By Sean Kelly
Did you read it in the newspapers? Avatar has overtaken Titanic as the top grossing film of all time. James Cameron truly is the king of the world!
Not so fast.
As much as I agree that Avatar is a very good movie and all, the constant reporting of box office grosses (and the records they “break”) has always been a pet peeve of mine. Ask yourself how much you paid to see Avatar. My answer is $17.50. Now ask yourself how much you paid a dozen years ago to see Titanic. Chances are that you paid half the price of that ticket, or less, to see Titanic than you did to see Avatar.
The truth is, inflation has degraded box office records to little more than worthless bragging rights. Yes, the studio needed the money to pay for the movie (especially an expensive one like Avatar); however, with the prices films cost these days to see, studios can make a lot more money with fewer people actually seeing the film.
Let us compare two lists courtesy of Box Office Mojo. First, here is the current (as of February 7, 2010) list of the top ten all-time worldwide grosses:
1. Avatar (2009) – $2.111 billion
2. Titanic (1997) – $1.843 billion
3. The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (2003)– $1.119 billion
4. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest (2006) – $1.066 billion
5. The Dark Knight (2008) – $1.002 billion
6. Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone (2001) – $974.7 million
7. Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End (2007) – $961 million
8. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)– $938.2 million
9. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)– $934 million
10. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002) – $925.3 million
For starters, we will state the obvious: with the exception of Titanic, all of these films were released in the last decade. On top of that, six of them were released in the last five years. You also have to note that all but three of these films are either part of the Lord of the Rings, Pirates of the Caribbean, or Harry Potter series. This is not exactly the group of films that would come to mind when I think about the top grossing films of all time. In fact, I am sure there will be major changes to this list next year after the next batch of summer blockbusters comes out.
Now here is the list of the top ten all-time domestic grosses adjusted for inflation (remember that the previous list was worldwide grosses):
1. Gone with the Wind (1939) – $1.507 billion
2. Star Wars (1977) – $1.329 billion
3. The Sound of Music (1965) – $1.062 billion
4. E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial (1982) – $1.058 billion
5. The Ten Commandments (1956) – $977.2 million
6. Titanic (1997) – $977.4 million
7. Jaws (1975) – $955.4 million
8. Doctor Zhivago (1965) – $926 million
9. The Exorcist (1973) – $824.8 million
10. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937) – $813.1 million
I don’t know if it’s just me, but these are films that I’d rather list when talking about the top grossing films of all time. Nearly all the films on this list can be considered classics, while those in the previous list haven’t even been around long enough to be called that.
I suppose I can’t stop the way Hollywood thinks. In a world where most films seem to disappear after opening weekend and box office records are broken with each new blockbuster, as long as studios make the money, they don’t really care what film’s on top now.
So, is your beef with these stats purely mathematical, or are you feeling that these older movies aren’t getting their due?
And you paid 17.50 to see Avatar? Is that an Imax price or something? I paid 13.50. And obviously only because it was 3D, otherwise it would have been ten bucks.
I wonder what the difference in prices relative to average personal income movies are between today and the 50’s.
Yes, $17.50 is the IMAX price. The price was $15.50 only a year ago, but I guess they decided it was too cheap for such a large screen.
As for my pet peeve, I would say it’s a bit of both. It seems to me that a new box office record is being broken with every blockbuster and to me they’ve become a joke. It’s just a nice coincidence that so many classics appear on the adjusted list.
I would almost wish that they ranked box office based on attendance, rather than revenue, since that would seem to be a more valid way of measuring the success of a film.
BTW did you know that the best year ever for film attendance was WAY back in 1946 when 25% of the population attended films (something I learned in the American Cinema class I took last fall)?
1946, eh? Is that per capita? It must be…I imagine there were far fewer movie screens and far fewer people to go watch them. Hmm, then again, maybe the competition for screen time wasn’t as great. Like, today we might have 40 movies competing for God knows how many screens…10 000? Versus back in the day there might have been only 4000 screens but 5 movies out at any given time. I’m ignorant about the numbers of movies way back then.
Then again, this is the digital age, where computer savvy nerds can get their hands on any movie they want at any time for free, in high definition, and watch it on a giant 1080p screen in the comfort of their own home. In 10 years what percentage of people will still be going to the theaters compared to today?
I don’t think the box office records are as much of a joke as you’re feeling they are. The big records don’t get broken THAT often. Titanic held on for 13 years — easily held on, for that matter. But I do think box office stats for movies are getting pushed on us a lot more than they used to. Instead of just hearing the box office profit records, we’re hearing stats like ‘fastest movie to hit 100 million in 5 days’ and ‘biggest opening weekend in November’ and stuff like that. I don’t really mind it, but I can see how it would get overwhelming and a lot of it isn’t strictly necessary.
In my opinion, film downloads are more a danger to the home video market. I’m sure people are smart enough to know that NOTHING beats seeing a film on the big screen (at least I am).
Sean,I think you are upset with the first list because it doesn’t represent what you think SHOULD be on the list. You are confusing “good” films with “popular” films.
Also I think comparing stats today to 70 years ago is a waste of time. It’s like apples and oranges. For the same reason that ot’s hard to compare the stats of hockey players today to 70 years ago. So much has changed in the film industry in particular and the entertainment industry in general to make the comparisons irrelevant.
Like Caesar pointed out, today there are more screen, more movies out each week, shorter times in theatres, etc. Plus you would have to account for the fact that people today have more expendable income but also more outlets for their entertainment dollars (travel, movies, video games, internet, etc.)
If you are desperate to compare movie revenue you could really only compare to other movies released at the same time.
My beef has NOTHING to do about money. It has EVERYTHING to do with studios stroking their egos by reporting huge box office numbers, while ignoring the fact that these numbers are more due to an increase in ticket price and less to do with the actual attendance of the film.
If you erase the dollar values from the list adjusted for inflation, you effectively have a list ranked by attendance (since the adjusted list assumes everyone paid the same price). As such more people went to see Gone with the Wind, Star Wars, or The Sound of Music than went to see Avatar (which ranks somewhere in the 20s).
The point I’m trying to make (and I wish I made it more clear in the article) is that as long as the studios are making money, they don’t really care about things such as attendance, which is sad.
My problem with those statistics is they only include the “domestic” [sic] numbers (given that we’re in Canada, I don’t really like the use of that term to describe the box office results from the USA, but I’ll use it to be consistent). That wouldn’t be a problem if the ratio of domestic to international returns were the same. They are not.
Of the top 10 inflation adjusted movies only 6 give domestic returns vs. international. Of those, the domestic box office is 50.8% of the total gross. Avatar’s percentage is 28%. As Avatar has a far smaller percentage of its box office in the USA, using domestic box office numbers to determine attendence will paint a false picture. If you pro rate Avatar’s return to match the average percentage for the other top 10 then you get the number of $1.296 billion: giving it #3 on the inflation adjusted list.