which means different average ticket prices. What's more, for a picture like Avatar, the method does not address leveling the playing field for the possible deterrent of higher ticket prices, how the 3D presentations impact 2D attendance or how 3D currently has far fewer theaters than past 2D blockbusters. "

Admission numbers would be nice, but impossible to accurately come to. But you're right, Gone With The Wind's tickets sold would be HUGE.

The money doesnt prove anything. Not sticking up for Titanic at all on this either... but they should only count tickets sold. Period. I remember when Titanic was setting the records.. all everyone talked about was how the $7.00 to see it was soooo much more expensive then it was to see the previous number 1 Star Wars. Its called inflation and it will always go up. If you want a true measure -count the ticket sales. Gone With The Wind will blow the doors off of all the above!

If Avatar grossed $3 billion DOMESTIC, people would still come up with some bullshit criteria why it's still not the biggest movie in history. People who don't like the movie will never chill out when they hear about its business numbers.

What we're talking here is just that: business. Do fortune 500 quarterly earnings calls always have some guy standing up and saying, "Yeah profits may be up, but if you account for inflation and the higher prices of this new product, we're not even close to the profits we showed in 1939!"? No. It's business, it's about the number on the bottom line and that's it.

Inflation estimates are there for curiosity's sake, but used as solid fact by people who don't like the real numbers.

It's not like I LIKE the idea of Avatar, Transformers 2 and Shrek 2 being some of the highest earning movies of all time, but they are, and there's nothing anyone can say to change that. Piss about something more worthwhile, like it being 2010 and we still don't have jetpacks for sale at WalMart.

Yeah, but you'll probably report on it when Avatar grosses $2.5b and passes Titanic's gross adjusted for inflation.

I didn't enjoy Avatar (and I also had my doubts before it was released) but no one can deny those numbers! Credit where it's due.

And hey, if 3D is a huge part of the spectacle then that's part of the deal. We had to get the glasses to experience Avatar properly, it helped sell the idea that it must be seen in 3D, so it deserves that income. Again, credit where it's due.

80% of Avatar’s domestic business is from 3D screenings.Is that just usa or worldwide?

the key word here is "domestic".... so not sure here... just a high school student... but i'm guessing they mean in the US. :D

The inflation argument is getting a bit old. Avatar's made more than Titanic did in 47 days. It did what took Titanic months to achieve. You can keep talking about inflation and ticket prices but you also have to consider that:
-The 3D tickets cost more yes, but more expensive tickets usually turn people off from watching at the theater.
-Since Titanic came out, things like online piracy have posed threats to the movie business. Gone With The Wind holds the highest record, but it's been released again and again, and when it was first released we didn't have DVD or VHS, we didn't have video games or the internet.

I won't disagree with anyone about how outrageously sucessful Avatar has been but it really irks me that people write off inflation, it's interesting to see the numbers but if we are comparing film grosses across time it needs to be included. A comparison that doesn't adjust for inflation is not a proper comaprison.

- Movie tickets are still the cheapest form of entertainment and people have been increasing the amount they spend over years so saying costly 3D tickets turn people off doesn't really work.

- Piracy doesn't harm a movie which has a must see in cinemas factor. In this case Avatar's experience cannot be recreated on a tv screen, hence it wasn't a threat.

- All said and done while Avatar's record is impressive, its worth noting that its not as big a phenomenon as Titanic (still its a big phenomenon in its own right). Titanic had to deal with average ticket prices that were $3 less and i'm talking only about normal cinemas. 80% of the gross comes from 3D cinemas for Avatar which would be a $6-7 increase from Titanic's average ticket cost.

"All said and done while Avatar's record is impressive, its worth noting that its not as big a phenomenon as Titanic"

47 days dude! less than two months! oscars haven't even happened yet!

Woah, congrats soon enough inflation wouldn't really matter. This is the 47th day in release. It basically took Titanic 9 months. Avatar probably end up around 700-750 when it is done it probably would be higher but it is going to get kicked out of theatres when Alice in Wonderland comes out.

Technically, citing inflation as the reason for Avatar's success runs makes it trail far behind Titanic. Throw inflation into the mix and Avatar is still only about 60-70% to where Titanic is.

You also have to consider the simple fact that ticket prices are higher and there are more people every year watching movies. This is why every year some B.O. record or other is being broken, it isn't necessarily because the movie is good, just because there are more people to watch it.

"Throw inflation into the mix and Avatar is still only about 60-70% to where Titanic is."
Yeah and neither are even close to Gone With the Wind. We get it.

