‘Vampire Academy’ Adds ‘Modern … 
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘Shark Tank’ Finale Up, … 
Friday Box Office: ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ … 
Cannes: Worldview Options Andrew Dominik’s Marilyn … 
UPFRONTS 2013: The Overachievers 
‘Mike & Molly’ Creator Mark Roberts To … 
Carey Mulligan, Matthias Schoenaerts Set For … 
Hammond On Cannes: Weinstein Brings Out Stars For 2013 … 
Cannes: Fake Gunshots Interrupt Canal Plus Live Broadcast … 
‘The Great Gatsby’ Starts With $5.4M … 
Cannes: Music Box Snags Competition’s ‘Michael … 
UPDATE: Amazon Studios Begins Pilot Pickups; … 
Bruce Rosenblum Bids Classy Goodbye 
RATINGS RAT RACE UPDATE: ‘American Idol’ Hits … 
UPDATE: ‘Iron Man 3′ Box Office Crosses $1B … 
Upfront Market: Will Auto Makers Subsidize TV … 
Cannes: Thief Makes Off With $1M+ In Chopard Jewelry Meant … 
‘Scandal’ Finale On Small Screen And Onstage At … 
‘Modern Family’ Gets Cable Makeover For Launch … 
Adam Sandler To Leno: “Maybe Go To Fox” 
Anyone Care Who Won ‘American Idol’? 
UPDATES ‘Avatar’ Crossed $800M Worldwide Thursday
SUNDAY AM UPDATE: Official numbers show Avatar‘s projected North American cume, after only 17 days in release from 20th Century Fox, will be $352.1 million. And with an international cume of $670.2 million, its worldwide box office figure should be $1.02 billion coming out of this weekend. Yikes! Then again, James Cameron’s big budget technopic was helped by higher 3D ticket prices. It had an amazing 3rd weekend hold of 10%, reflecting word of mouth. And the film already is the second highest grossing film released in 2009. Hollywood.com says the IMAX showings were off the chart with a global cume of $66.4 million — the highest ever for an initial IMAX release. As a Fox exec just gushed to me: “Mr. Cameron was king of the world but now has dominion over the universe. And he will own the top two slots on the worldwide all-time box office list!” Meanwhile, Warner Bros’ Sherlock Holmes will have a domestic cume of $140.6M in 10 days, while Fox’s Alvin And The Chipmunks: The Squeakquel should see $157.3M after 12 days in theaters.
Here’s the Top 10:
1. AVATAR (Fox) [3,461 runs] Week 3 – Cume $352.1M
Friday $25M, Saturday $25.8M, Weekend $68.3M
2. SHERLOCK HOLMES (Warner Bros) [3,626] Week 2 – Cume $140.6M
Friday $14.8M, Saturday $14.4M, Weekend $38.3M
3. ALVIN SQUEAKQUEL (Fox) [3,747] Week 2 – Cume $157.3M
Friday $13M, Saturday $14.3M, Weekend $36.6M
4. IT’S COMPLICATED (Universal) [2,897] Week 1 – Cume $59.1M
Friday $7.1M, Saturday $7.6M, Weekend $18.7M
5. THE BLIND SIDE (Warner Bros) [2,926] Week 7 – Cume $209M
Friday $4.5M, Saturday $4.9M, Weekend $12.6M
6. UP IN THE AIR (Paramount) [1,895] Week 5 – Cume $45M
Friday $4M, Saturday $4.4M, Weekend $11.3M
7. PRINCESS & THE FROG (Disney) [3,328] Week 6 – Cume $86M
Friday $3.7M, Saturday $4M, Weekend $10M
8. MORGANS? (Sony) [2,718] Week 3 – Cume $25.6M
Friday $1.9M, Saturday $2M, Weekend $5.2M
9. NINE (The Weinstein Co) [1,412] Week 3 – Cume $14M
Friday $1.45M, Saturday $1.5M, Weekend $4.2M
10. INVICTUS (Warner Bros) [2,160] Week 4 – Cume $30.7M
Friday $1.47M, Saturday $1.6M, Weekend $4.1M
—
Limited Runs
3 IDIOTS (Big Picture) [119] Week 2 – Cume $4.8M
Friday $633K, Saturday $550K, Weekend $1.5M
BROTHERS (Relativity/Lionsgate) [858] Week 5 – Cume $27.5M
Friday $480K, Saturday $500K, Weekend $1.2M
THE YOUNG VICTORIA (Apparition) [165] Week 3 – Cume $2.5M
Friday $315K, Saturday $360K, Weekend $935K
PRECIOUS (Lionsgate) [629] Week 9 – Cume $43.5M
Friday $340K, Saturday $380K, Weekend $950K
THE ROAD (Weinstein Co) [306] Week 6 – Cume $6.7M
Friday $211K, Saturday $205K, Weekend $560K
A SINGLE MAN (Weinstein Co) [46] Week 4 – Cume $1.7M
Friday $177K, Saturday $189K, Weekend $508K
IMAGINARIUM OF DR PARNASSUS (Sony Classics) [48] Wk 2 – Cume $1M
Friday $144K, Saturday $132K, Weekend $372K
BROKEN EMBRACES (Sony Classics) [71] Week 7 – Cume $1.9M
Friday $149K, Saturday $163K, Weekend $435K
CRAZY HEART (Fox Searchlight) [12] Week 3 – Cume $716K
Friday $83K, Saturday $88K, Weekend $235K
THE LOVELY BONES (Paramount) [3] Week 4 – Cume $383K
Friday $27K, Saturday $24K, Weekend $65K
THE WHITE RIBBON (Sony Classics) [3] NEW – Cume $86K
Friday $22K, Saturday $21K, Weekend $60K
THE LOSS OF A TEARDROP DIAMOND (Paladin) [6] NEW – Cume $30K
Friday $6K, Saturday $9K, Weekend $23K
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.
Loading ...
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.
$$$ are not a fair comparison, since Avatar is playing in a lot of 3D theatres and ticket prices are double what they were for Titanic.
A better comparison would be tickets sold, rather than $$$.
