_Avatar_, directed by James Cameron

I know boxofficemojo tracks domestic rankings adjusted for inflation (Avatar is currently #26, Titanic #6, Gone with the Wind #1), but I don't see anything based on number of tickets.

boxofficemojo has an estimated tickets page, altho it's the same as their adjusted gross page and doesn't take avatar's high ticket price into account.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm?adjust_yr=1&p=.htm

if you added $3 to the average price of avatar's tickets, it would have around (7.35/10.35 * 76.8M =) 54.5 million tickets sold, placing it around #78.

Yeah, that sounds more like it. I know no one is claiming this, but I really have a hard time believing that Avatar is totally kicking the box office world's ass in terms of breaking ticket sale records.

Avatar 2 is being produced with a new filmmaking technology that will allow theater owners to project it against the nighttime sky! Of course, you're going to have to shell out an extra $4,000 for the disposable jetpack that will allow you to see it with the clarity with which it was meant to be seen...

Oh, look at that! We've broken another box office record!

i mean its making mad dollars but compare 3-d price today to reg tick price in 97

(the boxofficemojo page also ignores roadshow prices, doesn't adjust rereleased movies correctly, and probably a bunch of other things. i highly doubt fantasia was that popular.)

I think I remember reading that Fantasia was hugely popular. Disney and feature-length animation were very new at that point, and a feature-length animated Disney film that wasn't aimed solely at kids in 1940(?) would've surely been a big draw.

Hugely popular in its first run, I mean.

in Britannia the 3D glasses are a one time cost. Avatar costs as much as any other non-3D movie. Though yeah in general the gross is inflated because of that. not that Fox gives a flying shitting fuck.

Wikipedia:
Fantasia was originally released by Walt Disney Productions itself rather than RKO Radio Pictures, which normally distributed the Disney films, and exhibited as a two-hour and twenty minute roadshow film (counting the intermission) with reserved-seat engagements. The film opened to mixed critical reaction and failed to generate a large commercial audience, which left Disney in financial straits.

apparently the film didn't really pay off until 1969

yeah, i think it was a serious gamble that never really paid off until it hit rerelease xp

Well, that shut me up. Ha ha.

Fantasia + pot = profit

If only stoned kids had been around in the '40s to save it.

haha xp

http://media.photobucket.com/image/%25252760s%20fantasia%20poster/angral/fant.jpg

Avatar should have had a poster like this.

Fox said 72 percent of worldwide sales for “Avatar” came from 3-D screens. If Mr. Dergarabedian’s estimates are correct, the movie has accounted for roughly 56 million admissions in domestic theaters to date.

That is about the same number of tickets that “Titanic” had sold at this point in its theatrical run, he said.

But “Titanic” played and played, remaining in theaters until September 1998 and racking up about 128 million admissions. “Avatar” still needs a very long tail to surpass the number of viewers who saw “Titanic.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/movies/awardsseason/27record.html

Avatar Will Take Ya Far!

On Tuesday Tom Rothman, a chairman of the Fox film operation, said the global success of “Avatar” carried a lesson beyond economics. “It tells you all of us on the planet have more things in common than we have dividing us,” Mr. Rothman said.

man, it's like the end of Return Of The Jedi over there, aint it

I shudder trying to imagine what the Fox executive equivalent of "Yub Nub" is

Indigo & Ivory

http://queserasara.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/scrooge-mcduck.jpg

It tells you all of us on the planet have more things in common than we have dividing us

Fantasia + pot = profit

Still love the release poster for the 1969 run

http://www.judasposters.com/images/posters/Fantasia.jpg

i never read the NYer piece but what i wanna know is: did Cameron/WETA license/patent/whatever any of the technology used in this thing? because it seems to me that the investment strategy for this thing probably had more to do with how it might change ~movie-making~ not just how well it might do at the box office.

because as a technological proof of concept it's pretty fucking impressive, and i can't help but believe that SOMEone stands to make a ton of money from all the tech they developed to make it happen

I remember reading that the 3D cameras were invented by Cameron

i'm sure that what's patentable has been patented, but as with ILM just developing the expertise is a significant asset. the team will fan out over the years but for now, basically, if you want to do something like this, you'll need to talk to someone who worked on avatar, and if you want to get your picture made this decade it's going to make more sense to pay them to do the work in a feasible timeframe than to have your team learn on the job.

