Comments (189)

• Holy shnikes, it’s outpacing Titanic by leaps and bounds! What final domestic number do you think it’s ultimately going to wind up with? I’m thinking it will become the big kahuna on the charts with a cool figure of 750 mil. I honestly don’t foresee a steep dropoff after the holidays – the word of mouth is too positive and the repeat business is too robust. I also think Disney should consider pushing back Alice and Wonderland because there’s no way Avatar is going to be yanked from every IMAX screen in March just to accomodate Depp and Burton.

  Comment by James — Friday January 1, 2010 @ 11:10pm PST  Reply to this post

  • $$$ are not a fair comparison, since Avatar is playing in a lot of 3D theatres and ticket prices are double what they were for Titanic.

    A better comparison would be tickets sold, rather than $$$.

    Comment by HelenofPeel — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 9:08pm PST  Reply to this post

    • So what? Just because people are willing to pay more for admission, it doesn’t somehow lessen people’s want to see the film, or the appropriateness of its takings.

      Just because it pains you to see Avatar potentially taking the BO title away from Titanic, doesn’t mean its not a legitimate win.

      Comment by vic — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 6:05am PST  Reply to this post

    • Well it is comparable because,

      this is a time of recession and high price would have putt off many potential movie goers.

      Also the higher price means people will think twice to watch it again on big screen especially in this economy.

      You should acknowledge the risk taken by going with high priced 3d tickets. While its paying off now; it could also have been the cause for a major disaster!!

      Comment by nallu — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 6:55am PST  Reply to this post

    • @HelenofPeel: Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU for pointing that out. Why is it that seemingly no one in this business can discuss comparative box office stats without mentioning difference in ticket prices? It’s so obvious, so clear, and, yet, everyone conveniently avoids it.

      Is it some great revelation that “Avatar” is bolstered by significantly higher 3D ticket prices in many venues? It’s a tremendously successful film, no doubt, but why not have accurate comparisons? How about the fact that tickets prices were lower when “Titanic” rolled through, as opposed to “TDK” (and I adored TDK, btw)? “Star Wars”, “Jaws”, “Gone with the Wind”–you name it. They all had lower ticket prices than “Harry Potter”, “Transformers”, and other modern blockbusters, so why do we all act like there’s an even comparison? The responsible thing would be to adjust for variation in prices, or use the # of tickets sold, like HelenofPeel suggests.

      Comment by JoeEnglish — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 7:56am PST  Reply to this post

      • The personal yearly average income in USA in 1935 was 474$. In 1945 $1223. Thats about $1000 in 1940.

        In David O Selznicks Hollywood it says:

        The lowest priced ticket for Gone With The Winds first road engagement show was 70 cents

        Look at the statistic for Real Disposable Personal Income i 2009. We have a figure above $30.000. The rough estimate would be to multiply 30 by = 0.7$, giving us $21 today. No matter what, 0.7$ was a huge price in 1940 considered to income, more than Avatar is today.

        Avatar is about 1/3 now of the ticket sold of Gone With The wind from an era, where it played in 156 cinemas in 150 towns across USA, against 3500 cinemas for Avatar. In a time where there were 130 mio. people in the US against 308 mio. now. When the iron curtain made the movie inaccessible to audience in the east, and in China and in India.

        The feat of Gone With The Wind is non negotiable. Is it not only the king, but the God of cinema!

        Comment by Flemming Kristensen — Tuesday January 5, 2010 @ 6:53am PST  Reply to this post

        • Gross sales have nothing to do with anything other than to say that at that moment in history people were willing to pay x amount of money to be entertained. The only judge of a movie is time. A box office champ means nothing unless you happen to own stock in the film. I’m excited where film is going. But story will always be King.

          Comment by Dennis — Friday January 8, 2010 @ 8:15am PST  

    • Agreed. It’s high time we had a report on the number of actual tickets sold, and how many were IMAX and/or 3D. It’s clear that reporting mere dollar amounts doesn’t mean a thing anymore.

      And how about some numbers that make adjustment for inflation, too?

      Comment by Liz — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 9:18am PST  Reply to this post

      • Fair enough. But then we should all also take into account inflation when reporting BUDGETS instead of constantly bitching about how out of control they are and how even the biggest movies are no longer that profitable. AHEM, WHISKEY.

        Comment by Billy — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 10:53am PST  Reply to this post

      • Don’t you guys get it? If we do a comparative analysis, we’ll see that this business, like all the others, is a bubble.

        Comment by Carl — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 12:34pm PST  Reply to this post

    • I wouldn’t go by ticket prices. I would go by gross adjusted by inflation. Not ticket inflation, but real inflation.

      If someone is willing to shell out more $ at a higher price, kudos to that film.

      Comment by Geoff — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 10:49am PST  Reply to this post

      • Exactly, Geoff.

        We’re discussing the movie business here. Business is about MONEY, not tickets. Comparing the number of tickets sold makes for semi-interesting trivia, but it’s totally peripheral to what’s really important.

        And like Geoff said, the comparison should take only real inflation into account. Ticket inflation should be ignored as irrelevant, as should the premium cost of tickets for 3D and IMAX showings.

        Comment by Bubstubbler — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 5:14pm PST  Reply to this post

      • I agree that Avatar is a big hit. I don’t understand it, but I accept that it is a hit.

        However, I do think it is relevant about how MANY are going to see the film versus dollars spent.

        I know I’m not seeing the film, for a number of reasons. And I think the $$$ distorts the true participation of the audience.

        But studios would rather brag about $$$ then about butts in seats.

        Quite the opposite of how sports teams operate. I wonder why?

        Comment by helenofpeel — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 5:44pm PST  Reply to this post

        • So, let me try to understand you…Because you don’t like Avatar, you want Hollywood to only count number of tickets sold. Have you made the same argument for any other movie?

          What about “Nine”? Do you want only the amount of tickets sold? Or how about “Did You Hear About The Morgans?”

          Let’s face it, the only reason you are saying this about Avatar, is because you have something against Avatar, and that’s even before you have seen the movie.

          You started off the above comment with: “I agree that Avatar is a big hit. I don’t understand it, but I accept that it is a hit.”

          You go on to say: “I know I’m not seeing the film, for a number of reasons.”

          You don’t post these kind of comments about “Nine” or “Did You Hear About The Morgans?” The reason is that they are obviously huge disasters! Even “A Christmas Carol” is a financial disaster for its studio (costing a reported $200 million and probably at least $50 million for marketing. After the studio gets its 50% of total gross which stands at $255 million worldwide, it still needs another $245 million just to break even!).

          The reason you take on Avatar is because it’s the biggest movie out there.

          Anti-Avatar people look for anything to “prove that it’s a failure”. The movie has already made more than twice its reported budget and marketing ($430 million).

          Also, movies like “Gone With The Wind” and “Star Wars” (both which made over $1.2 billion when ticket price inflation is taken into account) came out when there was no “entertainment competition” like there is today. In 1939 there were no TVs. In 1977 there was no Internet or “Home theater systems”. You can’t compare movies today to movies from 30+ years ago.

          Let’s say that “Gone With The Wind” never came out in 1939 and it was released today. Do you think it would sell 200 million tickets like it did back in 1939? If “Gone With The Wind” came out in 1997 with “Titanic”, which movie would sell more tickets?

          Even if “Jaws” came out today, it wouldn’t sell the amount of tickets that it did back in 1975. I’m sure someone back then also said: “Oh, we shouldn’t count the $$$, but rather the amount of tickets sold”. Did someone say that back in 1939 when “Gone With The Wind” came out?

          Bob: “Hey Bill, did you see that Gone With The Wind made $40 million!”

          Bill: “Yeah, but it only sold 200 million tickets”.

          It’s a totally different game now. For you to make a comment about the number of tickets sold should be counted instead of the $$$ is ridiculous. It’s like saying McDonald’s should count the amount of burgers they sell instead of how much money they bring in.

          What do you think investors of any company want to hear? Do investors want to know the amount of tickets their movie sells, or the amount of money their movie makes? Or do investors want to know the amount of cars a company sells in a quarter, or the amount of money the company made during the quarter? A company can sell a million cars which sounds good, but if it’s the cheapest car that they sell, then the number sold doesn’t matter. The bottom line is the amount the company made!

          And anyway, if you don’t like the way that Hollywood counts its returns, then just create your own website where you can count the amount of tickets sold. It is already being done on Boxofficemojo.com, but maybe you can start a new “web sensation”. You can call it “numberofticketssold.com”. Or “helenoftickets.com”. Make sure you also have links to the amount of burgers that McDonald’s sells instead of the money it makes. As well as a link that shows the amount of cars that car companies sell.

          The bottom line is that Avatar is making a profit, whether you count the $$$ or not. That’s all that the studio really cares about.

          Comment by Charl — Monday January 4, 2010 @ 8:50am PST  

        • How on earth are you shocked that studios care more about money than tickets sold? Tickets sold is meaningless. What matters is how much money a film makes. That’s the entire point. And sports teams are no different. They want to sell the most tickets possible at the highest price people are willing to pay. Same exact standard. That’s why they (attempt) to carefully bring prices to as high as they can while making sure demand is there to sell through…

          Comment by Chris — Monday January 4, 2010 @ 11:39am PST  

      • The thing about adjusting for inflation is, it doesn’t really prove anything. The studios care about profit; they don’t care about what the profit would’ve been if a movie had been released later. Some movies catch a zeitgeist — you can adjust the gross of ‘Easy Rider’ to 2009 dollars, but it wouldn’t have made that much money if it were released in 2009.

        Once you start opening it up to inflation, there are just too many other factors as well, if you really want to follow through and be honest in the comparisons. ‘Gone With The Wind’ was released at a time when almost nobody owned a TV. ‘Star Wars’ was released before anybody thought to have a home library of movies that they bought in the store. Surely, these films would play drastically differently if released in 2009 at 2009 ticket prices.

        Speaking of sports teams, helen, this argument always reminds me of Ford Frick changing the definition of the statistic so that Babe Ruth could keep his record.

        Comment by jojo — Monday January 4, 2010 @ 1:39am PST  Reply to this post

  • I think the final tally before ancillary area will be 2.3 Bill

    Comment by Castrobear — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 1:28am PST  Reply to this post

  • looks like Nine is a Zero. Goodbye Harvey!

    Comment by vicktayback — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 7:46am PST  Reply to this post

  • Honestly… who cares.. Titanic has been out for how long now? Facts of the matter are Avatar is selling out theatres.. it isnt just filling them halfway.. it is filling them to capacity. It has only been out what… 3 weeks? I dont care how many screens it is playing on or the cost of tickets. facts are, there are people going 3-4 times to see this movie. It is HUGE… when this hits DVD and Blu-Ray… i have no doubt that this will be the highest grossing film of all time… hands down. So maybe some of the people out there that cry that the mega-chick flick of all time Titanic will finally get unseated.. need to accept that fact… and maybe start screaming for a Titanic II..

    Comment by Sean F — Wednesday January 6, 2010 @ 8:51am PST  Reply to this post

• “Avatar” at 307.8 million after three weeks?! No more hating. No matter what any movie costs, you can’t hate on a box office performance when a movie crosses 300 million domestically in its first three weeks. I think “Avatar” could really make it to 400 million domestic which would be amazing. Combine that with the oversees grosses, no matter how you look at it, “Avatar” is looking to make no less than a billion dollars. James Cameron is still the king of the world!

  Comment by Hollyword — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 12:24am PST  Reply to this post

  • $400 million is all but garuanteed at this point. If it hits $350 million by Sunday it would be second fastest movie to that point, doing so in 17 days, second only to TDK’s 14 days. After TDK’s first 17 days, it had made 393 million, giving it roughly a 43 million lead over Avatar. However, as we all know Avatar appears to be growing legs that few, besides Titanic, films have ever experienced. Given those really long legs, I think it is fairly likely that Avatar will wind up as the second highest grossing film of all time.

    To extrapolate the numbers over the next several weekends demonstrates a rough estimate of Avatar’s potential gross. First, lets assume it declines at 33% each of the coming weekends. Second, lets assume that by 1/3 Avatar has grossed $348 million ($66 million over the 1/1-1/3 weekend). Third, I am not going to factor in weekday grosses because I don’t have any clue how Avatar will behave during the week in January.

