Salma Hayek’s Animated Passion Project ‘The … 
Relativity Moves Scott Cooper’s ‘Out Of The … 
Russell Crowe Sets ‘The Water Diviner’ For … 
Comedy ‘I Didn’t Do It’ Gets Series Order … 
CNN’s ‘New Day’ Debut Up In Demo But … 
Liv Tyler To Co-Star In Damon Lindelof’s HBO Pilot … 
DreamWorks Animation Launches Effort To Re-Position Itself … 
‘Pacific Rim’ Sequel In Planning Stages, … 
Legendary “Down To Handful” Of Studio Suitors: … 
UPDATE: Dan Harmon Apologizes For Comments Slamming … 
Paramount- Montecito Set Black List Scribes Eyal Podell … 
‘Bioshock’ Creator Ken Levine Takes On … 
Deadline Expands: Hires Washington Post Journalist Lisa De … 
Ratings Rat Race: ‘The Voice’ Rises, … 
Angelina Jolie Stunt Double Files First U.S. Phone-Hacking … 
MGM & BermanBraun Sign TV Production Deal, First-Look … 
‘Venus And Serena’ Producer Calls Tennis … 
Kim Basinger In ‘Petit’ Lead For Danish Helmer … 
EMMYS: ‘Big Bang Theory’s Science 
Has Summit Pulled A Rabbit Out Of The Hat With Dean Parisot … 
‘Client List’ Season 3 Pickup In Limbo Over … 
This mega-blockbuster just keeps breaking box office records worldwide. Disney announced this morning that Marvel’s The Avengers became the third highest grossing film yesterday domestically passing The Dark Knight ($533M), and the third highest grossing film globally passing Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows Part 2 ($1,328M). But these records are not adjusted for higher ticket prices, inflation, or 3D premiums. The Avengers‘ estimated cumulative performance to date as of Friday is international $793.2M and domestic $538.1M for a worldwide cume of $1,331.3M. It currently stands as the #5 film of all-time internationally (#4 is Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides with $803M). Domestically, it crossed $500M in just 23 days, setting a new speed record overtaking Avatar which took 32 days.
RELATED: ‘Avengers’ Box Office: Passing $600M Domestic Today June 26, 2012
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.
Loading ...
Good for Disney/Marvel. They made a satisfying movie experience. Which is all we really want from a film.
And I STILL don’t plan on seeing it.
Wow, you’re so counterculture.
Uh, okay? I’m sorry you missed out on one of the best blockbuster experiences of the past 10 years.
It’s actually much better in 2d – you catch a lot more of the awesome environment, like the details and flaws of the Chitauri and the scenery. The 3D just blurs everything together so you can only really see the focal point in the middle of the screen.
Better in 2D than 3D, true. But extraordinary in IMAX 3D, if you can get a seat near the center of the theater. I did not think there would be such a difference for a movie that was converted to 3D during postproduction, but I was floored by the look of the film.
@Bob
If to be fair The Avengers blockbuster movie experience is on par with Transformers 3 (nothing extra special)
Ironically even plot is quite similar to T3: the magic portal, aliens attack, defense the Earth and we need to close the portal asap
But somehow the one is praised and another is trashed
yeah, because T3 didn’t have the HULK
Probably because the one is better than the other.
It doesn’t take a genius to figure that one out……..
….you would think.
Why do people throw out insults to people who didn’t like the film? Anyone who works in this biz should know this is a SUBJECTIVE biz. You send a script out to 20 prodcos, and I guarantee you some will like it, others will hate it, and still others will be indifferent. Same with watching movies.
People need to chill out.
And you’re STILL not very smart.
Yeah, Disney and Marvel are so going to miss your 10 dollars.
Would you like a cookie for your insanity?
Worldwide it would be number 3 adjusted for inflation–box office prices were actually a touch higher for Harry Potter 8 last year. And by far the top worldwide comic book flick adjusting for inflation.
Domestic it needs about $50 million more to pass Dark Knight’s adjusted total (should be very reachable). That would still be just outside the top 25 domestic all time adjusted, but it would position it as the top comic book film of all time. Avengers’ 3D premiums mean Spider-Man and Dark Knight sold about a million more tickets, though.