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.
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!!
@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.
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!
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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…
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.
I think the final tally before ancillary area will be 2.3 Bill
looks like Nine is a Zero. Goodbye Harvey!
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..
“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!
$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.
Not $307 million. $350 million.
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).
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.
I think most movies get a substantial bump on New Year’s Day.
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?
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
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 $1B+ films to hit that mark?
The fastest to 1B$ so far was ‘The dead man’s chest’ and it took it 63 days to get there
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?
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.”
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.
But what was the international rollout schedule like for those other films?
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.
Your weekend prediction for Avatar is too low with a $24M Friday. It will land up around $65M.
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
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.
It’ll probably hit $1B worldwide tomorrow.
It’s domestic total will be ~$420M by the end of next weekend.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
How in the world is The Blind Side grossing over 200 million dollars?
Probably those damn Christians…
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!
If Avatar wasn’t the lede, we’d all be remarking at how huge “Alvin Squeakuel,” “Sherlock Holmes,” and “The Blind Side” are.
WOW! Gunning for that #1 Spot!
Bye-bye Weinstein Company.
No matter how much money Avatar makes, its still not a good film.
Umm… we’re on a hollywood business site talking about box office. You must be looking for rottentomatoes.
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?
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).
And yet, you watched it.
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.
Thanks for your early numbers, Nikki. There’s so much loose talk, I like to get the estimates as soon as possible.
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.
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.
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.
Wow! Avatar has already made more money than Twilight: New Moon, and may even outgross Transformers 2! Clearly this is a masterwork of genius!!
Avatar will probably pass the worldwide gross total for Transformers 2 today!
And it’s got nothing to do with high 3D prices, or both of Avatar’s last weekends falling on major holidays!! Um … right?
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%
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.
Anybody notice a trend? When a big blockbuster is on screen, all the other movies benefit.
When the tide rises it lifts up all the boats not just the big luxury liner.
That may be one of the coolest quotes I have ever seen.
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.
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?
Avatar cannot be compared to the original Star Wars in terms of cultural impact.
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…
That is not what happened in 1998, last time New Years Day was a friday.
Exactly; this is an unusually heavy travel weekend so you’re going to see an across-the-board drop for everything in release.
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.
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!
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?”
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.
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.
Whiskey, you continue to write these epically long posts of extreme stupidity.
Take up knitting?
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?
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.
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.
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!
“…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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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