    So, that means that Avatar makes $44 million on 1/8-1/10 giving it $392 million. On 1/15-1/17 it makes approx $30 million giving it $422 million. On 1/22-1/24 it makes $20 million giving it $444 million. On 1/29-1/31 it makes approx $14 million for a cume fo $458 million. On 2/5-2/7 it makes aprrox $10 million, cume of $468 million. On 2/12-2/14 it makes approx $7 million, cume of $475. I could go on, but as you can see Avatar would be fairly close to TDK’s $533 million, and I didn’t factor in the weekday gross, which should push it ahead of Batman. Also, a 33% drop is fairly conservative for Avatar, given that it has shown no indication of dropping that much so far.

    Comment by billybob — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 1:26pm PST  Reply to this post

  • Not $307 million. $350 million.

    Comment by Mark — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 10:16am PST  Reply to this post

• In the previous BO post, there was talk of Up in the Air hitting $100. Hmm, maybe high $70s, which is still pretty damn good considering its budget.

  I’m loving that Avatar is going so strong, but I have to say, damn, I’d kill for American cinema prices here in Australia. Cost me $26 to see the film in IMAX, which considering the exchange rate (in US dollars, a shade over $23), it’s not surprising that the film is just raking in money ($38m so far, which is pretty damn impressive for a country of 22m).

  Comment by vic — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 12:28am PST  Reply to this post

• I’m not understanding the math for the projections for Avatar. It made $23 million last Friday and went on to make $75 million for the weekend. If it made $24 million this Friday then shouldn’t the projection be at least $75 million for the weekend? The demand will not end so quickly especially when there is only a limited time to see it in the Imax version. By contract Alice in Wonderland will replace it the beginning of March. People will want to get their Imax fill while they can. Plus I’m not sure of the the real 3D screens time limit but that will factor in the need to see before it’s to late. I’ll go out on a limb and say this will be a BIG weekend draw for the next two months. I’ll also go out on limb and predict Imax Corporation will see a significant increase in Theatres wanting to add more than just one Imax screen to each chain. If they don’t then they’re not paying attention to the consumer demand.

  Comment by Todd — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 1:11am PST  Reply to this post

  • I think most movies get a substantial bump on New Year’s Day.

    Comment by Billy — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 12:23pm PST  Reply to this post

    • Last friday was Christmas day it made less. This Friday it made more. This weekend at least it should make the same as last weekend. But will see how this Boxoffice race pans out. Also like I pointed out as more people experience IMAX will they want to go back to bland 2D screenings that they could get on their own HDTVs at home. I’m just saying the new business model to get people out to the movies is being defined by James Cameron with 3D Imax a reason to go out to the movies. Personally that’s the only time I go out to see a movie is Imax or Real 3D. Why bother spending more on a 2D movie when you could see it at home?

      Comment by Todd — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 7:55pm PST  Reply to this post

    • On Friday and Saturday it was tracking very similarly to Christmas weekend, but the reason it dipped so much on Sunday is that it’s one of the busiest travel days of the year. People are sitting in airports and not in movie theaters

      Comment by jackytreehornn — Monday January 4, 2010 @ 9:20am PST  Reply to this post

• Avatar has a decent shot of crossing $1 billion worldwide on Sunday, its 17th day of release.

  How many days did it take each of the other four $1B+ films to hit that mark?

  Comment by Bubstubbler — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 1:40am PST  Reply to this post

  • The fastest to 1B$ so far was ‘The dead man’s chest’ and it took it 63 days to get there

    Comment by Milek — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 9:26am PST  Reply to this post

• i’m still waiting for china’s box office. And how is it doing in Baghdad Iraq. Did it break the box office there too?

  Comment by john marzan — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 2:33am PST  Reply to this post

• So “It’s Complicated ” and “The Blind Side” – two very unhip movies are beating out the supposedly hip “Up in the Air.” I say good. Up in the Air is not a good movie. It’s not funny when it tries to be; it’s not serious when it tries to be, and Clooney was phoning it home.

  Hope Jeff Bridges wins for “Crazy Heart.”

  Comment by Mercy — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 3:25am PST  Reply to this post

• Titanic’s goin’ down: I think Avatar’s gonna break $2B worldwide.

  Avatar should hit the $1B mark on its 17th day. The other 4 films to break $1B worldwide:

  Titanic: ~51 days
  LOTR-Return: ~40 days
  POTC-DMC: ~43 days
  TDK: ~ 197 days

  What makes Avatar’s progress especially astounding is that it isn’t a front-loaded box office hit like TDK, but is instead something more akin to Titanic in that it will just keep going and going and going due to its revolutionary 3-D.

  Comment by Bubstubbler — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 3:30am PST  Reply to this post

  • But what was the international rollout schedule like for those other films?

    Comment by Timmy — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 12:58pm PST  Reply to this post

    • Yeah, you’re right to question that. I don’t know.

      BTW, my methodology on these estimates was to take the % of total box office that was domestic (say, X%), then multiply that by a billion to get Y, then use boxofficemojo.com to find the day that the movie crossed Y domestically.

      For instance, 33.7% of Return of the King’s total was due to domestic receipts, so I looked up when the domestic total crossed $337M. This occurred on day 40.

      This methodology wouldn’t lend to completely accurate results, but I think the percentages would be very close to their final values by the time the films hit $1B worldwide; therefore the estimates should be extremely close if not actually correct.

      Comment by Bubstubbler — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 4:06pm PST  Reply to this post

• Your weekend prediction for Avatar is too low with a $24M Friday. It will land up around $65M.

  Comment by Sahil — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 4:05am PST  Reply to this post

• Holy shit if this goes true it has a chance to break 400 or 450 million domestically and reach 1 billion worldwide easily.Thanks for the update will be waiting for the weekend number to see how much did it made.Happy New Year Nikki Finke

  Comment by joe_6285 — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 4:55am PST  Reply to this post

  • It will probably have $400 million in the bank domestically by the end of next weekend. I wouldn’t be shocked if it passes Titanic and winds up with $650 million. Right now, it’s on track to make at least $520 million.

    Comment by BIlly — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 12:30pm PST  Reply to this post

  • It’ll probably hit $1B worldwide tomorrow.

    It’s domestic total will be ~$420M by the end of next weekend.

    Comment by Bubstubbler — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 12:58pm PST  Reply to this post

• Well, I see that the Sarah Palin movie finally crossed the $200-million threshold. Snooze.
  Guess Weinstein should have held back “Nine” from wide release until January. Even taking into account the unexpectedly hostile reviews, it would have surely benefitted from less multiplex congestion.
  I’m wondering if the b.o. failure of “Invictus” and “Nine” will put the kibbosh on their (Best Picture) nomination inevitability status. A very weird race this year. No true front-runner(s), and every one of them has an Achilles Heel: “Hurt Locker” didn’t make enough money; “Precious” peaked too early then got killed with kindness by its distributer who screwed up the release strategy; “Basterds” plays too fanboy for older Academy voters (although they might dig the Jewish revenge fantasy if they can look past the hipster tics); “Up in the Air” could be deemed too “lightweight,” just like “Jerry Maguire” 13 years ago when it lost to “English Patient;” etc.
  And I still have a hard time believing that Oscar is going to give Cameron the whole enchilada twice, especially since “Avatar” is the first feature film he’s directed in the twelve years since annointing him “King of the World” with “Titanic.”
  If the Best Animated Feature category didn’t exist, “Up” might have had a chance since it’s virtually the only serious contender that doesn’t have a big negative (see above) weighing it down.
  But can you imagine it winning Best Picture AND Best Ani Feature in the same evening? Not gonna happen.
  Could “Blind Side” be the “Crash” upset victor of 2009???? Weirder things have happened.

  Comment by Movieman — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 5:03am PST  Reply to this post

  • I think it’s going to be a real “spread the wealth” year:

    Picture – Avatar
    Director – Kathryn Bigelow
    Actor – Jeff Bridges
    Actress – Sandra Bullock
    Supporting Actor – Christoph Waltz
    Supporting Actress – Mo’nique
    Original Screenplay – ????
    Adapted Screenplay – Up in the Air

    Comment by Tubby — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 2:19pm PST  Reply to this post

    • I can promise you that Avatar WILL NOT win Best Picture of the year! The most likely scenario for Avatar is that it wins Best Director for James Cameron, but even that is a LONG SHOT!

      What’s the last time a science fiction movie has won Best Picture? Oh, that’s right, never!

      I guess you can argue that “Return Of The King” was science fiction, but that falls more into the “Fantasy Adventure” category.

      If you look at Rottentomatoes.com, Avatar ranks 96th on the best reviewed movies of 2009 (there are even several other science fiction movies ranked higher: Star Trek, District 9 and Moon).

      True, “Titanic” was ranked 43rd on Rottentomatoes.com the year that it came out, and went on to win Best Picture. But that movie was actually a drama. Even “Return Of The King” had a lot of drama intertwined with the fantasy and adventure.

      Interesting fact: As it stands right now, Avatar has a 83% “Fresh” rating on Rottentomatoes.com, the exact same “Fresh” rating that Titanic had! LOL

      Now, before you accuse me of being an Avatar hater, just know that I did like Avatar. I would give it a B or B+ overall. Yes, I was a little disappointed overall, but I still enjoyed it. In fact, my girlfriend and I have tried and failed 3 times now to see it on IMAX! The damn thing is always sold out! Hahaha

      Comment by Charl — Monday January 4, 2010 @ 9:32am PST  Reply to this post

• So that easily topples Spider-Man’s third-weekend record, and it looks likely to top Titanic’s fourth-weekend take of $29 million. I can’t believe how fast this film is reaching $1 billion, even if it won’t make it to $500 million domestic, it’s still kicking ass.

  Comment by DK — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 6:37am PST  Reply to this post

  • I think it will almost certainly break $500M domestically.

    It’ll be at $340 after 17 days and really seems to be digging in for a long haul.

    I think it’ll end up in the $600-700M range domestically.

    Comment by Bubstubbler — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 1:11pm PST  Reply to this post

• How in the world is The Blind Side grossing over 200 million dollars?

  Probably those damn Christians…

  Comment by Chris — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 6:54am PST  Reply to this post

  • I’m a Christian…I haven’t seen it.

    I think all the Christians are seeing Avatar! Hahahaha

    Anyway, is “The Blind Side” about Christians? I don’t remember seeing that in the previews…

    Oh, that’s right, a family takes in an underpriviliged man and he becomes a priest! How DOES a movie like that make over $200 million? Baffling!

    Comment by Charl — Monday January 4, 2010 @ 9:46am PST  Reply to this post

• If Avatar wasn’t the lede, we’d all be remarking at how huge “Alvin Squeakuel,” “Sherlock Holmes,” and “The Blind Side” are.

  Comment by dannyo152 — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 7:41am PST  Reply to this post

• WOW! Gunning for that #1 Spot!

  Comment by Billy — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 8:25am PST  Reply to this post

• Bye-bye Weinstein Company.

  Comment by Paul — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 8:31am PST  Reply to this post

• No matter how much money Avatar makes, its still not a good film.

  Comment by esb — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 9:29am PST  Reply to this post

  • Umm… we’re on a hollywood business site talking about box office. You must be looking for rottentomatoes.

    Comment by Chris — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 12:11pm PST  Reply to this post

    • There are also people talking best pic Oscar here too. Which is completely stupid.

      But then the Oscars can be pretty stupid too, so who knows?

      Comment by Liz — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 7:21pm PST  Reply to this post

      • Hahaha…The Oscars can be pretty stupid! I mean, how does Star Wars lose to…What was the name of that movie? Uh…Oh yeah, Annie Hall!

        But yes, there is no way that Avatar will win best picture! I liked Avatar, but as I stated before, Science Fiction movies do not win Best Picture (the closest thing to science fiction winning is Return Of The King).

        Comment by Charl — Monday January 4, 2010 @ 9:49am PST  Reply to this post

  • And yet, you watched it.

    Comment by Jerry — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 11:18am PST  Reply to this post

• noting on the less obvious titles:

  nice to see princess and frog (and a 2d ani movie) moving along nicely. i thought it would have been squished by the chipmunks but erc is prediction over 9 for the weekend. should hit 100 mill by the end.

  and i know morgans is a flop but it’s making more than i thought after that horrid opening.

  Comment by asssh — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 10:00am PST  Reply to this post

• Thanks for your early numbers, Nikki. There’s so much loose talk, I like to get the estimates as soon as possible.