Nonsense, if you’re talking inflation-adjusted it would be nowhere near number 3 all time. Not even close.
“Inflation-adjusted” is a silly illogical way to make a counter-argument regarding box-office grosses, because adjusting for inflation rarely ever takes into account things like recessions and wars that negatively (or positively) affect the real value of the dollar (or whatever currency) as well as people’s ability to spend money as a result.
For example, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the value of the dollar in 2012 is less than the value of the dollar was in 2000 thanks in part due to the fact that the Economy is in the middle of the biggest Recession since the Great Depression – and has also likewise affected people’s ability to spend money on movies.
On the flip slide, the Economy was on the tail end of a Boom in 2000 when a movie like Titanic had been released and people were flush with money back then.
That a movie makes as much as Avengers is today – 3D ticket prices and general higher ticket prices not-withstanding – is quite the feat given everything it’s up against that movies released even 5 years ago didn’t have to deal with.
Good for you
Thanks to the Avengers this summer has already peaked
Except for Prometheus and Dark Knight Rises you mean.
No. It’s already peaked. Prometheus and Dark Knight will be great but no where near the impact of Avengers
I wish I had waited until it aired on cable. It wasn’t that great a film.
Just goes to show what happens when you actually make a good summer blockbuster. Those blaming the Avengers for the for performance of other May releases need to think about the real reasons they flopped.
Meant to say: Those blaming the Avengers for the poor performance of other May releases need to think about the real reasons they flopped.
Even truly great films can get crushed by monster hits (Blade Runner, anybody?).
Good scheduling is important regardless of whether the film is good, bad or in-between.
Lets be honest. Blade Runner is a movie that has become recognized as a masterpiece DESPITE its flaws. I love it but it’s an acquired taste for most.
S
For most people with no taste, you mean.
Someone needs to invent a new metric.
Suppose right now you were standing in front of a multiplex with a range of new and old films playing and someone offered you ONE ticket. Would you choose to see “The Avengers” or the original release of “Star Wars” or “Jaws” or “The Godfather” or “Raiders of the Lost Ark”?
My suggestion is that regardless of how much money modern films seem to be making (or not making) the films themselves just don’t seem to stand up at all to films from decades past.
Someone needs to reevaluate their logic and notice the biases inherent to his question.
You mean a bias towards quality storytelling over a glorified rollercoaster?
Faulty logic much? If your knock against the Avengers is that it isn’t one of the greatest films in the history of the medium, I think you’ll find no one who disagrees. What it is is fun and entertaining. That’s why we go to the movies in the Summer.
Lucas doing the first “Star Wars” has the feel of the old Flash Gordon things. Lucas doing the prequels seems like a whole different medium. Spielberg doing “Jaws” was fun schlock, like say “Towering Inferno.” Spielberg doing “War of the Worlds” seems like a whole different medium than Pal’s. Bogdanovich doing “What’s Up Doc?” has the feel of “Bringing Up Baby” but what do we have now, “Bridesmaids” or maybe “Who’s that Girl?” which feel like a different medium? My comment’s logic may sound faulty, but I still think I have a point. Something qualitative seems wrong or just different about modern films, even when they’re made by the same filmmakers from decades ago.
Could the difference be you aren’t nine years old anymore? Seriously, I remember the A-Team as a brutal show about the horrors of war and Clash Of The Titans as a masterpiece.
S
“Would you choose to see “The Avengers” or the original release of “Star Wars” or “Jaws” or “The Godfather” or “Raiders of the Lost Ark”?”
Just the fact that you put Avengers in competition with such films speaks wonders of the movie.
I’d see Avengers. I’ve seen all those other ones a thousand times before.
S
Thanks for intentionally missing the point.
Drawing comparison between the Avengers and actually great movies mentioned would hopefully reveal the glaring contrast between the products, not give credence to the Avengers.
And if you’ve seen Star Wars and Raiders a 1000 times so you’d rather watch The Avengers the question is: are you likely to watch The Avengers nearly as often in the future?
But let’s skip all the bull. Are you actually going to make the statement that The Avengers is a better film than The Godfather?