And your second paragraph has terrible reasoning.

Hey Matt W. Shut up. I win?

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that most, if not all, of the extra ~$2 is added by the theater and not the studio to pay for the ~$30 glasses. I was under the impression that those totals didn't count toward the box office receipt because it is a theater surcharge, and don't contribute anything to the movie itself.

I'm just here to say that I am so sick of reading CHUD(Faraci!!!) complain about how much they think Avatar sucks, and story after story about how it would bomb, and then having the balls to claim that Cameron is just a great manipulator when it is a massive hit, that I finally made the move to /Film.

Hello, I look forward to annoying you all in the future.

welcome to /Film, my friend. you won't be sorry for the move!

Use the 3D caveat all you want, but out of the next 50 3D movies that come out and benefit from premium ticket prices, I'll wager none of them comes within $200 million of Avatar's domestic haul.

Haha agree the 3D and inflation arguement is a sore loser response. James Cameron was brilliant enough to utilize 3D the fact others didn't utilize and think of it is their downfall. Second, higher 3D prices and inflation just mean if the tickets cost what they did back then, then Avatar still would make the same amount of money maybe even more (we will never know) because the tickets would be cheaper meaning more people would go, people who couldn't afford would go, and people would get even more multiple repeats.

I liked Avatar, didn't like Titanic, and I am definitely not giving "a sore loser response" by saying that yes, inflation should be one of the factors taken into consideration. 600 million dollars in 2009 is not the same thing as 600 million dollars in 1997, but when this and all other articles say, "Avatar topples Titanic", they're acting as if they were the same. It's basic logic and economics.

The problem with that argument is that if you use that logic people should be comparing Avatar to Gone With the Wind and Titanic shouldn't even be in the discussion.

SAWWEET!

I wish they reported along with the dollar amounts the quantity of ticket sold. Between matinees, 3D, IMAX, etc, there are a lot of factors that go into box office sales. This way we can compare films' relative popularities without having to account for inflation.

This guy could justify making a film with a $1Bn budget. Avatar 2? You know this guy is the master of sequels, so don't bet against a trilogy that makes in total $10Bn. I'm talking box office, then DVDs, toys, other promo etc... it's not out of the realms of possiblity.

If I had a billion dollars I'd let him double that for me.

With Cameron anything is possible in terms of making money.

It doesn't hurt that his films are really good.

Sometimes profit is a result of good story telling. Sometimes it's just the spectacle. Usually with Cameron it's both, and that's why he's the king.

Nearly $4billion dollars grossed in two film releases, not bad. I imagine now James Cameron has some form of 'Holy Grail Hollywood' contract which allows him create ANY film he wants, for ANY company he wants to work with...(if this did exist it could be, well, awesome...full creative control for the Four-Billion Dollar Man)...

I know Avatar and Titanic made a boat-load of money, but honestly, I think both films are, as the Brits say, SHITE. I honestly enjoyed The Phantom Menace more than Avatar.

shut up

@MackeySasser "I honestly enjoyed The Phantom Menace more than Avatar."

I seriously find that hard to believe and if it is indeed true then I question your taste in film or lack there of! Avatar is a stunning achievement and deserves all of it's success. Nuff Said!

Stunning achievement? In what way? Because of the technology or ticket sales? Neither of those things equate to a quality film. Avatar honestly did nothing to invoke any emotions in me.

Somke and Mirrors!

Cameron must love the smell of fresh bills on his front lawn every morning.

Well, at least he'll be safe if he ever contracts HIV.



(South Park reference)

So, Avatar's take is now three times larger than the combined GDP of the world's top 20 economies. Yawn. Have read this story from you bloggers day after day. Why don't you write something about why it's not curing cancer yet?

It's a movie, Pandora is not real and as Dennis Leary once said, "There isno cure for cancer."

If you aren't interested in these stories, don't read them, pretty simple solution.

millions of fanboys everywhere rejoice in relief.

Victory!

Just wait until Titanic is re-released in 3-D. Avatar will only be holding on to this record for a short bit.

Two other Avatar news items on the DrudgeReport:

* The Avatar DVD will not be in 3-D, announces the studio

* V.P. Joe Biden has never heard of Avatar

abcnews.go. com/Politics/video/joe-biden-talks-about-oscars-9735467

Ya got that right.
INCEPTION Will be the shit though. Can't wait for that one, Leo's big head I mean...
....
Or will Leo's huge head watch the audience?

....
LOST.