  Comment by mfan — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 10:30am PST  Reply to this post

• I still think they should report ticket sales, in addition to revenue. I’d be interested to see the effect of higher 3D prices.

  Speaking of which, how long are they going to charge more? I have several sets of Real-D glasses at home, is that what the extra cost is for? Otherwise it’s like an endless toll road where you keep paying for years after the cost has been recovered. If studios want to spend more on the technology they should take the hit, not the audiences.

  Comment by Joe Melnick — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 11:18am PST  Reply to this post

  • Joe – At the multiplex I go to, it’s $3 more than the regular ticket price to see a 3D movie because they give me the Real-D glasses. And it’s $3 more than the regular ticket price to see the IMAX movies but I have to give the IMAX glasses back.

    Comment by EJP — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 2:40pm PST  Reply to this post

    • Fine, I have a drawer full of Real-D glasses, so can I go for the regular price and not pay extra for the glasses? Not likely.

      Comment by Joe Melnick — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 8:54pm PST  Reply to this post

• Wow! Avatar has already made more money than Twilight: New Moon, and may even outgross Transformers 2! Clearly this is a masterwork of genius!!

  Comment by Liz — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 11:21am PST  Reply to this post

  • Avatar will probably pass the worldwide gross total for Transformers 2 today!

    Comment by Bubstubbler — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 12:51pm PST  Reply to this post

    • And it’s got nothing to do with high 3D prices, or both of Avatar’s last weekends falling on major holidays!! Um … right?

      Comment by Liz — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 6:19pm PST  Reply to this post

      • Both Alvin and Sherlock’s second weekends fell on a holiday, and both of them dropped considerably more than Avatar (which was in its third weekend of release!)

        Avatar’s 3rd weekend: Dropped 9.7%
        Alvin’s 2nd weekend: Dropped 25.1%
        Sherlock’s 2nd weekend: Dropped 38.5%

        Comment by Charl — Monday January 4, 2010 @ 9:56am PST  Reply to this post

        • Now that the official #s are out, Avatar fell a little less than the estimates predicted and both Alvin and Sherlock dropped more!

          Avatar: Dropped 9.4%
          Alvin: Dropped 28%
          Sherlock: Dropped 41.2%

          So, although Avatar’s 3rd weekend fell on a holiday, it’s still dropped less than the other two blockbusters did in their 2nd weekend.

          Comment by Charl — Monday January 4, 2010 @ 3:17pm PST  

• Anybody notice a trend? When a big blockbuster is on screen, all the other movies benefit.

  Comment by Dadude — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 11:43am PST  Reply to this post

  • When the tide rises it lifts up all the boats not just the big luxury liner.

    Comment by Greg — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 6:36pm PST  Reply to this post

    • That may be one of the coolest quotes I have ever seen.

      Comment by bigbilly — Tuesday January 5, 2010 @ 6:28am PST  Reply to this post

• Nikki/The studios’ projections are probably right for this weekend – Friday was New Year’s Day and thus there is more activity at the theater. Even though there is still the weekend many may choose to relax at home/traveling back home after the holidays instead.

  Comment by V — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 12:15pm PST  Reply to this post

  • Yes and No. Many like to stay home, but they also are just as apt to go out to the movies and see something extraordinary that everyone is raving about. I have not met ONE person who has seen this and not liked it. It’s amazing. Yes, it’s not the best written film and the movie does rip off a lot of other films, but it’s still DAMN entertaining and likely to change the way Hollywood does business.

    “Anybody notice a trend? When a big blockbuster is on screen, all the other movies benefit.”

    Which is why no matter how many people decry the death of the independent film it will never change. Hollywood is the ultimate in trickle down economics when it concerns situations like this.

    This movie is going to beat Titanic’s record. At first I didn’t think it could because the teen girls won’t go see this over and over. But, it just doesn’t matter with this movie. It’s turned into an event. Something that can not be experienced on anything but the big screen. It has been a LOOONNNGGG time since a movie has come out and had this type of impact. Star Wars anyone?

    Comment by Steve — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 2:06pm PST  Reply to this post

    • Avatar cannot be compared to the original Star Wars in terms of cultural impact.

      Comment by "David Webb" — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 7:46pm PST  Reply to this post

    • Yes, it does rip from a lot of other films, but remember, this was written almost 15 years ago. So that means that a lot of the films we compare this to hadn’t come out yet, so this is a fairly original movie…

      Comment by bigbilly — Tuesday January 5, 2010 @ 6:30am PST  Reply to this post

  • That is not what happened in 1998, last time New Years Day was a friday.

    Comment by mfan — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 2:16pm PST  Reply to this post

  • Exactly; this is an unusually heavy travel weekend so you’re going to see an across-the-board drop for everything in release.

    Comment by Alex — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 2:23pm PST  Reply to this post

• Wow, you people are amazing. Avatar hits $300 mil and you’re STILL trying to invent data that proves it will fizzle soon. For those saying it will top out at 350 or 400, try 500+ domestic. It will do in approx. 17 days what TDK took 197 days to do? (if those stats are correct, as posted by “Bubstubbler”)…and TDK topped 500 domestic, so yeah, I’d say it has a chance.

  And it definitely has a chance to beat Titanic; not saying it will, but it’s in the cards. This film was made for repeat viewings and (obviously) doesn’t need little girls to keep it afloat.

  So do us all a favor, STOP COMPLAINING, shut up and watch.

  Comment by Get a Life — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 12:54pm PST  Reply to this post

  • You misinterpreted bubstubblers data. It took TDK 197 days to reach $1 billion internationally. On its 17th day, TDK had already grossed $393 million domestically, or about $43 million more than Avatar will have done by its 17th day. So, TDK is still ahead of Avatar’s pace. However, as I pointed out above, Avatar looks like it has legs that few, if any, movies have ever seen. I mean there is a legit shot for Avatar to have three straight $70 million plus weekends. That is insane!

    Comment by billybob — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 7:22pm PST  Reply to this post

• Avatar has made a lot of money. BUT … it has a massive cost to cover, and is unlikely to do well on home video (can’t see it in Three D).

  What I would guess is that everyone in Hollywood sees the potential, if you do it CHEAPLY ENOUGH, to make money on a real serious 3-D movie. SCTV used to mock 3-D movies with John Candy in such “movies” like “Dr. Tongue’s 3-D House of Stewardesses.” Mocking has stopped now.

  But, $430 million cost is simply stupid. Avatar will be a nail-biter just to get to the black.

  My guess, no one in Hollywood expects this movie to make lots of money (which is why no bidding war for Cameron). Indeed, no one really wanted Cameron in the last ten years, either. After Titanic you’d expect Hollywood would have competed to throw money at him, but they didn’t.

  I’ll bet his Assistant Directors and effects guys are in demand, and folks with a proven ability to bring in movies on budget in difficult technical environments are courted. Cameron doesn’t seem (because no one in Hollywood seems to be throwing money at him) to have a magic formula.

  My bet is someone signs Peter Jackson to create a 3-D movie with an actual story, one that can work on home video and TV sales. Theatrical is only part of the story, and not where most of the money is for studios. High ticket prices mask the reality that this movie doesn’t have the mass following that say “Twilight” movies do with a lot less cost.

  NBC had a 3-D version of “Chuck” last year, broadcast did not really pump up the ratings. A lot of folks still have non-HiDef sets, and plain old DVD players. The economy is not exactly pumping strong so that there is a huge pool of folks with disposable income. Meanwhile, I see movies only a few years old sold for $9 in my local supermarket.

  I think the formula most of the executive suite is looking at post-Avatar is:

  Decent Video Sales + Decent TV Sales – Low(er) Production/Marketing Costs + INCREASED THEATRICAL = larger profits. I think AVATAR shows you can pump up theatrical somewhat, with 3-D, but I don’t think the fundamentals of low(er) production costs and home video and TV sales driving most of the profits. Box office being mostly a prediction of DVD sales and as noted, high IMAX ticket sales being non-predictive. Wasn’t this the case for “300?”

  Comment by whiskey — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 12:55pm PST  Reply to this post

  • It’s already in the black, dummy, even in proportion to the most inflated reports about what the actual price tag was after distribution and marketing. Everything from this point on is pure gravy.

    You must really be dumb if you don’t foresee Avatar being the hottest blu ray seller of 2010. Imagine those visuals in 1080p on a ginormous screen. It’s going to be one of the preeminent titles in the Fox catalog for generations to come.

    You’re also a deliriously dumb dumb-dumb if you don’t realize that, with the rapid advancements in technology, 3D home viewing systems will be commonplace in the near future, and anyone who owns one is going to purchase Avatar and however many sequels it spawns.

    Whiskey, you’re dumb. Dumb, dumb dumb.

    Comment by Quentin — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 3:40pm PST  Reply to this post

  • How can you say it’s going to be a nail biter when the movie is about to hit 1 billion dollars?

    I always thought the general rule of thumb was for a movie to double it’s production and marketing budget before it starts to turn a profit. Well if it cost them 500 million to make and market then it is about to double that in 3 weeks. Everything after 1 billion will be profit, so to speak for the studio.

    At this point whiskey you are coming off as just some dumb, jealous Hollywood type that is just pissed off that somebody is having success.

    Comment by Steve — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 4:01pm PST  Reply to this post

  • Whiskey, you continue to write these epically long posts of extreme stupidity.

    Take up knitting?

    Comment by Teddy — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 4:28pm PST  Reply to this post

  • Hi, welcome to Hollywood. Apparently it’s been a while since you checked in.

    Following Titanic, Cameron had the script for Avatar, but technology wasn’t where he needed it. So, he made a couple of IMAX movies (where the tech was better). Then, he told Fox he wanted to change movies. As they were one of the two studios who produced and distributed Titanic, they’d made a decent amount of money off of him LAST TIME he asked for a huge sum of money – estimates put Titanic at 200 and Avatar at 230, both of which are grossly underestimated – to do a movie. Then, he spent close to a decade working on the technology for Avatar and actually making the movie.

    The reason no one else would take a chance on him is because HE WAS BUSY and HE HAD THE MONEY.

    A nailbiter to get into the black? Last time I checked, if you spent 430 million on a movie and get over 1 billion back, that’s the black. Especially when you consider Cameron didn’t get an upfront check or first-dollar gross, so Fox won’t have to pay him until afterward. Also, since they primarily funded it, have domestic AND international distribution, I think they’ll be okay. Then again, I’m sure Sam Worthington, Zoe from Star Trek and Giovanni Ribisi cost a FORTUNE in upfront costs (I imagine 30 mil a piece for their box-office pull) and first-dollar gross deals. However will Fox get their money back?

    Comment by chris — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 7:37pm PST  Reply to this post

    • Are you that clueless? You really believe Zoe, Sam and Giovanni cost that much? Haha. Yes, I am laughing at you. My car costs more than Giovanni.

      Comment by Tyler-Perry_is_the_Anti-Christ — Monday January 4, 2010 @ 11:17am PST  Reply to this post

  • Oh one thing I forgot – you were bang-on about cheaper 3D movies coming out; so far I think 3 have been greenlit. Using Cameron’s camera. The 430 didn’t come from renting the warehouse. Now that he spent the money and time developing the most complicated camera ever, sure 3D will become cheaper and popular. And good for him, he gets a cut of every one of those cheap 3D movies you’re so excited for, because he didn’t just make Avatar, he made the technology for everyone else. And he’s gonna keep getting paid for it. For a long time.

    Comment by chris — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 7:49pm PST  Reply to this post

  • LOL, you are one stubborn bastard! As of today, Avatar has ALREADY turned a profit for the studio (~$1 billion). That’s after 16 days!

    Comment by Billy — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 8:42pm PST  Reply to this post

  • “…But, $430 million cost is simply stupid. Avatar will be a nail-biter just to get to the black…”

    You don’t know what the hell you are talking about. It is going to be past $1 Billion worldwide this weekend and is ALREADY in the black.

    I’ve seen it in 2D and 3D and let me tell you that it is great in 2D so homevideo will be huge.

    You’ve been hating on this flick from the jump – just give up and stop saying silly things that have no bearing on reality.

