Avatar's real placement ...

[RGA]

All time box office take

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

I would also like to see this down to actual tickets sold not dollars because prices increased far higher than the rate of inflation - which would put Avatar even further down the list. Also, I would like to see tickets sold relative to population. A large segment of the population for examples was not allowed into movie theaters during the time of Gone with the Wind. But there also wasn't the competition involved. Furthermore - many countries globally have opened up and allow western films to open whereas in the 1980's this was not the case.

So I think there are many many factors involved with selecting the most popular or seen movies. E.T. was in many theaters for over a year. Star Wars was in theaters for 44 weeks which likely means many people thought so highly of them they went back several times.

I saw Schindler's List in theaters 9 times for example and Pulp Fiction probably 3 or 4.

[kexodusc]

The title also indicates that those are just domestic figures, not world-wide, which would certainly affect the order since later releases drew more internationally.

I agree, ticket prices have outpaced inflation over certain periods and some mechanism of discounting to price increase, and discount to population growth should be considered when comparing films.

Still, it doesn't quite make for as catchy a headline if you print "Avatar Overtakes Thunderball, Could Grease and Lion King Be Next?"

[E-Stat]

Still, it doesn't quite make for as catchy a headline if you print "Avatar Overtakes Thunderball, Could Grease and Lion King Be Next?"

Funny you should mention Thunderball as it is my favorite Bond flick. I just got a Blu Ray copy last week! I saw it first run as a kid and still enjoy watching it.

rw

[Hyfi]

I heard on the news on monday that is was just about to take over Titanic and the numbers were way higher than noted in that link.

The prices have gotten outrageous and one of the reasons I don't go to the theaters. Avatar at the local IMAX is $10 at 10am, another at 2pm, higher at 5pm and then like $16 bucks at 10pm all for the same movie.

I know it would be great but i'm a little more frugal with my spending and will watch this and just about any other movie on my own HT for $1.06 Redbox Rental.

[Kam]

i'm not a statistician, but this is not comparing apples to apples, correct? and they shouldn't be adjusting for inflation backwards right? not how much would Avatar make with 1939 ticket prices, but how much would Gone with the Wind make with 2010 ticket prices? Or they can't because they never collected that data in terms of seats, which brings me to my next point.

Wouldn't the real comparison of how well a movie is compared to movies of the past is Total # of tickets sold? How many people did X movie get in the seats compared to Y movie?

Regardless, the whole "Gone with the wind" is still #1 today argument doesn't hold a whole lotta water with me in the same way anyone arguing that the Oklahoma teams of the 40-50s domination is comparable to a team dominating today. WAAAAY too many other variables going into both discussions to make those comparisons.

What was the competition for Gone With The Wind? Not to take anything away from it, but they didn't have to deal with a media saturation of tv, home theaters, xbox, wii, internet, short attentions spans, add, adhd, hdaddhdddadd and everything else that films now are competing with.

Just sayin'... not that i want to give false praise to anything either, but i'd rather just celebrate a fantastic phenomenon of a movie rather than drag it down. In any case, two movies that have made 1.8 billion dollars are pretty fantastic.

EDIT: Ok so i just noticed they are collecting Gone with Wind at 2010 ticket prices. does it matter that those tickets have been collected over multiple re-releases, in terms of adjustment for inflation? do you just do a blanket adjustment?
e.g. 1939 - only 100mill
all rereleases 60s, 70s, 90s - the other 100mill.
do you just lump both together to adjust for inflation and you get the same number? or no?
(Im obviously very math handicapped, unless the numbers are 4 8 15 16 23 42)

EDIT#2: Doh! OK i stand corrected on that point, they do take into account the multiple releases and change the calculations based on that.http://boxofficemojo.com/about/adjuster.htm

(BUT... i still don't think Gone with the Wind would make 1.5bill if it was released for the First time in 2010.)

[GMichael]

I heard on the news on monday that is was just about to take over Titanic and the numbers were way higher than noted in that link.

The prices have gotten outrageous and one of the reasons I don't go to the theaters. Avatar at the local IMAX is $10 at 10am, another at 2pm, higher at 5pm and then like $16 bucks at 10pm all for the same movie.

I know it would be great but i'm a little more frugal with my spending and will watch this and just about any other movie on my own HT for $1.06 Redbox Rental.

If you go strickly by dollars made, it is number 2 about to take over Titanic. That list is basicly pro-rated by taking inflation into account.

[GMichael]

i'm not a statistician, but this is not comparing apples to apples, correct? and they shouldn't be adjusting for inflation backwards right? not how much would Avatar make with 1939 ticket prices, but how much would Gone with the Wind make with 2010 ticket prices? Or they can't because they never collected that data in terms of seats, which brings me to my next point.

Wouldn't the real comparison of how well a movie is compared to movies of the past is Total # of tickets sold? How many people did X movie get in the seats compared to Y movie?

