Good point. Are there any figures available for how many tickets GwtW sold in its first N days? It’s still not a perfect comparison, but it’d at least give an idea.
I can’t find that information though I’m sure someone has it. No one is saying that Avatar is or will be more popular than GWTW (or even, a better movie), just that the re-releases count in its total. According to Wikipedia:
Four years in London! I kept that tidbit in just because it was so cool. I don’t have cites, but I believe that back then WAY more movies were released every year (edit to add, in America maybe, because I don’t know that the film industry in Britain cranked out so many movies, especially in the middle of the Blitz. I’ll have to research that). In any case, there were no such things as multiplexes, so that’s still astonishing to me.
If it were 1941 and the internet had existed, there would certainly be a ton of people who just couldn’t begin to understand why GWTW is so popular!
Just imagine if it had been in 3D! The Luftwaffe would’ve landed just to have a look.
Avatar was also released worldwide (well, in the bigger movie-going countries) within a week of each other, which is a rarity that didn’t happen at all only a few years ago, so that factors in to it reaching these numbers in such a short time. 3D is also available in most of those countries, which is also a fascination factor and a key drawcard. If you’re going to try out 3D for the first time, most people can see that this is the movie to test it out.
You know what you sound like? You sound like one of those teabagging right-wingers who call President Obama “The Chosen One” or “Blessed One” to make light of his popularity. No one’s called it “an amazing masterpiece” and no one has gone into “complete pants-spooging orgasm[s]” raving about its originality and creativity. Maybe creativity, but if you dispute the creativity of Pandora, then we just have no basis for discussion. People like Avatar, obviously. People like it a lot. People love Pandora. People want to re-visit Pandora again and again. THAT’S mainly what we’re all raving about. But you, like the moronic right-wingers, are elevating that even more to something stratospherically ridiculous to have the pleasure of knocking us down to size. How very teabagger of you.
But wasn’t Gone with the Wind, as well as several movies on the “Adjusted” list, such as Star Wars, re-released multiple times?
ETA: Seems this has already been addressed somewhat. Ignore me.
Re-released multiple times, yes, and also released in an era where movie theaters didn’t have much competition for entertainment dollars. There was no TV, no internets, no DVD’s, no Netflix, no Comcast. The only place you could go see a movie was in a theater, and the only alternative entertainment to seeing a movie was…I don’t know what. Sewing or farming, I guess. Squaredancing, maybe? Church socials? I don’t know what people did for fun. I guess nothing. It was a movie theater or nothing.
How do VHS and DVD sales factor in? Shouldn’t they be counted as part of a film’s revenue? After all, they also count as “people seeing the movie”.
I think that if you’re going to adjust box office according to inflation and ticket prices, you should also account for home viewing. Just because people are watching movies differently these days doesn’t mean movies are less successful.
Not to mention the fact that the so-called adjusted numbers are highly dubious both in terms of the raw numbers and the inflation adjustment that is used. The simple fact is before the 80’s we don’t have reliable box-office stats particularly when it comes to tracking multiple releases like GWTW. For example here is a long threadat BOM which suggests that the adjusted GWTW numbers are heavily exaggerated.
And then you have all the other issues mentioned, the non-US receipts, home video, TV rights and the fact that movies operate in a much more competitive media environment compared to the 30’s. On the other side of the equation, the US had a smaller, poorer population back then. Ultimately it’s very difficult to compare the success of films across eras. What we can say is that Avatar is the most successful film since Titanic and the two of them can be reasonably matched against any boxoffice hit in history.
It’s called a movie theatre because the main form of entertainment was in theatres. As in plays or vaudeville type shows. All the crap you watch on TV but live and in person.
There were also pool halls and arcades, not to mention home entertainment of radio and board and card games. Also, just like today, people could drink and fuck. The idea that there was no entertainment before movies is simply not true.
I haven’t even see Avatar, yet, but people who say it’s just effects, please explain why Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow was such a box office bomb. That movie had fantastic effects.
Retro isn’t a box office draw?
Bingo. I jizzed in my pants when Sky Captain came out, because I love all things 1930s.
The majority of people who like Star Wars probably don’t even have a very clear idea about its origins in the Republic serials - for them, it’s just Star Wars.
Everything about Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow was pure '30s goodness. (Well, except Gwyneth Paltrow, who didn’t seem to have a clue what they were supposed to be doing.) Not enough retro-geeks to support it.
Funny that Sky Captain should come up, since Selfridge (the CEO in Avatar) was Dex in Sky Captain.
Sky Captain was a lovingly crafted niche film. Avatar was designed specifically to appeal to the broadest spectrum of people possible. In that sense, they’re polar opposites, despite the good special effects in both.
I didn’t get Sky Captain. It looked cheesy and ridiculous to me, and the CGI was way too obvious. It LOOKED like actors in front of a green screen the entire time.
Yes you did, no it didn’t, no it wasn’t, and no it didn’t.
Hey, I *like *film criticism!
Well, the Oscar nominations are out, so this train keeps rolling with nine nominations including Director and Picture (both of which feature both Cameron and his ex-wife Kathryn Bigelow, amongst the others that Hurt and Avatar share are editing, cinematography, and original score). This is a neat story and should help both films, especially the relatively under-the-radar Hurt Locker. The full list for Avatar:
Best motion picture of the year
Achievement in directing
Achievement in art direction
Achievement in cinematography
Achievement in film editing
Achievement in sound editing
Achievement in sound mixing
and of course
Achievement in visual effects
And somehow Horner’s uninspiring Glory rehash gets a nod for
Achievement in music written for motion pictures (Original score)
“Lovingly” doesn’t necessarily mean “competently”. *Sky Captain *was made by a special effects technician with no experience in directing motion pictures, and it shows.
Well, it really depends what you’re trying to measure. Financial success? Popularity? By any measure, *Avatar *is insanely successful and insanely popular. But when you get into the Top X list of anything, people get stupidly nitpicky. Because that’s the point of Top X lists.
Oh my. It must be so terrible for you! How have you made it this far in life with the complete inability to understand or appreciate hyperbole?
Since the point went completely over your head, let me break it down for you: I felt like I was being accused of saying that *Avatar *was a terrible movie with no redeeming qualities, which was absolutely not my intent. I wanted to emphasize that my problem was with people who have an, in my opinion, inflated regard for certain aspects of the movie such as the plot and characters.
The world itself, an interesting concept. The story and characters? Trite, stereotypical, and predictable. I find it amusing that you can talk about “the creativity of Pandora” with a straight face. I mean, c’mon, seriously? Pandora? Not only is it an unoriginal name, it’s an unoriginal name that doesn’t make sense. (Hey, guys, we just found a new world! A habitable new world that’s full of awesome resources! I have an idea! Let’s give it a name that assumes it’s going to unleash all the evil in the fucking world onto us!)
You know what *you *sound like? Someone who can’t stand that something they enjoy might not be perfect in every conceivable way. It’s okay to like things that aren’t perfect. Even non-ironically.
Speak for yourself. I thought Sky Captain was an outstanding movie and I’m really sad it tanked.
A quick look suggests about 60 films a year were produced. David Lean was one of those who really got going then as a director, and Powell and Pressburger had a terrific run of films during the war.