    “…My guess, no one in Hollywood expects this movie to make lots of money (which is why no bidding war for Cameron). Indeed, no one really wanted Cameron in the last ten years, either. After Titanic you’d expect Hollywood would have competed to throw money at him, but they didn’t…”

    What are you talking about? You think Cameron didn’t put out a movie after making Titanic because no one wanted him over the last ten years? That is idiotic. He could an can do whatever he wanted and chose not to. Any studio would have driven up a Brinks truck and given him whatever money he wanted because he is box office gold. He didn’t work because he didn’t want to and the last 4 years he was working on Avatar. If studios don’t want to work with you, they don’t give you $300+ Million for a budget.

    Are you really this clueless?

    Comment by Van — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 10:54pm PST  Reply to this post

    • Agreed, but to be fair, FOX did officially pass on Avatar. It was only when Disney expressed interest that FOX relented and decided to sign Cameron for it. The studios were not lining up to spend this much money on an unknown sci-fi/fantasy concept. The sequelitis and book/comic book/cartoon/toy adaptation fevers had definitely taken their toll on Hollywood originality. Let’s remember how nervous FOX was about how this movie would perform and even Cameron expressed some apprehension about whether he could get the butts in the seats for this. Any studio would have driven the dumptruck of money up to Cameron’s house for another Aliens, Terminator or even that proverbial Aquaman flick, but it was not quite that simple a slamdunk for Avatar.

      Comment by Eric S. — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 12:39am PST  Reply to this post

      • Regardless, all that proves is that we now know that at least 2 studios that would have given him the money.

        Fox’s pass was not really a pass (likely some sort of posturing in an attempt to bring down the budget) since they gave Cameron whatever monies he wanted anyway since if it was a true pass Cameron would not have gone back to them.

        Comment by Van — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 3:16am PST  Reply to this post

        • This is the quote from the TIME magazine site on the problems getting FOX to green light the film:

          “Despite Cameron’s success with Titanic — the highest-grossing movie of all time and winner of a record-tying 11 Oscars — Avatar was not an easy sell to his home studio, 20th Century Fox. Since 1997, Cameron had been largely absent from the Hollywood scene, riding in submersibles, shooting documentaries and building new filmmaking toys. In 2005, Fox funded a $10 million, 5-min. prototype for the movie, but when Cameron delivered a 153-page draft of the script months later, the studio balked. Here was an ambitious project with a lot of risky elements, including unproven technology, blue protagonists with tails and a script that wasn’t based on a comic book, novel or video game — making it unique for a big-budget film in its time. In September 2006, Fox formally passed on Avatar. Only after another studio (Disney) seemed poised to take it on — and after Cameron made concessions in both his script and his compensation — did Fox green-light the film. Now he just had to make it.”

          Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1945338,00.html#ixzz0bd1M3vXv

          Comment by JediJones — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 11:53pm PST  

  • You’ve overlooked a small fact that makes your argument pointless. The money from overseas contributes to the bottom line. Avatar is going to have a worldwide gross of over $1 billion by end of day Sunday. The film is already in the black and is making James Cameron and the studio heads even filthier rich they than already are.

    Comment by Young — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 11:59pm PST  Reply to this post

  • Everyone, I think it’s about time we just start feeling sorry for Whiskey. The poor guy is delusional.

    Avatar could end up making $5 Billion and he will still try to convince us that it’s a failure.

    For instance, in the above comment, he says that Peter Jackson should make a 3D movie. He has praised Peter Jackson before. I have nothing against Peter Jackson, although I believe that his last picture King Kong was not original…I’d have to do some research on that…LOL

    But if you take Whiskey’s out-of-whack formula, King Kong actually lost a lot of money! According to Whiskey, a studio gets 50% of the domestic gross and less than 40% of the gross overseas.

    If this is the case, then King Kong lost money for its studio. King Kong cost $207 million to produce and probably around $75 million or more to market. Whiskey also stated before that studios spend another $130 million overseas to get the movies out over there. Thus, the negative cost ACCORDING TO WHISKEY’S FORMULA, was $412 million. That means that King Kong lost over $170 million! Just to make sure you understand, this is not according to me, I am just using WHISKEY’S “MAGICAL” FORMULA.

    And then, of course, according to Whiskey, the DVD market has “collapsed”, so King Kong made no money at all (as he stated before, Transformers 2 only made $3-$6 million on DVD – Obviously all numbers made up to try to prove his point).

    So, Whiskey, now you want Peter Jackson to make a 3D movie that will do better than Avatar? When, according to your “formula”, King Kong was a massive failure? King Kong made $550 million worldwide and Avatar is going to make over $1.25 billion.

    If I were a studio executive, I would put my money on James Cameron. At least he gets people in theaters that can see previews of other movies that will make more money thanks to Mr. Cameron.

    Whiskey, I am just truly starting to feel sorry for you…It’s embarrassing to see someone do this to themselves. You are the last person on earth trying to convince people that Avatar is a failure. You are the only one that thinks that its a failure. I’m sure in your mind you think that you are right, but I’m sorry, you’re not.

    Ok, maybe executives at rival studios are also trying to convince people that Avatar is a failure, but I think even they started to quiet down.

    Sometimes you just have to swallow your pride and realize that you just have no proof at all.

    Comment by Charl — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 12:02am PST  Reply to this post

    • I SORT of feel sorry for whiskey, but what overshadows any pity I feel for him is how much I enjoy all of the better-informed, sometimes hilarious, responses to his ridiculous posts. The thing is, he uses just enough box office jargon to sound like he knows what he’s talking about, up to a point, but he’s an ideologue and his narrow minded world view will always color his box office analysis, even if it doesn’t make sense.

      Comment by cookmeyer1970 — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 12:00pm PST  Reply to this post

  • Whiskey, I’ve been reading some of your other arguments at Deadline Hollywood and your website (which is quite an experience, I’m telling you.) You predicted that Avatar would go down hard like Heaven’s Gate. You assured us that New Moon would have half of the opening weekend that it would actually create. (Nice of you to admit that the Twilight franchise has a “mass following.”)

    Now you’re telling us that Avatar will be a flop on DVD because its fans won’t see it in any other format. Which is really just another assertion of yours. (For what it’s worth, I saw the film in a regular format. The audience applauded at the end. Maybe people like this film in any dimension.) It’s true the ticket sales have been tilted toward the 3-D theaters. But you could say the same about films like Up and Monsters vs. Aliens. And according to your personal website, those are films that Hollywood should concentrate on making.

    I guess I’m trying to say — why should anybody trust a word that comes from your mouth?

    Comment by Anonymous — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 5:36am PST  Reply to this post

  • Whiskey, I’ve looked over some of your past arguments at Deadline Hollywood and at your own site (which is quite an experience, I’m telling you.) You predicted that Avatar would go down hard like Heaven’s Gate. You assured us that New Moon would have half of the opening weekend that it actually created. (Nice of you to admit that the Twilight films have a “mass audience.”)

    Now you’re telling us that Avatar will be a flop on DVD, because its fans won’t watch it in any other format. Which is only just another assertion of yours. (For what it’s worth, I saw the film in a regular theater. The audience applauded at the end. Maybe people like this film in any format.) It’s true that the ticket sales for Avatar have been tilted toward the 3-D theaters. However, you could say the same about Up and Monsters vs. Aliens. And according to your website, those are the kind of films that Hollywood should concentrate on making.

    I’m guess I’m saying — why should anyone trust a word that comes from your mouth?

    Comment by sonofabunk — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 5:51am PST  Reply to this post

    • Wait, did Whiskey really say that Transformers 2 only made 3-6 million on DVD? Last time I checked, it made over 191 million.

      http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2009/TFRM2-DVD.php

      Comment by Chris — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 8:19pm PST  Reply to this post

• So I guess Up in the Air is the new punching bag in these comments now that Avatar has silenced its haters. I agree the film isn’t quite as good as critics claim, but I don’t get the urgency of people here to rush to the judgment that it’s flopping. We’re only a week into its expansion and it’s sure to get an Oscar nom awareness boost. People whine all the time about how smart films for adults never get made anymore, and now that one’s here, people are holding it to the same financial performance standards of one-weekend releases that pander to the unintelligent.

  Comment by Zachary — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 12:56pm PST  Reply to this post

  • I don’t get the hate on UP IN THE AIR either (unless it’s coming from the Clooney-bashing Drudgebots). It’s a smart, complex film with terrific performances by Clooney, Farmiga and Kendrick, with subject matter that couldn’t be more timely. And considering both its budget and theater count, it’s doing just fine so far. Presumably its haters would prefer that no more ambitious movies for adults be made any more, and doom us to nothing but ALVIN AND THE CHIPMUNKS sequels and empty special FX spectacles (though I suppose I should note I don’t count AVATAR as such, and very much enjoyed that too).

    Comment by Michael — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 11:31pm PST  Reply to this post

• I just hope at the very least, Avatar makes enough to ease into the #2 all-time spot. That would send the obnoxious Dark Knight fanboys into a tizzy. I’ve noticed that Batman and Star Wars fans have been much more critical towards it, presumably because they feel insecure about the very real possibility of their beloved properties being overshadowed financially and culturally by it.

  Comment by Chris S. — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 1:04pm PST  Reply to this post

  • The last time a movie was this big…well, was “The Dark Knight.”

    A lot of people posting don’t seem to know what they’re talking about – both are unique, for different reasons. TDK was one of the best movies of the last 10 years (that and “The Departed”) and was just as big an event with repeat viewing. It didn’t have the extra cost of 3D glasses, and it wasn’t that big internationally. Most of the big all-time gross movies have HUGE international numbers – Star Wars Ep 1 (Phantom Menace) is the only movie besides TDK to have less than 60% come from the international b.o.

    Nothing against Avatar – I don’t think the success of movies has to be mutually exclusive (or their quality). TDK was a sequel, sure, but non-3D with less than 50% from international box office.

    Avatar may not be the best movie ever (in my opinion, TDK had better writing and acting) but it is a worldwide phenomenon. TDK was also more front-loaded, because people knew what to expect and it was a sequel. But it also had great legs (Avatar’s only mildly outpacing it domestically).

    I don’t think people should feel like successful movies are diametrically opposed – unless it’s Transformers 2 or Twilight vs. Dark Knight or Avatar – because those are just bad movies that do well. The Dark Knight was (by comparison) a conventional movie done incredibly well (except for the use of IMAX cameras) whereas Avatar is a brand-new style and technology that lacks a little in story and acting.

    Kudos to Jim Cameron – without innovators like him, we’d be watching Transformers 15 in thirty years.

    Comment by chris — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 7:23pm PST  Reply to this post

• Goldman’s Dictum might not be altogether true — “In Hollywood, nobody knows anything.” emphasis on the “knows,” but it certainly seems to be the case that when it comes to predictions about box office, the number of working crystal balls in the town, and those who can scry worth sour owl poot using ‘em, seems to be vanishingly small, hey?

  Like Avatar or not — happens as a sci fi geek and writer I loved it — all those folks who were sneering and saying only the sci fi geeks would be going to see it seem to have been, like Rick talking about the waters in Casablanca, misinformed.

  Either that or sci fi geekdom suddenly got logarithmically larger in a real hurry.

  You know what they say: Monster box office is the best revenge …

  Comment by Steve Perry — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 2:33pm PST  Reply to this post

  • Avatar has a promotion deal with (I think it’s samsung) for the blue-raid3d release with their new 3d tv sets.

    Comment by Angturil — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 6:42pm PST  Reply to this post

  • yeah titanic was a true work of art too, wasn’t it?

    no one ever knows when a monster hit is going to happen, usually because the script has to be so dumb there’s no telling who will see it

    Comment by Waiting for the collapse — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 10:03pm PST  Reply to this post

    • On a technical level it was a staggering work of art. Feeling uncomfortable about the story’s romance, emotion, and affirmation of life shouldn’t prevent you from acknowledging how masterfully made it was.

      Comment by Sam — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 1:58am PST  Reply to this post

      • “On a technical level…”

        Makes utterly no sense, art does not happen because you spent a huge amount of money on a new camera. It’s what you do with that technology that matters, but perhaps you were one of those who were radically impressed with Jar Jar, one of the great artistic movie characters in film.

        Cameron uses his technology to tell nauseatingly adolescent love stories (Titanic) and inane white man goes native libarts drivel (Avatar)…sorry I’m not sensitive enough to see how these two incredibly crappy, immature movies are better than the work of people like Kubrick, Scorcese, Coppola, Hitchcock, Wilder, etc. Because those are the artists I admire, smartass, so you can cram your uncomfortable thoughts up your ass where I’m sure there’s plenty of room after this last weekend.

