jksmith269
Proud Navy Veteran 1990-1995
- Messages
- 3,939
- Reaction score
- 57
From http://screeningroom.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/26/is-avatar-really-the-biggest-movie-ever/?hpt=T2
James Cameron is king of the world. Again. On Monday, "Avatar" saw its worldwide box-office hit $1.85 billion, eclipsing the record set by Cameron's “Titanic” (1997), and become the biggest grossing movie. Ever. Expect that to grow still further during the coming weeks as it continues to ride publicity from the awards season, where it has become a major player.
The billion-dollar club didn’t exist till 12 years ago, when Cameron’s period epic berthed at screens worldwide and became the first movie to score eight digits. Since then three other releases have gained entry to the clubhouse.
How did "Avatar" make so much, so quickly?
Like "Titanic," "Avatar" opened late in the year, catching holiday crowds before sitting unchallenged in cinemas through the slack weeks of January.
Had it rolled out anytime from mid-May till late August, its freedom to fend off competing blockbusters would have been curtailed. Sure, like fellow club members, it may well have hit a billion - but no way as fast. Likewise, "Avatar" has shown the value of 3D screens, with much of its cash heap coming from those premium-price seats.
For "Avatar" is event film-making spectacle, the kind that only comes along every few years, that harks back to cinema’s origins in 19th-century fairgrounds. Cameron is a modern-day PT Barnum. The moviemaker who put the world’s biggest maritime disaster on screen is now back with 12-foot tall blue-skinned aliens. In 3D. A movie of that scale is either going to be queue-forming spectacle or car-crash folly - but either way it’s must-see.
In recent years this directorial showmanship has only been equaled by the likes of Mel Gibson’s "The Passion of The Christ," another holder of his own distinctive and particular vision, which many predicted for failure before its filmmaker parlayed it into big bucks.
For whatever its shortcomings - and there are several - "Avatar" possesses a streak of originality that can only be admired.
Sure, it’s a mashed-up rag bag of everything from James Lovelock’s one-world Gaia theory to "Aliens" but, unlike fellow billion scorers, it’s not based on an existing franchise or historical event.
Glance at the other movies lounging in the billion-dollar clubhouse. Aside from "Titanic" (based on a historical event) they are "The Lord Of The Rings: The Return Of The King" ($1.1 billion, released in 2003), the third film in a book adaptation series; "The Dark Knight" ($1 billion, released in 2008); a comic-book sequel; and "Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest" ($1.07 billion, released in 2006) -– takes breath -– the sequel to a Disney theme-park ride adaptation.
As such "Avatar" is the climax of the geek decade, when fanboy franchises from "Harry Potter" to "Lord Of The Rings," "Spider-Man" to "X-Men" ruled screens like posters on a 10-year old’s bedroom wall.
But is it really “the biggest movie ever?”
Admissions - or cinemagoers on seats - is arguably a better measure of movie appeal than the kerching of the cash till.
Numbers Web site boxofficemojo.com has produced an inflation-adjusted list for the top movies of all time. ( http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm )Top of the tree? That period romance evergreen "Gone With The Wind," with $1.49 billion at 2010 ticket prices.
"Avatar" trails way behind at 26th, at time of writing, wedged between "Grease" (1978) and "Thunderball" (1965).
But wait. This chart is only for the United States. One feature of the past two decades is how Hollywood has to rely increasingly on international for the bulk of its box office. Around 70 percent of "Avatar’s" box office has been pulled from outside the United States. Expect it to be way further up any all-time worldwide list.
"Gone," released in 1939, played in an era with fewer entertainment distractions: "Avatar" has to compete with TV, computer gaming and music downloads. Movies also tended to enjoy much longer release windows during the 1930s and 1940s, often hanging around cinemas for months at a time.
So which is biggest?
"Avatar?"
"Gone With The Wind?"
Face it. Does such academic argument really matter for anyone beyond industry bean counters and movie journalists?
Or, as Rhett Butler once put it: "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."
James Cameron is king of the world. Again. On Monday, "Avatar" saw its worldwide box-office hit $1.85 billion, eclipsing the record set by Cameron's “Titanic” (1997), and become the biggest grossing movie. Ever. Expect that to grow still further during the coming weeks as it continues to ride publicity from the awards season, where it has become a major player.
The billion-dollar club didn’t exist till 12 years ago, when Cameron’s period epic berthed at screens worldwide and became the first movie to score eight digits. Since then three other releases have gained entry to the clubhouse.
How did "Avatar" make so much, so quickly?
Like "Titanic," "Avatar" opened late in the year, catching holiday crowds before sitting unchallenged in cinemas through the slack weeks of January.
Had it rolled out anytime from mid-May till late August, its freedom to fend off competing blockbusters would have been curtailed. Sure, like fellow club members, it may well have hit a billion - but no way as fast. Likewise, "Avatar" has shown the value of 3D screens, with much of its cash heap coming from those premium-price seats.
For "Avatar" is event film-making spectacle, the kind that only comes along every few years, that harks back to cinema’s origins in 19th-century fairgrounds. Cameron is a modern-day PT Barnum. The moviemaker who put the world’s biggest maritime disaster on screen is now back with 12-foot tall blue-skinned aliens. In 3D. A movie of that scale is either going to be queue-forming spectacle or car-crash folly - but either way it’s must-see.
In recent years this directorial showmanship has only been equaled by the likes of Mel Gibson’s "The Passion of The Christ," another holder of his own distinctive and particular vision, which many predicted for failure before its filmmaker parlayed it into big bucks.
For whatever its shortcomings - and there are several - "Avatar" possesses a streak of originality that can only be admired.
Sure, it’s a mashed-up rag bag of everything from James Lovelock’s one-world Gaia theory to "Aliens" but, unlike fellow billion scorers, it’s not based on an existing franchise or historical event.
Glance at the other movies lounging in the billion-dollar clubhouse. Aside from "Titanic" (based on a historical event) they are "The Lord Of The Rings: The Return Of The King" ($1.1 billion, released in 2003), the third film in a book adaptation series; "The Dark Knight" ($1 billion, released in 2008); a comic-book sequel; and "Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest" ($1.07 billion, released in 2006) -– takes breath -– the sequel to a Disney theme-park ride adaptation.
As such "Avatar" is the climax of the geek decade, when fanboy franchises from "Harry Potter" to "Lord Of The Rings," "Spider-Man" to "X-Men" ruled screens like posters on a 10-year old’s bedroom wall.
But is it really “the biggest movie ever?”
Admissions - or cinemagoers on seats - is arguably a better measure of movie appeal than the kerching of the cash till.
Numbers Web site boxofficemojo.com has produced an inflation-adjusted list for the top movies of all time. ( http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm )Top of the tree? That period romance evergreen "Gone With The Wind," with $1.49 billion at 2010 ticket prices.
"Avatar" trails way behind at 26th, at time of writing, wedged between "Grease" (1978) and "Thunderball" (1965).
But wait. This chart is only for the United States. One feature of the past two decades is how Hollywood has to rely increasingly on international for the bulk of its box office. Around 70 percent of "Avatar’s" box office has been pulled from outside the United States. Expect it to be way further up any all-time worldwide list.
"Gone," released in 1939, played in an era with fewer entertainment distractions: "Avatar" has to compete with TV, computer gaming and music downloads. Movies also tended to enjoy much longer release windows during the 1930s and 1940s, often hanging around cinemas for months at a time.
So which is biggest?
"Avatar?"
"Gone With The Wind?"
Face it. Does such academic argument really matter for anyone beyond industry bean counters and movie journalists?
Or, as Rhett Butler once put it: "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."