Regardless, the whole "Gone with the wind" is still #1 today argument doesn't hold a whole lotta water with me in the same way anyone arguing that the Oklahoma teams of the 40-50s domination is comparable to a team dominating today. WAAAAY too many other variables going into both discussions to make those comparisons.

What was the competition for Gone With The Wind? Not to take anything away from it, but they didn't have to deal with a media saturation of tv, home theaters, xbox, wii, internet, short attentions spans, add, adhd, hdaddhdddadd and everything else that films now are competing with.

Just sayin'... not that i want to give false praise to anything either, but i'd rather just celebrate a fantastic phenomenon of a movie rather than drag it down. In any case, two movies that have made 1.8 billion dollars are pretty fantastic.

EDIT: Ok so i just noticed they are collecting Gone with Wind at 2010 ticket prices. does it matter that those tickets have been collected over multiple re-releases, in terms of adjustment for inflation? do you just do a blanket adjustment?
e.g. 1939 - only 100mill
all rereleases 60s, 70s, 90s - the other 100mill.
do you just lump both together to adjust for inflation and you get the same number? or no?
(Im obviously very math handicapped, unless the numbers are 4 8 15 16 23 42)

EDIT#2: Doh! OK i stand corrected on that point, they do take into account the multiple releases and change the calculations based on that.http://boxofficemojo.com/about/adjuster.htm

(BUT... i still don't think Gone with the Wind would make 1.5bill if it was released for the First time in 2010.)

Hey Kam, Great to see you.

Gone with the Wind had other things to contend with in it's day. There weren't as many people with extra cash in their pockets back then. They didn't have a multi-million dollar budget. They didn't have all the technical advances available for special effects. If it were made today it may have turned out a little different. Plus it didn't have billions of past movies to copy or be influenced by.
In the end, it's a lot like the conversations about who would have won a fight between Ali & Joe Louis.

[Kam]

Hey Kam, Great to see you.

Gone with the Wind had other things to contend with in it's day. There weren't as many people with extra cash in their pockets back then. They didn't have a multi-million dollar budget. They didn't have all the technical advances available for special effects. If it were made today it may have turned out a little different. Plus it didn't have billions of past movies to copy or be influenced by.
In the end, it's a lot like the conversations about who would have won a fight between Ali & Joe Louis.

Hey GM! Good to be back, have missed ya! I don't mean to take anything away from GWTW's boxoffice accomplishment, but you're right, it is the same kinds of ali v. lewis or even ali v. tyson or tyson v lewis style arguments. they're kinda fun, but bottom line is it's a 'never will really know' thing. Gone with the wind was the boxoffice champ of it's time. not of THIS time. There's no real way to compare how GWTW would do up against Avatar or even Titanic or even Jurassic Park.

Hell if Avatar was released back in 1939, i'm pretty sure Cameron would probably have been burned at the stake for being a Warlock.

[RGA]

If you are correct and Gone with the Wind has been re-leased in several decades following I think that should be an indicator of the quality of the film in terms of popularity. Will Avatar be re-released in 2020? Something tells me no. Though I have not seen it myself yet. But Titanic was not re-released - Star Wars series was, E.T. was.

And I'm not a huge fan of Gone with the Wind. I think Avatar is a film that needs to be seen on the big screen - same with GwtW and Star Wars.

E.T. on the other hand is the kind of movie that doesn't which gives it a bit of weight.

[nightflier]

In the end, it's a lot like the conversations about who would have won a fight between Ali & Joe Louis.

Mike Tyson.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

If you are correct and Gone with the Wind has been re-leased in several decades following I think that should be an indicator of the quality of the film in terms of popularity. Will Avatar be re-released in 2020? Something tells me no. Though I have not seen it myself yet. But Titanic was not re-released - Star Wars series was, E.T. was.

I think Avatar could be re-released in 2020 if it does not saturate itself in 2010 up to that point. Avatar is a ground breaking movie both visually and sound wise, and its success pretty much mimics what happened back when Gone with the Wind hit the screen. I know people that have seen this movie 5 times already - I have seen it twice.

Titanic was re-released with 70mm prints in certain theaters. I saw it at the Grand Lake theater here in Oakland, the Paramount Theater here in Oakland, and at the Cinerama Dome in Hollywood all in 70mm Six track sound. It looked way better in 70mm than it did in 35mm as previously released.

And I'm not a huge fan of Gone with the Wind. I think Avatar is a film that needs to be seen on the big screen - same with GwtW and Star Wars.

E.T. on the other hand is the kind of movie that doesn't which gives it a bit of weight.

I think Gone with the Wind is a big screen must see, and I agree both Star Wars and Avatar initial view SHOULD(have) be on the big screen. However, I am looking forward to seeing Avatar in my own hometheater in 3D.