        Comment by Waiting for the collapse — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 8:40am PST  Reply to this post

        • You forgot to somehow blame Obama.

          Also, your mention of Kubrick is timely: Kubrick created the special effects for 2001 (which some people think is drivel, and I am not one) and designed and built his own lenses to shoot by candlelight in Barry Lyndon – which can also be argued to be a snooze fest by some.

          So, no, despite your retreat to name calling, you can in fact separate the story from the technical achievements of director’s who sense a technology gap and build and devise a new system for themselves to fill that gap.

          But you’d rather ignore any attempt at said separation and call people names. Well done!

          Comment by B Hennessay! — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 11:06am PST  

        • The nerve of Waiting for the collapse to judge art based purley on what, maturity of the storytelling? I think “art” is a bit more complicated and has room for staggering vision like I just saw in Avatar. Jar Jar Binks?! You have not seen Avatar obviously if you think anything in it remotely resembles Jar Jar. It is art on many different levels – and you just sound bitter and angry. Somebody having problems selling their stories on “real” people? Got a real beginning, middle and end? Protagonist, antagonist, climax – great three act structure? Nobody buying it huh? Can’t imagine…

          Comment by heartofgold — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 12:34pm PST  

        • what a jackass…your examples prove my point…many technical innovations have come and gone, the only important ones are the ones used well (as on 2001…the lighting innovations in BL don’t make it a great work of art, as even you seem prepared to acknowledge)

          yes, if you respond with jackass points, I will call you a jackass…sadly, this doesn’t mean you’re brilliant

          there is no art in Cameron’s gaudy CGI world or his blue furry love scenes or his risibly dumb Titanic love scenes…but the world is filled with McDonald’s outlets so it makes perfect sense that these two movies would be extremely popular (perhaps you regard the special sauce as one of the great technical achievements in cuisine)

          Comment by Waiting for the collapse — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 1:27pm PST  

        • also let me know what a defense of great film art has to do with Obama, I’m sure that wasn’t just some idiotic partisan non sequitur was it? I thought the official story was that Avatar wasn’t anti-American left-wing etc, maybe you should consult your talking points

          Comment by Waiting for the collapse — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 1:38pm PST  

        • Well, unfortunately as has become rather common on this site, those who resort to name calling when they don’t agree with opinions (as opposed to provable fact) are typically here courtesy of drudge. If you aren’t in that category, you’re certainly eligible for honorary membership because instead of actual debate you’d rather sit in your internet stroke chair and speak to people in a manner you DO NOT possess that balls to in the real world, hence the Obama comment.

          And your reading comprehension is staggeringly low: Barry Lyndon is undoubtedly a unique piece of cinematic art form precisely BECAUSE it was shot by candlelight. Now, just because you can’t wrap your head around that statement doesn’t mean it’s incorrect but rather an it is opinion many would share but you might not. And simply because some might find it a colossal snooze fest doesn’t detract from its artistic accomplishments – just like Avatar. which has pushed realistic CGI into a new realm. It is an artistic accomplishment for that very reason. If you don’t agree with me fine, but I submit you are being either deliberately obtuse or simply haven’t seen it.

          But that type of discretion is clearly beyond your black and white view of all thing “artistically cinematic” or whatever it is you’re trying to argue.

          Comment by B Hennessay! — Monday January 4, 2010 @ 8:34pm PST  

  • as a self proclaimed sci-fi geek i’m forced to tell you that something growing logarithmically is growing incredibly slowly. you mean growing exponentially or on a logarithmic scale but not growing logarithmically.

    Comment by brendan — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 8:04pm PST  Reply to this post

• Has anybody noticed how similar Avatar is to Merian Cooper’s project War Eagles that he pitched to MGM? The storylines are incredibly similar.

  Comment by LaFong — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 4:16pm PST  Reply to this post

• umm…. so where are all the commenters from like 3 weeks ago who didn’t even think Avatar would make this much during its entire run? crickets chirping…

  Comment by jason — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 4:29pm PST  Reply to this post

• Two and a half weeks ago the same argument was going on if Avatar would even break $100mil. Now it’s about $500, $700 or more in North America. Wow, what changed?

  Comment by jack — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 6:05pm PST  Reply to this post

• Looks like Avatar will end up #2 all time in worldwide grosses(it shot most of its load worldwide and of course won’t approach the 1.2 billion Titanic did, and most worldwide are seeing it in 2D.). It should have strong legs because it was released late Christmas season so it’s not like in the summer where another 150 million dollar blockbuster is coming soon. So it will keep all its 3D theaters and take advantage of those high ticket prices, so it definitely can pass the 600 million mark domestically and also get a bump during the academy award weeks.

  Comment by danny666 — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 9:57pm PST  Reply to this post

  • What an ignorant :/
    Belive me, most of the world will see it in 3D or Imax.
    Europe has higher percentage of 3D cinemas than US.

    Comment by Milek — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 10:03am PST  Reply to this post

    • I like how Frogs and/or eastern euros, always like to say higher percentage.(you use the same BS for carbon usage). Well no matter how you spin it, percentage or total number. The fact is they have less 3D screens showing Avatar than the US. And Avatar is playing on a majority of 2D screens overseas. Outside of the US, Avatar is playing on 14,604 screens, 3671 of them are 3D. That’s a much lower percentage of 3D screens to 2D screens in the great United States.
      Also in IMAX Avatar is playing on 179 theaters and 70 IMAX screens internationally.
      Again I stated overseas, that means outside of the US. I’m lumping Europe with Asia and Africa, aka non-Super power countries.

      Comment by danny666 — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 7:58pm PST  Reply to this post

• Nine is a very cool movie, there no political BS, no hating on christians. none of that typical leftie hollywood crap! just one guys search for himself! good stuff!

  Comment by Sage — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 10:07pm PST  Reply to this post

  • …just women crawling around on the floor in their underwear and treated like objects just what christians like.

    Comment by peggy — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 5:34am PST  Reply to this post

    • Literal LOL. Peggy +10!

      Comment by Alex — Monday January 4, 2010 @ 3:22am PST  Reply to this post

• I see Avatar critics are still sticking their heads in the sand. Avatar will “barely reach the black”? lol. It will make over half a billion in profit from its theatrical run alone. Last week said it was a lock for #1 domestic of 2009 and #2 worldwide of all-time. The Avatar critics said it couldn’t happen. Now I will say Avatar is a lock for at least $500 million domestic and $1.4 billion worldwide.

  Comment by faraci — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 11:21pm PST  Reply to this post

• I’m hardly an Avatar hater (I loved it), but reality will set in with this movie. It will have a huge drop off into January. The Holiday Season is a busy time for film and most people have already seen it. It better rake in all the money by this Sunday because movie attendance will dwindle. If I am wrong, then Avatar will be an unstoppable train!

  Comment by mileshigh — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 11:23pm PST  Reply to this post

  • I don’t foresee that dramatic of a dropoff. I have no reason to expect it to suddenly mirror the trends of the modern blockbuster business model that it’s bucked until this point. Its only competition until Alice in Wonderland in March will be Shutter Island, which will skew much older than the age ranges that will likely continue to funnel steady repeat business toward Avatar. Lots of people weren’t able to see it in IMAX over the holidays because of the overwhelming crowds. Even the haters of the film are probably going to see it more than once just to replicate the visual experience. The cliche about the sky being the limit truly applies.

    It was a major coup for Fox to push it back from May, where it was originally slated to open, because the stiff summer competition probably would’ve been the difference between making it the merely the biggest of the year instead of potentially all-time. Everything else that came after it would’ve seemed trite, though. The Summer ‘10 crop has its work cut out for it. The game has been changed, so the wanna-be Camerons out there better study up on the rule book. The Ooh and Aah bar has been raised to a very high level.

    Comment by Erik — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 1:47am PST  Reply to this post

  • Sorry. Went to the City Center 15 in White Plains yesterday at 7PM. When I went to the kiosk, ALL of the showings for “Avatar” were sold out for the rest of the night. I was shocked because I couldn’t remember the last time this has happened to me.

    I have still yet to see this damn movie and this was my 3rd week trying. Buying my tix today for next Friday.

    Comment by Bruno — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 6:28am PST  Reply to this post

• avatar had 450 million internationally last weekend.
  if the worldwide total is 1 billion, it has to have 650 million after just 1 more week. wow.
  that puts it on road to 900 million without the domestic gross.

  450 million in us and canada seems like a lock, giving it 1.3 billion or more worldwide.

  biased AVATAR detractors will say : “that’s a full 500 million less that titanic.”

  Cameroon is still the king.

  Comment by abhishek — Saturday January 2, 2010 @ 11:50pm PST  Reply to this post

• Congratulations, James Cameron! This success has truly cemented him as an equal to George Lucas and Steven Spielberg in terms of being able to absolutely triumph with record-breaking box office and critical acclaim again and again with original concepts. Cameron now has Terminator, Titanic and Avatar under his belt as unqualified original successes just as Lucas had American Graffiti, Star Wars and Indiana Jones and Spielberg had Jaws, Close Encounters, Indiana Jones, E.T., Jurassic Park…ok, Spielberg’s still the king at this, for now.

  I’m a big Star Wars fan but I can’t see why Star Wars fans would be against this. The success of this makes it incredibly much more likely George Lucas will do more Star Wars movies in 3D. The third trilogy in 3D has a nice ring to it. I’ve also been a big James Cameron fan. Man cannot live on Star Wars alone. And this film is just chock full of stuff that should appeal to Star Wars fans…the fantasy, the creatures, the sci-fi hardware, the special effects, the heroic aspects, etc.

  Comment by Eric S. — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 12:03am PST  Reply to this post

  • Compared to Spielberg, big difference is James Cameron’s films are his ideas either story by or written by him.

    Comment by schnipple — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 3:47am PST  Reply to this post

• It would be kind of funny if Avator became the biggest grossing film of all time in that I’ve yet to meet anyone who was wildly enthusiastic about it. If you’re at a party, the conversation about the film itself runs out after 30 seconds because there isn’t anything to say other than, “It looked cool, huh?”

  Comment by Bill — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 12:09am PST  Reply to this post

  • Hey Troll, I mean, Bill, do you live in a hole with the chipmunks or have a brain the size of one? Cuz then I would understand why you would have a hard time having more than a 30 second conversation on ANY topic, LOL. Have you even seen the film in 3D? More than just cool looking visuals especially if you have any interest in the science of the film but I doubt chipmunks have the capacity.

    Comment by ninefinga — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 7:43am PST  Reply to this post

  • yo, stop ur bitchin about that. we all know that this movie pretty much blew everyone who has seen it away, and it will become one of the, if not the highest grossing movies of all time: Wait it already is. It was an excellently done movie and um…there was plently to talk about afterwards pertaining to it….

    Comment by bigbilly — Tuesday January 5, 2010 @ 6:37am PST  Reply to this post

• Cameron is the king of cinematic illusion. He has redefined the art. An innovator in every regard, Spielberg and Lucas and even Peter Jackson, have nothing on this director. Nothing. He chews up Spielberg and company for lunch. I can not even imagine what Cameron will do if he turns his gaze on Spiderman, the only comic he has ever shown interest. That was the plan 10 years ago, but it may come true in the next four years.

  I have completely stopped watching Speilberg’s films. Lucas and Spielberg may have more money, they don’t have eighth of the cinematic excitement level or talent or capability of Cameron.

  The footage from the cutting floor of Cameron, or I should say, the trash bin on his servers have better films that Spielberg and Locus, or any one else.

  Imagine what we are being deprived of, if only we could undelete his trash files.

  Long live captain James “T” Cameron. I just wish he’d create a Star Trek that would blow every single space movie out of the rings of Jupiter, once and for all. (FYI, Jupiter does have rings).

  For all intent and purposes, every one should stop making movies except Cameron. Period. First and foremost should be Spielberg, then Scrosese followed by Christopher Nolan. DK was a piece of cutting room film. I rarely, if ever, fall asleep in a film, that was perhaps the second or third film ever I took a proper nap in. I still can not get a refund on my Raiders 4 ticket. I’ve tried, oh I’ve tried.

  Perhaps Tarantino should be exempt, though. Inglorious was unbelievably great.

  To all those Cameron haters, you can eat his celluloid out of his trash bin.

  Comment by S E — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 12:30am PST  Reply to this post

  • You are an idiot.