Casablanca?
Chinatown?
Back to the Future?
2001?
If you ever thought Clash of the Titans (Hamlin) was a masterpiece and if you genuinely can’t see the qualitative differences between Star Wars IV: ANH and The Phantom Menace you have a serious credibility problem. You are almost undoubtedly a member of the dwindling-but-dedicated movie-going audience that derides anyone with an ounce of taste as a “hater”.
The average quality of motion pictures has dropped tremendously, even just in the last decade. It’s not really open to debate. If you want to leave it up to people’s opinions, that’s fine, but I think the fact that these films can’t sell half the number of domestic tickets with over double the domestic population says more than any box office dollar figure. The Avengers may be a quality film, but people don’t go because they don’t believe in movies anymore.
What if you’d never seen any of them?
Or, how about this: your best friend has one chance to see a film before he dies, and he’s never seen any of those films but he wants to see the best one he can… which one do you recommend?
What’s your second choice?
Is The Avengers last?
Can you be honest???
*eep
Sorry for you, Donna. You’re going to miss one of the most entertaining films of the year, in the environment that it should be seen in, a theater.
Though, you’ll at least have that warm, though hollow, feeling of being able to say how much wiser you are than the rest of the herd.
@brian
Typical hostile reaction of the fan boy/s to anyone who dare to have a different to yourself opinion about your precious movie/franchise
@Henry
Typical hostile reaction of a hipster who thinks he IS better than everybody. Brian was dead on, and didn’t come across as hostile. You, however, came across as a d!ck.
“Most entertaining film of the year” is an entirely relative qualification. It doesn’t actually require the film to be any good, it just means the other films were worse.
Okay. Pretty sure a few people might disagree.
I take ‘inflation adjusted’ figures with a grain of salt. Films that do big business do it mainly from repeat customers. Earlier films had several benefits, a few of which were less competition and lower ticket prices. So when newer successful films are criticized for selling less tickets, remember its much harder to attract business with higher ticket prices and the economic situation. All in all, it’s a pretty amazing achievement for Avengers and an awesome movie.
I will concede that most of the top 25 adjusted movies were game-changing movies, though. It is a good measuring stick for that.
less competition and lower ticket prices???
no
summertime used to see 4 to 5 major releases on summer weekends back in the 80′s and early 90′s even. now the studios all vie for a date and then when someone puts the biggest tentpole on that date, everyone else bails and gives it free reign for a week. Now we get 1 to 2 major releases on a weekend and the 2nd is counter programming (romcom/drama)
lower prices? if you adjust for inflation tickets are about the same.
the difference back then was no home video, so you HAD to see it multiple times in the theater. which is why raiders played in my neighborhood for nearly 1.5 straight years. at the first run theater.
Ticket prices have risen ~15% faster than the rate of inflation over the last 20 years.
I’m getting more than a little ticked that so many films are opening overseas before here. The beancounters are happy, but not the fans.
Why does this matter outside of some “I have to be first” penis-measuring context? The film is going to be enjoyable whether it plays overseas a week or a year before it opens domestically. Assuming it’s any good.
i dont mind them opening overseas first at all, if it helps the studios get out in front of piracy. that money saved could be the difference between some people keeping jobs or losing them…
1. If you like the movie in question, ignore the whole “adjusted for inflation” issue.
2. If you don’t like the movie, point out that its box office is not that impressive when adjusted for inflation.
(That seems to be the unspoken rule online, anyway.)
@kevin
Well that’s True
But at the same time you can’t really ignore the inflation, as one day when one ticket will cost $100 (due to inflation) any medium size blockbuster will earn as much as Avengers in the whole run, with selling 10 times less tickets
It’s the same how people argue about Avengers reaching/beating Titanic initial record of $600M
Just to put that into little perspective
The day this will happen you should know that Avengers SOLD roughly
70-75 million tickets
Titanic has SOLD in 1997/98 roughly 125 tickets to reach this number
No argument there. I was just joking about how silly the whole thing is.
At some point, we need to collectively decide whether we’re going to boast about how much each new blockbuster makes, or just admit that it’s rare for a movie to actually crack the 10 highest-grossing list (adjusted for inflation).