Or you could just book Weta and relax.

wait isn't that what i just said?

This is two years old now, but a good read iirc (I just pulled it out of my bookmarks and haven't reread it, so apologies if is sucks): http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117983864.html?categoryid=2868&cs=1

You know what I think.

-- Jim out

A 3-D film immerses you in the scene, with a greatly enhanced sense of physical presence and participation.

ORLY

I believe that a functional-MRI study of brain activity would show that more neurons are actively engaged in processing a 3-D movie than the same film seen in 2-D.

well hey why don't you actually do a study 'cause tbh i don't give a shit what you believe.

wait isn't that what i just said?

Well yeah but I was just giving the short version. :-D

I believe that a functional-MRI study of brain activity would show that more neurons are actively engaged in processing a 3-D movie than the same film seen in 2-D.

This must be why JC made the plot/story/acting so dumb and unsubtle, because the 3D takes extra brainwork.

quiet I'm busy processing 3d blue tits

Well yeah but I was just giving the short version.

I do go on... just wanted to make sure I hadn't accidentally said the opposite or something ;-)

http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/famecrawler/2007/11/16-22/angelina-beowulf-yowza.jpg

claimin if you adjust for inflation and include foreign box office avatar is #4 all tyme http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/02/is_avatar_the_all_time_box_off.html

admittedly crude methodology but im glad someone is addressing this important question

1. Gone With the Wind, $2.984 billion
2. Titanic, $2.896 billion
3. Star Wars, $2.199 billion
4. Avatar, $2.039 billion
5. E.T. The Extra Terrestrial, $1.897 billion
6. Jaws, $1.703 billion
7. The Sound of Music, $1.646 billion
8. Jurassic Park, $1.622 billion
9. The Ten Commandments, $1.544 billion
10: Doctor Zhivago, $1.463 billion

The guy who did the epic 70-minute Phantom Menace review did a shorter one for Avatar:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJarz7BYnHA

I liked Avatar, but I gotta admit this guy is pretty much spot on. The Carbage Pail Kids bit in part 2 made me lose my shit!

I think the only IMAX films i've seen were at the Smithsonian Air/Space museum. Is Avatar IMAX in a diff aspect ratio? I'm thinking I want to go to widescreen 3D.

generally multiplex imax screens are smaller than those big museum standalone screens. and yeah they're widescreen (not sure how the actual ratios compare).

Interesting question. From what I've seen Avatar in IMAX is 1.78:1, but the regular 3D screenings are 2.35:1. It was definitely shot in 1.78 so I think the frame is matted for regular 3D.

With that said, my local IMAX is much squarer looking than 1.78, I cannot remember if they projected it "full frame" onto this. I'd say it's worth seeing at a "proper" IMAX screen if only for the sheer size.

probably will go to the Lincoln Square, tipz.

fwiw, my experience of IMAX is that they sound system is also much better than a regular screen, so with all the kaboomings in Avatar it's worth it. Shame there's no facility to mute out Horner's dreadful score though.

I also read in places like the Jeff Wells blog about real vs 'fake' IMAX and have no idea what he means.

my understanding is fake imax is just a really large screen, real imax is a giant screen + an IMAX resolution film projector or digital equivalent.

imax sound is amazing - went the harold sq one - the screen was sorta square and not thaat big

i saw dark knight on the BFI imax. the action scenes there were true imax which is pretty square but they were just big. but there were some cityscapes that were truly breathtaking because of the combination of big and crystal clear.

i guess avatar doesn't do that thing where all the live action dialoge is shot 35mm and widescreen and so it's really obvious when something exciting is going to happen because they fill in the bottom third of the squarish screen?