    Comment by You are an idiot — Monday January 4, 2010 @ 11:05am PST  Reply to this post

• LOL! The haters on this board are still in serious denial even though the numbers are hitting their eyeballs and for some unknown reason, not registering.

  This film has crossed 1 billion and counting and is definitely in the black with TV, DVD, BlueRay, Commercial Vid, Ancillary, Internet,and merchandising revenue waiting in the wings. JC has already stated that the special DVD release will include cut footage so there WILL be demand from the HV market.

  I think JC and Fox would be wise to re-release a director’s cut (unedited version) later this year to milk their cash cow even more. Bet your bottom dollar that there are many fans who would want to see this happen.

  Wake the hell up and smell the coffee! Numbers don’t lie and with no serious competiton till March, this film is going to beat TDK. Only question is if this beast is going to top Titanic.

  Happy New Year to all the doubters. Got some nice hot crow cake ready for ya!

  Comment by taipei101 — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 12:42am PST  Reply to this post

• Do you think, that with inflation factored in, that Avatar could beat ‘Gone with the Wind’?

  Comment by Robert — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 12:57am PST  Reply to this post

  • no way – adjusted for inflation, Titanic doesn’t even come close (it’s well behind not only gone with the wind but also star wars and the sound of music). and mean ticket prices in 97 were appreciably lower than they are today. Of course, these tallies only take into account domestic numbers; I haven’t seen any adjusted numbers for worldwide gross, in which case titanic will probably jump up higher on the list because its intl haul was so enormous. So w/adjusted international numbers maybe things will be different. But even in this scenario, Avatar would have to take in over 2B – I mean it’s possible, but I don’t know if I see it happening.

    Comment by Kevin — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 2:27am PST  Reply to this post

  • http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

    Probably not…GWTW sold 80,000,000 tickets more than Titanic (202 vs 120) and even 30 million more than Star Wars: A New Hope (counting multiple releases, and remember how big Star Wars was when it was remastered and got another theatrical go-round).

    I don’t think anything will top Gone With the Wind for a long, long, long, long time. Gone with the Wind on average sold 2 tickets per US citizen the year it came out.

    Also factor in that the adjusted ticket price inflation basically goes by admissions alone (from what Box Office Mojo says), so they should compensate the higher 3D and IMAX prices, which is where a lot of Avatar’s money is coming from.

    What Cameron should remember is he’s spending 21st-century dollars, so his paycheck won’t be adjusted for inflation.

    Comment by chris b — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 7:55am PST  Reply to this post

    • tickets were also alot cheaper back then so everybody and they mama can watch this also people can watch it 100 times over and over so you can really compare the past tickets to this day of age. if they wuz selling tickets 10 a piece back then id bet they wouldt even sell 1 million tickets get it.

      Comment by xxx — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 12:17pm PST  Reply to this post

  • No.

    Next question?

    Comment by Jdog — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 8:36am PST  Reply to this post

  • No.

    Comment by dogsbody — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 10:43am PST  Reply to this post

  • well if the tickets wuz 2 dollar a piece at this day of age im sure titanic, dark knight, avatar could top gone with the wind with # of tickets sold. So i dont think you can reallly compare tickets sells from back then to now.

    Comment by xxxx — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 12:12pm PST  Reply to this post

  • No. Adjusted for inflation, AVATAR would have to gross well over three billion dollars domestic to equal GWTW. Every citizen in the United States saw GWTW and half saw it twice. At today’s ticket prices a hundred million dollar film is seen by 10.4 million people, and that is around three percent of the population. The importance of AVATAR is that it is drawing people into theaters that don’t go to theaters. Only five percent of people go to the movies in theaters these days but that’s another story.

    Comment by ari — Monday January 4, 2010 @ 6:36am PST  Reply to this post

• I feel a realistic domestic prediction for avatar at this point of time would be 480-500 million. Titanic’s appeal is different from avatar’s, avatar will not hold up as long as titanic. The average person definitely will not watch avatar more than 3 times in a theatre even if they liked it. It will get too boring, speaking lines and action gets expected and a bit long-winded. As for the overseas gross, avatar should break harry potter and the half blood prince’s overseas cume. By how much, we cannot accurately tell now. I predict a 1.2billion worldwide gross, beating the return of the king.

  Comment by jon — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 1:20am PST  Reply to this post

  • Um, Jon, with all due respect, you’re a bit off…you are comparing apples to oranges…Avatar is an entirely different product than Titanic, nothing like the industry has seen before yet it does hold the same appeal in the sense it is cutting across all demographics and nationalities…Avatar doesn’t need to have people seeing it as many times as the teens did when Titanic was out or be in theatrical release as long due to modern ticket prices…of course everything will be predictable after just 1 viewing so you have to keep in mind this is a visual spectacle that can only be fully experienced and enjoyed on the biggest screen possible…if your arguement was for a 2D film, I would probably agree with you but this is an entirely different mattter as the 3D version will keep on selling cause there simply isn’t enough IMAX or 3D screens to keep up with demand…people who see it on 2D will see it on 3D and the converse effect is happening for people seeing on 3D going to see it on 2D to compare the 2 versions…the sky really is the limit right now for this film…your logic is like saying people will only listen to a great song 3 times and get bored because it’s predictable…you can watch this film 10 times and probably not catch all the details put into it…you can cut and paste me on this- Avatar WILL outgross TDK for at least 2nd place all time domestic at the current trajectory…the only question right now is whether it will pass Titanic and it’s still 2 early to say…next couple of weeks will be a strong indicator.

    Comment by ninefinga — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 6:38am PST  Reply to this post

• Avatar is going to get at least 8 Oscar nominations…and that’s a conservative number…watch the box-office bump when that happens. The declines will shrink even more. $450 million domestic is a lock right now, $1.3 Billion worldwide is a lock right now…where it goes from there could make history.

  Comment by Rodney — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 1:42am PST  Reply to this post

  • Rodney, you are right about an Oscar bump. (And danny666 made the same point earlier.) There are still eight weeks between now and the Oscars…Avatar won’t rack up holiday-sized numbers but will keep up some momentum as a “must-see” event movie even among older audiences that usually avoid sci-fi. At this pace, hard to imagine Avatar NOT passing TDK for #2 all-time. Impressive.

    Comment by Cheeseman — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 6:36am PST  Reply to this post

  • Oh, it’ll make history all right. From now on, all big studios will make their tentpoles in 3D so they can charge twice the price and double their gross.

    The real losers will be the movie-goers, who could already barely afford to take their families to a movie theatre. This could break the industry, not save it.

    Comment by Liz — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 9:19am PST  Reply to this post

    • false.

      Avatar demonstrates that cinema is still exciting – that downloading/piracy still amounts to nothing in comparison to a true moviegoing experience. This will restore faith in both the studios and the audience (Who, might I add, make the personal CHOICE to contribute to box office intake).

      And I don’t know where you live but 3D is only a couple of dollars above regular theater prices here. It’s IMAX that’s much more and even then it is still a limited format of presentation. If anything the IMAX people should be thrilled above anyone else as business will likely be booming after this.

      Comment by V — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 11:28am PST  Reply to this post

      • “Avatar demonstrates that cinema is still exciting” is a completely subjective, non-factual statement. I’ve heard from people who fell asleep in the middle of it.

        And yes, in some places the cost is close to twice the regular admission.

        Comment by Liz — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 7:24pm PST  Reply to this post

        • Don’t see how what I said is any less subjective than your sweeping statements of “they can charge twice the price” and “This could break the industry.” But go ahead, do cast more stones.

          Comment by V — Monday January 4, 2010 @ 1:18am PST  

        • Again with the “false,” Lizzy. Subjective stories from friends who fell asleep means less than nothing, especially coming from you. You’ve been anti-Avatar for your own transparent political reasons from the start and birds of a feather tend to flock together. I would imagine that the people in your church group are of like minds.

          The real point for non-Drudgebots is that V is absolutely right: while I didn’t love Avatar, our business desperately needed it and it could not have come at a better time. Audiences need to be reminded that there are some kinds of experiences that they can’t get in a torrent or a dvd; there are experiences that are best felt on the biggest screen and with hundreds of people surrounding you.

          In the best of all possible worlds, Avatar gets people who’ve let it slip back in the habit of going to the movies. Hopefully they like it so much that they buy the bluRay. Hopefully it lines our coffers so instead of layoffs and production slowdowns, we get hiring and work. Yes, there will be more big-ass 3d blockbusters after Avatar, but as someone posted above, high tide raises all the boats. Cameron’s success here is ALL our success.

          [And Liz, by "our" I don't mean the Communist/Gay/Socialist/Jewish/Mason/Obama conspiracy, I mean people who actually work in the industry and have a reason to be reading and writing on DHD other than sheer under-the-bridge trolldom.]

          Comment by Alex — Monday January 4, 2010 @ 3:31am PST  

        • Oh Liz,

          The only places it costs twice the admission is on IMAX. Everywhere else the tickets just cost $3 more to get the 3D glasses. I don’t think any movie theaters charge $3 for a movie ticket, do they?

          Yes, the 3D glasses helps the movie make more money, but its still making the money. That’s all that matters.

          But who knows? Maybe the reason the movie is doing so well is because the people that fall asleep go back to see it again! hahaha

          The only movie I ever fell asleep during was The Da Vinci Code. LOL

          And yes, Avatar makes cinema exciting…Why do you think that it posts the numbers it has over the first 3 weekends? Do you think it’s because people are not excited about it? I would say that people are pretty excited.

          Comment by charl — Monday January 4, 2010 @ 10:08am PST  

        • hey, why don’t u go and see it urself then, cuz obviously the ppl who fell asleep in the middle missed A LOT of it….

          Comment by bigbilly — Tuesday January 5, 2010 @ 6:46am PST  

• Based on my foolproof calculations, Avatar is the biggest instance of a studio bleeding money on a net loss since Heaven’s Gate! My sources tell me Fox is going forward with litigation against Cameron for grand larceny! Reply to me, angrily!

  Comment by Rum — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 2:07am PST  Reply to this post

  • HAHAHA, very funny…Oh, sorry, you want me to reply angrily…Uh…Sorry, can’t reply angrily! It’s just too funny!

    According to my foolproof calculations, Nine is the biggest blockbuster of all time! Hahaha

    Comment by Charl — Monday January 4, 2010 @ 10:34am PST  Reply to this post

• So, the 3D gimmick has paid off. That, and there being no other ‘must-see’ movies during the season. Kudos to the guys in charge of the release date, they couldn’t have picked it better. But I agree with the poster a few messages above, I’ve yet to meet anyone genuinely enthusiastic about this film. At least in person.

  The only question now is if (when) it will pass TDK’s domestic gross.

  Comment by Matt — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 4:41am PST  Reply to this post

• Quite hilarious to see the Avatar haters nowhere in sight after it reached the $1 billion worldwide mark in record time, considering they were crowing about nobody in their social circles liking the film and how it faced a steep road toward profitability just a week ago.

  Comment by Paul — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 5:40am PST  Reply to this post

• I think avatar will make $500 million domestic and 1.5billion worldwide it could beat titanic but i doubt it.

  Comment by kam — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 6:06am PST  Reply to this post

• I didnt have time to write up something last week, but here’s my opinion/analysis this week. First off, overall, the entire box office this week was fantastic. The alst two weeks have been a great way to end the 2009 box office season. It started off strong and ended even stronger.

  1. AVATAR – I always said that this film would do terrific, but I never predicted it would do this great. With a strangle on all IMAX and 3D screens, AVATAR has the sky as its limit. In fact, unless BOOK OF ELI opens big, a forsee this staying on top as number one for the next two (and if Tooth Fairy underperforms, 3) weeks! Mr. Cameron can certainly draw a crowd.

  2. HOLMES – With the biggest (albiet it is fairly small still) decline in the top 10, the saturday drop doesn’t sit well. I see 40% drops in the forthcoming weeks, yet it still should crack $200M and spawn sequels, but I don’t see this having IRON MAN legs.

  3. SQUEAKQUEL – Possibly edging out Holmes (WB usually inflates its prediction as well as TWC), I don’t think there has EVER been a family movie sequel that can possibly out edge its predecessors box office gross. Just look at NIGHT AT THE MUSUEM 2. However, the weekday grosses will be much less robust, but the weekends should still see small declines with no kids entertain until TOOTH FAIRY and thats not til the end of January. Look for clear sailing ahead. Fox certainly is having a great December.