Dear Sheep:
The movie was kinda fun as you’re watching it, but not really all that good. Watch how boring it is in five years when it ends up on KTLA on a Sunday at 3PM.
Sincerely,
Every Truly Great Hollywood Movie Every Made
Dear SteveLA,
I’m sorry you spend so many lonely Saturday nights watching TV.
S
@StevLa
Well done
Someone needs to put things into perspective here
I saw Avengers and can’t say its in my top 10 films…but then again I walked out of Iron Man 1…I.m not the target audience of 18 to 3 yr old nerds and fanboys. I just couldn’t accept the obvious story holes, couldn’t make that giant leap of faith.
If I had to choose between Avengers, any LOTR, Excalibur, Blade Runner or just about any other film including foreign films, I would not choose Avengers = Infantile male fantasies…
yeah, as titanic clearly shows the money is in appealing to prepubescent female fantasies
Made a massive impact on me but then I literally had been waiting what seemed like forever for it to come into fruition. I can’t see anything else this year coming close to it.
Last two comments above are by butt-hurt Bat-Nerds.
Avengers will do 60% of its business OVERSEAS. If you calculate worldwide admissions, it will sell about 150 million tickets, right up there with any film in its initial release.
…except Titanic and Avatar, it should be stipulated.
Star Wars did over 100 million tickets DOMESTIC.
Global growth is evidence of expanding markets. The movies are appealing to a decreasing percentage of a growing population.
Basically, Hollywood is now target the 15% most easily entertained people on the globe, the ones who are fascinated by glowing balls and blinking lights while they’re sober.
Their stories and dialogue are intentionally dumbed down in order to make translation and subtitles easier to follow. It’s a wise move since their target audience is largely composed of people that see “Sunday at 3pm” and think “Saturday night”.
Avatar also did ~100million tickets domestic, unless you factor in premium ticket prices in your calculations…
Of course, in 2010 the US population was over 300m while in 1977 the US population was ~100m.
Star Wars sold a ticket for every man, woman and child in the US, as did both original sequels.
Avatar did one in three, if every ticket was non premium. For every 3D ticket sold we lose total tickets sold. If only a third of Avatar’s box office were premium priced $3 above avg. ticket price, Avatar’s actual avg. ticket price was ~$9 instead of $8, indicating 12.5% fewer total tickets: ~78m. I believe Avatar did more that 33% premium tickets, but I don’t have the figure handy.
Raiders of the Lost Ark, meanwhile, sold 87m tickets in 1981.
This isn’t even the same ballpark.
Oh, in case you have any doubt this is about the quality of the films: The Phantom Menace sold ~90m tickets domestic, keeping right up with ROTJ.
Attack of the Clones only sold 57m.
Revenge of the Sith (the “good” prequel) did 63m.
We need to do better.
Inflation and 3D premiums are legitimate issues when comparing the box office of contemporary films to films of the past.
But conversely, citing today’s week economy and higher ticket prices to explain why movies in earlier eras sold more tickets is just the tip of the iceberg.
In 1977 (for example) if you wanted to see a theatrical film, your choices were the moves and whatever movie NBC, CBS or ABC aired on Sunday night.
You watched it (by average) on a 19-inch b&w TV, and saw a heavily edited, pan and scanned version filled with commercial breaks. And it’d be YEARS after a film’s theatrical run.
And you didn’t have to be pried away from your laptop, tablet or phone.
Will 3 or 4 times as many people bought tickets to see Star Wars over it’s 4 or 5 releases in 35 years than the Avengers when it’s said and done?
Yes.
That in 2012 people still choose to pay a premium for an experience that can at leas technically be duplicated at home for a much cheaper price just a few months is a minor miracle.
Hollywood, until today, has traditionally been a “recession proof” industry. It’s been said that the Great Depression happened everywhere except Hollywood. When the economy and world events are bad people (used to) look to the entertainment industry for escape.
Hollywood didn’t fall off in the 70s, your comparison isn’t apt. There were plenty of alternative options, and home video, in the 90s and Hollywood had much more success then. They spent waaaaaay less on the budgets, waaaaaaaaaaay less on marketing, and had a much higher profit ratio.