  4. IT’S COMPLICATED – With a higher than expected gross, COMPLICATED should pass the $100M mark easily now. Universal should be happy capping off the year with a few hits, but COUPLES RETREAT and this films ridiculous production costs damper the success.

  5. THE BLIND SIDE – Whoa, whoa, whoa. While I highly enjoyed this film and think Bullock is a great actress, I don’t necessarily think that this film is award-worthy, but that is besides the point here. This film is doing unbelivable and having a THIRD?!?! rise in its box office gross?!?! Amazing. Speaking of “the sky’s the limit!” $250M looks like a possibility now with its legs and 45 days with daily grosses ALL ABOVE $1M, thats spectacular for thsi low-budget, no special effects drama.

  6. UP IN THE AIR – Good hold and it seems like audiences are enjoying this film. $75M seems possible now, with a spike in business after it wins some awards. Similair pattern to NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN.

  7. PRINCESS & FROG – Audiences seem to finally be picking up on this movie and it should definitely pass $100M now (but not much further) after it seemed unlikely just two weeks ago.

  8. MORGANS? – For such a shitty movie and poor opening, I am surprised that this thing should make $30M.

  9. INVICTUS – Good film but BLIND SIDE stole its audience. I also dont see a big spike in business if it gets a nomination or wins a golden globe because it will be out of theaters by then and with such a wide release, I dont see it going back into many theaters.

  10. NINE – I’m sorry, but this has flop all over it. Since COLD MOUNTAIN, Kidman CAN NOT open a film and neither can Cruz or any other actress in this film. Say with Day-Lewis. While they are all high-profile actors, they certainly are not draws. At first I thought this might play similair to DOUBT, but the wide release came too quick.

  Comment by Ryan — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 8:12am PST  Reply to this post

  • Don’t tell that to the Drudge crowd, that are upset that AVATAR and the Disney flick are successful.

    Comment by Jerry — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 11:26am PST  Reply to this post

• Anyone here actually believe these numbers?

  Comment by Madoff Studios — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 8:53am PST  Reply to this post

  • Well, considering that they’re FACT – yes.

    Comment by Mark — Monday January 4, 2010 @ 9:40pm PST  Reply to this post

• Impressive numbers there…
  I think Avatar has a shot to Titianic crown in the world. I think it can reach the 2 billion in 2 or 3 month.
  However,
  I don’t think it will reach the 600 millions, we saw that with Dark Kignt impressive number for week. Let’s forget Titanix remain 15 weeks number 1… That’s a long shot !!!
  I see Avatar 7 or 8 weeks number 1, that’s it ( a lot actually ). my guess… 575 million

  Comment by Nfanboy — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 10:18am PST  Reply to this post

• I’ve seen Avatar three times already and a majority of my friends plan to see it at least twice. The repeat viewing of Avatar is unbelieveable and that will make it reach upwards of 1,5 billion dollars.

  I saw Titanic five times by the way

  Comment by Mike — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 10:26am PST  Reply to this post

• I continue to love the numbers Avatar is pulling in. One because it deserves every single penny that it has made and two because it’s hilarious watching the ones that were putting it down before its release coming up with absolutely asinine excuses. Haters gonna hate even if they are wrong!

  Comment by Chris — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 10:43am PST  Reply to this post

• Enough about Mr. C.
  Kudos certainly must go to his producer Jon Landau. His will and strength to fight the good fight against opposing and good intentioned forces speaks volumes of the man. He has stood by his director from the first piece of plywood used to build the Titantic to the last film cannister shipped to the last IMAX theater for Avatar. And one last point behind Jon there is a really nice and wonderful person in his wife Julie.
  To both, Happy New Year.
  Robbie Goldstein

  Comment by Robbie Goldstein — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 11:13am PST  Reply to this post

  • Indeed! Kudos to all! Cameron may be King, but even a King has his Court and his Army to command. I do not know Cameron or Landau (or his wife) personally of course, but anyone who has ever worked on a film knows that it is far from a one-man endeavor. Congratulations to all involved. If you have ever tried to make a film yourself, you know that it is a miracle anything gets made at all sometimes.

    Comment by VeteranAssistant — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 3:19pm PST  Reply to this post

• ryan: tom crusie, brad pitt… anyone sans will smith could have been in nine and it wouldn’t have done well. it needs to be the right combo of movie and star. kidman is a 40 year old foreign actress… there are only so many roles for her to take. put her in the right movie and it will open. but she avoids the blah blah of the rom-coms. she’s not gonna lead an action movie. what is she suppose to do? the best fit for her are unfortunately dour dramas. and those don’t open well…

  Comment by asssh — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 11:36am PST  Reply to this post

• This just proves that the world wants to see unique and original ideas not rehashes and remakes of old pictures.
  1 Billion in 17 days, the world speaks.
  Will Hollywood listen?

  Comment by BilLD — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 12:08pm PST  Reply to this post

• I’m one of the “haters”, here to take my lumps.

  What we all underestimated is: 1) the sheer technical novelty of the film, and 2) how the “message” of the film (ham-handed as it is) will go over so well outside the US.

  This explains why 2012 is such a big foreign draw as well: people outside the US like to see the US being destroyed/humiliated.

  2012 had $163 domestic…and $573 billion foreign!

  Expect this genre to continue, even having studios depending on foreign draws by getting increasingly shrill.

  Sorry for bringing the politics into it, but I am glad the movie is a success that will bring many more big 3D movies in the near future.

  I think very few people can claim this was a good script, even fans; and good writing is what will suffer the most going forward and how we will all suffer with movies in the future.

  Why be concerned with a good script if you can make bank w/o one?

  Comment by Jojo — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 12:43pm PST  Reply to this post

  • I have to agree with you…Eventhough I liked Avatar, I know the message of “American military” being the bad guy, will make the foreign box office draw that much bigger.

    ***SPOILER***
    As I stated in a comment about 2 weeks ago, I think audiences overseas will just love the American military (eventhough in the movie they are stated as being mercenaries) getting their asses kicked by natives with nothing more than bows and arrows. The Americans being portrayed as the bad guys is what had me a little disappointed about the movie.
    ***END OF SPOILER***

    But the effects are still awesome! HAHAHA

    Comment by Charl — Monday January 4, 2010 @ 10:35am PST  Reply to this post

  • A) Not once is the word “American” or “America” spoken in “Avatar”. So you can knock that stuff off. The theme of the movie is that it’s not a good thing to destroy the world around you – it has nothing to do with “Americans”. When you saw “Pocahontas”, did you think the movie was “anti-American”? Please.

    B) The movie’s going to hit $400 million in 3 weeks in the U.S. and will likely reach $600 million in a little over a month – so apparently Americans like to see the “big, bad military” getting beaten up, too.

    C) It’s simply the best movie out right now, even apart from the technical brilliance of it.

    D) EVERY American film makes more money outside of the U.S. than it does inside the U.S.

    Comment by Mark — Monday January 4, 2010 @ 9:53pm PST  Reply to this post

  • convincing argument: ‘I don’t know what I’m talking about ['I’m one of the “haters”...we all underestimated'], now listen to my projections’ ['Expect this genre to continue'].

    I’d take the US humiliation ‘genre’ over some jingoist Transformer Iron Man war-mongering bullshit any day

    Comment by Kevin — Wednesday January 6, 2010 @ 4:05am PST  Reply to this post

• I just checked Box Office Mojo’s list of the 20 biggest Third Weekends of all time. Only FOUR of the top 20 saw their third weekend take constitute more than 12% of their eventual cumulative grosses.

  With that history in mind, even if Avatar’s 3rd weekend hovers around there on the higher end of the spectrum, you’re looking at a total BO of $560-$580. Meanwhile, the average for all of the movie’s on the list was right around 10%, suggesting a very, very possible final tally of $680-700 million for this behemoth!

  Oh, and that’s forgetting the fact that the vast majority of those movies were lame-brained, front-loaded summer blockbusters without a prayer of an Oscar bump.

  Comment by Billy — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 12:53pm PST  Reply to this post

• The success of this movie will also mean bigger and bigger bets by Hollywood on a smaller genre of material. Formulaic, well-known brands only. Avatar didn’t start the trend, but it does reinforce it.

  Good scripts will be considered irrelevant, and Hollywood will continue to focus on only the brightest lights for the dimmest bulbs.

  That’s really the shame in the success of Avatar, but as they say…be careful what you wish for, you juts might get it.

  Comment by Jojo — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 1:21pm PST  Reply to this post

  • Except that Avatar isn’t a well known brand or property. It was an original script (so to speak) by James Cameron not based on existing material. If anything, this might show execs that original material can still make a bundle.

    Comment by Jeff — Monday January 4, 2010 @ 11:15am PST  Reply to this post

• I live in Japan and my wife is a middle aged Japanese woman. We saw Titanic once in the U.S. and once in Japan, and she loved it and watched in on video and television broadcast and bought the soundtrack.

  Avatar is getting a good bit of publicity on television here, but it doesn’t seem to have the oomph that Titanic did.

  I don’t know the numbers. But when we went to see it, it was at my urging, and my wife hadn’t really heard much about it. I loved it and we’re going again this weekend, because I figure now is the only chance I’ll be able to see it in 3D again (ironically, the 3D experience sort of makes me reticent to see it now in 2D). My wife was not so overwhelmed by Avatar. The romantic angle that Titanic had is not quite there.

  Also, another data point, when we went in the early a.m. on opening day, the theater was half full. On the way out though there was a line around the block. But I asked two random people in line what they were there to see, and it was another film, a Japanese film based on a manga.

  So I don’t get the feeling that Avatar is quite the iconic, huge, cultural event here in Japan that Titanic was, and I think it will fade much faster.

  Comment by Thomas — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 2:52pm PST  Reply to this post

• Movieman, how did Lionsgate screw up PRECIOUS’ release strategy? Just curious. A powerful and moving film, but audiences seem to be sadly flocking to THE BLIND SIDE instead. How did THE BLIND SIDE blindside the industry this fall? And do people really think AVATAR is going win Best Picture? I’m glad it is doing well at the box office, but I found it really trite.

  Comment by Todd — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 8:28pm PST  Reply to this post

  • It screwed up the strategy because it expanded its screen count too quickly. While it did make a handsome profit and more than anyone could have expected, it was supposed to go wide around now, instead they waited too long and now it is dropping theaters and its PTA is very low. It seems as if lionsgate is not going to expand it any further, at least until the awards are announced or it wins some golden globes.

    Comment by Ryan — Monday January 4, 2010 @ 1:57pm PST  Reply to this post

• First off, James Cameron is laughing at these comments all the way to the bank. He’s even blowing off people wanting his autograph. Avatar is a bona fide cultural phenomena. Good for him.

  Having said that, here’s my $0.02 (uhh, err, $9.50) from the holiday matinee. Here in the sticks, the theater was about 1/3d full; I’m guessing the other screen at the multiplex did the same. I found Avatar a stunning visual feat, in addition to a Vietnamese-war flavored science fiction fantasy with a script-by-numbers screenplay. IMO, Avatar will be taught in film schools as an example of how stunning visual images on screen can offset the effect of a mediocre screenplay to create a tentpole blockbuster movie.

  FWIW, I thought Curtis Hanson and L.A. Confidential deserved best director or best picture of 1997. I didn’t think then and still think now that Cameron and Titanic deserved both. But the Academy thought otherwise that year. IMO, L.A. Confidential has held up considerably better over the years than Titanic.

  Comment by Sam Damon — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 8:44pm PST  Reply to this post

  • L.A. Confidential is a good movie, but I forgot it existed. Titanic, however, always comes to mind when thinking about movies. And its my least favorite Cameron film. I paid $8 to see it, but would’ve paid $20 to walk in for the last forty minutes. Now Aliens, that’s an incredible piece of cinema.

    Comment by schnipple — Monday January 4, 2010 @ 7:04am PST  Reply to this post

• So what… People are willing to pay the prices of the 3D Cinema so you can’t get pissy about the money that is being made from it. If it tops Titanic it will do so legitimately. 3D wasn’t used in a lot of films and that is something it has to its advantage and is one of the first 3D movies to not use it simply as a stupid gimmick some of these films use it for.

  Yer just going to have to come to grips with it. Avatar is an awesome movie and people are consistently returning to see it. It has amazing financial momentum.

  Comment by Kay — Sunday January 3, 2010 @ 10:21pm PST  Reply to this post

• Sam Damon- I agree with you- LA Confidential should have won Best Picture in 1997. I thought Titatic was a bit hokey at the time and think it even more so now.

  Comment by Victoria — Monday January 4, 2010 @ 5:16am PST  Reply to this post

• Avatar is a decent movie and has it’s good qualities. But for some of you that are going for your 6th and 7th time, I will hook you up with a Swiss bank account number and you can kindly send me some money, since you have tons to spare.

  There is nothing to the plotline or in the graphics that was good enough to see more than once. I am sure you like bragging yourself up about… oh… I’ve seen it ten times… oh… heck with that.. I’ve seen it 15. If you didn’t see Watchmen more than once, since there’s another movie that went with the “stunning visual graphics” as it’s main selling point, then you are pretty much just jumping on a bandwagon.

  I would love to have this money that you are throwing away though. If you can afford to see this movie twice, why don’t you work on your short- and long-term memory, watch the movie once, replay it in your head, and donate that $10 to a charity or to a small business out there that is struggling to make it through this recession. Ridiculous that people can still throw money away on repeat viewings and feeding the off-shore bank accounts of Hollywood, instead of actually putting the money into your local economy.

  Comment by Shaking My Head — Monday January 4, 2010 @ 5:59am PST  Reply to this post

  • Um.

    Seeing movies at your local theater DOES put money into your local economy. And keeps people working.

    Here endeth the lesson.

    Comment by David — Monday January 4, 2010 @ 9:54pm PST  Reply to this post

• ….for all of those who “hate” the “avatar-haters,” and think that “drudge-bots” are “against” it, and that the “impresive” “green” and “anti-war” message must really be resonating with movie crowds, please consider this:

  The movie was funded by a company that overwhelmingly & positively promotes conservative pundits and politicians like Palin, Bush, Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck et al…on a global level,

  The movies main characters is a “white guy” “ex-military” dude who “saves” “indiginous” alien folks….

  …the “white guy” also uses “military force” to defend the alien homeland….

  additionaly, a large amount of USA movie goers seeing this movie are also pro-military. However, the highest per average grosses are in countries who are traditionally & historically, AS WELL AS SOME NEW ONES, been the USA’s “enemies” ie Russia & Venezuela, go figure….

  …for some reason, due to this movie’s success, the producer/director as well as said “fans” have become some of the most obnoxious human beings in recent memory.

  …this leads one to believe that “success” enables & empowers those who “feel” they have benefited by it act like _______(fill in the blank).

  I personally dont think a comment like “highest third weekend gross for a movie domestically” means a thing in the big picture.

  since this movie surprised expectations except for producer’s “faithful,” this movie has already had some surprises AGAINST it that will insure it is probably not be the top gross for a single movie year, running from january to december.

  ….here are some interesting stats that will not have Avatar at the top spot (oh well):

  TOP 10 DOMESTIC TAKES IN 2009
  1. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, $402.1 million
  2. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, $302 million
  3. Up, $293 million
  4. The Twilight Saga: New Moon, $284.6 million
  5. Avatar, $283.8 million
  6. The Hangover, $277.4 million
  7. Star Trek, $256.7 million
  8. The Blind Side, $209.1 million
  9. Monsters vs Aliens, $198.4 million
  10. Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs, $196.6 million

  TOP 10 INTERNATIONAL TAKES IN 2009
  $ 926.0 Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
  $ 886.9 Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs
  $ 832.1 Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
  $ 757.1 (say $800M even for arguments sake) Avatar
  $ 710.0 Up (2009)
  $ 642.6 Twilight Saga: New Moon, The
  $ 461.6 Hangover, The
  $ 413.2 Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian
  $ 382.7 Star Trek
  $ 374.9 X-Men Origins: Wolverine

  …right now, for 2009 it was not top ranked on any polls, and for 2010 who knows what could happen. riiiight????

  cheer up folks I also do not see how this could get many if any academy awards except for “special effects” & “costumes.” but again, whoknows???

  so for all those who “hate” the “avatar-haters,” better luck “next time”…

  Comment by lu-ee — Monday January 4, 2010 @ 7:13am PST  Reply to this post

  • You contradict yourself here…

    You state: “I personally dont think a comment like ‘highest third weekend gross for a movie domestically’ means a thing in the big picture.”

    Then you go on to state something as irrevelant as Avatar will probably not “be the top gross(er) for a single movie year, running from january to december.”

    So, “in the big picture”, do you think it matters to anyone that this movie is not on top of a single year, January to December?

    Or do you think, “in the big picture”, a domestic total of $450 million+ and a worldwide total of $1.4 billion+ is a little more to the liking of the studio?

    Your argument is paper-thin. All of us that know that Avatar is a huge success knew all along that people are going to start making up things to try to prove that Avatar is a failure.

    “Avatar-haters” as you call yourself, have come up with all kinds of excuses. At first, most of you said Avatar won’t make more than $200 million. Then you all changed your tune and said that it won’t make more than $250 million.

    When it was obvious that Avatar would make over $400 million, you “Avatar-haters” started making up other things. One person stated that Avatar actually cost $565. Another person said that it actually cost $400 million to produce and over $300 million to market!

    One guy even went as far as to say that Avatar will make nothing when it comes out on DVD/Blu-Ray. Somehow he came up with the idea that “Transformers 2″ has only grossed $3-$6 million on DVD! Without even doing research, everyone knows that it made a lot more. In fact, when I did do the research, “Transformers 2″ had actually made over $187 million in DVD sales alone since coming out October 20th! (Actually, the total stands at $191 million as of the end of 2009).

    Of course, none of the “Avatar-haters” has proof of these made up numbers!

    Ok, so you have proof…But proof of what? Do we all think of “Titanic” as the movie that made $112 million in 1997 and $488 million in 1998, or do we think of it as the movie that made $600 million domestically and $1.842 billion worldwide?

    “In the big picture”, no one cares about if a movie was number one in a calender year.

    I have to say you “Avatar-haters” are getting funnier and funnier. The things you come up with is hilarious! HAHAHA

    What’s next? Did Avatar cost $1 billion to produce? Maybe you can say that “in the big picture, if you compare Avatar’s gross to Home Depot’s Revenue in 2008, Avatar is actually trailing by $70 billion!”

    And I am not an “Avatar-Lover”, or whatever you call those that think Avatar is a great movie. I am someone that is just looking at the numbers and analysing them. Like I stated before, I would give Avatar a B or B+.

    Come up with a better argument and get back to me…But thanks for playing…Next!

    Comment by Charl — Monday January 4, 2010 @ 6:32pm PST  Reply to this post

    • What in hell are you talking about? “Avatar-haters”…

      You reduce discussion to a label and act all churlish… What a way to rebut criticism. Splendid. Imaginative. Took a lot of thought on your part. (Hint: Sarcasm)

      My issues with Avatar had to do with three things:
      - Overhyping
      - Focus on effects, effects, and more effects
      - The lack of original story (Dances with Wolves was my take on it, while others compared it to Disney’s Pocahontas)

      I made no mention of box office except to muse that it might hit $300 in the first week. Other than that I stay out of the prognostication business.

      I was certainly wrong about people attending the movie. Way wrong. I don’t get it, but I give the man his due. He knew his market better than I did.

      It is still a lousy movie as far I’m concerned. But then again, I didn’t like Titanic either. Cameron breaks his movies down to very simple storytelling with horrible dialogue, spiffs them up with never-before seen FX, and then wins at the box office.

      It’s worked for him for years and it continues to work. For that I get 39 slaps in the face with wet noodles.

      He certainly deserves recognition for his use of technology and pushing the edge.

      But don’t tell me this is a great story. It’s not. There are far more deserving films from 2009 than this one.

      But as far as the business is concerned, this is the runaway mega-hit $$$. With that, you can count on endless copies in 2010. And for that, I am extremely despondent.

      Comment by HelenofPeel — Tuesday January 5, 2010 @ 9:54am PST  Reply to this post

      • I was replying to the guy above me…Read a little more closely next time.

        Comment by Charl — Tuesday January 5, 2010 @ 5:36pm PST  Reply to this post

  • Um.

    It came out at the end of the year. I don’t think anyone was expecting it to make any 2009 lists, there, buddy. What matters is the records it’s broken and continues to break.

    It’s already the 4th top grossing film of all time and the second film to reach over a billion dollars worldwide – which it did even faster than “Titanic”.

    It’s likely to beat the $600 million domestic take of “Titanic” in less than 8 weeks, considering it’s already past $400 million in less than three weeks.

    There IS nothing “Against” it.

    Better luck next time. Would you like a cookie and some warm milk to help with your sour puss?

    Comment by David — Monday January 4, 2010 @ 10:01pm PST  Reply to this post

• The other thing, of course, that is going to have Fox licking their lips about the Avatar take is the drastically reduced budgets and schedules that will be needed to make the sequel(s) that Cameron has already discussed (even if Jon Landau is denying everything!).

  Without the eye-watering technical R&D spend, with much of the CG imagery ready to be manipulated anew, and a cheap cast (even if Fox didn’t sign them up for multi-picture deals – does anyone on here know if they did?), the potential earning power for Avatar 2 and 3 is jaw-droppping.

  Comment by theghostofdonsimpson — Monday January 4, 2010 @ 9:25am PST  Reply to this post

• Impressive. I wouldn’t be surprised to see it beat out TDK’s #2 domestic. I think even if it does it will be short lived when Iron Man 2 hits this summer.

  Comment by Jesse — Monday January 4, 2010 @ 11:29am PST  Reply to this post

  • Iron Man 2? Are you serious? That film will do well, there’s no doubt about that, but it won’t get anywhere near Avatar. Iron Man made $585 million WW, and it wasn’t nearly as successful overseas. I predict $400-$420 million domestic and maybe $800 million WW, tops.

    Comment by DK — Tuesday January 5, 2010 @ 9:51am PST  Reply to this post

• Avatar is falling apart! It’s a gigantic failure of “Titanic” proportions!

  After dropping 53% on Monday and another 9.5% yesterday, this movie is a DISASTER! The way that it is going, it would be lucky to hit the $400 million mark domestically!

  JUST KIDDING!!!! Hahaha Just picking on those that are trying to say that Avatar is a failure (how do some of the people on here still say that?)

  Anyway, those of you that are smart enough to know the trends (especially when it comes to James Cameron’s films), things are looking good for Avatar to still make a lot of money.

  Comparing the numbers, you will notice that Avatar is still going strong, eventhough it is “after the holidays” which some of you claim is the end of the box office for Avatar.

  Titanic fell 66% vs. Avatar’s 53% on its 3rd Monday in release, and even taking inflation into account, Avatar still outgrossed Titanic $8 million to $4.7 million.

  Avatar has even outgrossed each of the top 5 movies since 2000 in their comparable 3rd Mondays when inflation is taken into account…And those movies all came out during summer months.

  Avatar’s 3rd week is on pace to gross $96 – $98 million (from last Friday to this Thursday). The Dark Knight grossed $64 million in its third week; Shrek 2 grossed $53 million; Dead Man’s Chest grossed $51 million; Spider-Man grosssed $57 million and Transformers 2 grossed $35 million.

  Before this coming weekend, Avatar will have around $380 million total. If the weekend drops 50% from last week, Avatar will make another $34 million and go over the $400 million mark (around $415 million).

  The more likely scenario is that Avatar will drop around 40% to $41 million! It would easily beat The Dark Knight’s total of $26 million (and Spider-Man’s $28.5 million, Titanic’s $28.7 million, as well as triple Tranformers 2’s $13.6 million third weekend).

  I remember just a week or so ago when people on this site said that Avatar won’t even beat Transformers 2’s total domestic box office. LOL

  Oh, and for those that said that Avatar won’t pass the Billion dollar mark or beat Return Of The King’s worldwide total…Well, Avatar has already topped $1 Billion and is about to pass Return Of The King’s worldwide total of $1.119 Billion at the end of this weekend! Actually, it will top that total even before the weekend, since it’s total worldwide now stands at $1.098 Billion!

  I know people on here are going to try to find some other way to “assure” us that Avatar is a failure. Whether it’s someone that says that Avatar actually cost $565 million (Whiskey), or someone that says we should count number of tickets sold instead of $$$ (helenofpeel)…Hahahaha…Some people are just so clueless!

  Comment by Charl — Wednesday January 6, 2010 @ 1:29pm PST  Reply to this post