The top-ten hollywood blockbusters grossed the same total dollar figures in the early 90s that they do today. (Without inflation adjustment, actual dollar figures!) Hollywood’s budgets and marketing costs have more than tripled during the same period.
3x the investment for the same return = failure.
Apologies, profit, not gross.
i.e. Top-ten grossing films of 1990-1994 collectively earned ~$2.2b profit / annum after all windows. 2006 – 2010 (including avatar) they earned ~$2.4b / annum.
A 10% increase is okay, if your investment levels are about the same. Unfortunately, from 1990-1995 the collective annual budget was ~$375m vs. $1.48b from 2006-2010, a nearly 400% increase.
10% growth in profit over 20 years vs. 400% growth in expenditures is abysmal.
When you start factoring in inflation it gets much worse; profits shrink while expenditures still explode. $375m in 1990 is $617.5m in 2010. $2.2b in 1990 is $3.6b.
Plainly: average annual profits from the top ten grossing films have fallen $1.2b in actual value since the mid ’90s.
Not the ’70s, not the ’80s: 1995.
In 2010, the year Avatar posted most of its earnings, Hollywood boasted a $3.77b “record profit”, but when you adjust for inflation this barely peaks above average from 20 years ago.
Going back to our growth rates, that means avg. budget for the top-ten grossing films has increased ~240% while profits have fallen 33%.
This is all despite doubling the US population and increasing ticket prices nearly 15% faster than the rate of inflation during the same period. (avg. ticket in 1990 was $4.22, in 2010 it was $7.96, adjusted for inflation a 1990 ticket would cost $6.95)
Plus, you have to factor in that the top-ten films tend to have larger premium/regular ticket ratios (Avengers was ~40/60).
This is also assuming that post-theatrical windows have realized the same b.o. multiple throughout that period, which they haven’t (dramatically so). TV and home video returns have fallen off a cliff and streaming hasn’t made up for it.
Despite ALL the delivery options and the fact that there are far more people in the US, Hollywood mega-blockbusters are delivering diminishing returns.
But all this is only domestic, when you bring in the whole world things get a little rosier for Hollywood. Soon, however, the globe will be saturated with theatres and there won’t be any more expansion to mask the shrinking percentage of the population actually attending the movies.
Let me see if I got this right, people who like the movie are trying to convince people who don’t like it at that it’s good & people who hate the movie want everyone to know how bad it really is.
Welcome to the internet.
I saw Avengers and was bored stiff. It really is Transformers 3 with super-heroes. Obviously it was catnip for overfed manchildren but I was surprised at how joyless it was–a totally commercial, careless vehicle for merchandizing, franchise sequels, and actors looking to cash-out and let the CGI do the acting.
But on the plus side, Prometheus and DKR look to provide the substance and true exhilaration that Avengers completely lacks.
That’s so good news! been looking forward to its next sequel..
A couple of big differences come to my mind: One has an extremely creative director who effectively blended at least six different stories and characters with excellent results, five Oscar-nominated leads who prove why every time they open their mouths (and an exceptional villain in Tom Hiddleston, who surely will be on Oscar’s radar soon!) due to a brilliant screenplay by said director Joss Whedon… I’m afraid the Transformers movies had none of these things…
“You humans are so petty… and tiny.” – Thor
I still don’t understand why they don’t count the number of tickets sold instead of how much it makes dollars. It will settle the inflation problem and we’ll get a real ranking.
Because the numbers are so bad.
Regardless of Avengers creative merit, I have trouble calling it #3 ALL TIME. It should be based on # of tickets sold so as to create a base line that transcends eras of filmmaking. Due to inflation, contemporary movies will always and forever be higher on the money list. If a newer movie ever challenges Gone With the Wind (or any other film in the top 20 all time for tickets sold), then that film would be truly deserving being called one of the top movies of all time.
# of tickets sold is also a bit misleading. You should really factor in how many potential ticket buyers there were.
ie 100m tickets with 100m population = amazing.
100m tickets with 350m population = less impressive.