Box Office: Jan 22-24th Titanic and Dark Knight both go down?.
01-23-10, 01:29 AM
#26
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Traverse City, MI
Posts: 3,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Box Office: Jan 22-24th Titanic and Dark Knight both go down?.
01-23-10, 02:44 AM
#27
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
01-23-10, 02:49 AM
#28
DVD Talk Limited Edition
01-23-10, 03:13 AM
#29
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Box Office: Jan 22-24th Titanic and Dark Knight both go down?.
I've always looked at the box office as a measure of popularity, not just purely $$$. But, I stopped really caring about it probably five yrs ago. Every couple of yrs we're going to have a 400, 500+ grossing movie...and the top ten will continue to be the recent hits of the last 10yrs. I still like to look at the stats, but it doesn't really mean as much to me.
01-23-10, 04:17 AM
#30
Re: Box Office: Jan 22-24th Titanic and Dark Knight both go down?.
I've always looked at the box office as a measure of popularity, not just purely $$$. But, I stopped really caring about it probably five yrs ago. Every couple of yrs we're going to have a 400, 500+ grossing movie...and the top ten will continue to be the recent hits of the last 10yrs. I still like to look at the stats, but it doesn't really mean as much to me.
Even though the cost of movies is going up, it's not going up as fast as people's attention span is going down. The effectiveness rate is all in the first 200 million; most studios can market their tentpoles within that range in the first 3 or 4 weekends without breaking a sweat, and then it's all about DVDs.
Last edited by tylergfoster; 01-23-10 at 04:20 AM.
01-23-10, 07:40 AM
#31
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Box Office: Jan 22-24th Titanic and Dark Knight both go down?.
How box office should really be accounted for is the total number of loaves of bread studio employees can buy to feed their kids. I say this because it's an everyday item will go through inflation and other variations in cost in parallel with ticket prices for movies, and it is a constant necessity for human survival. It's the only truly objective way to do it.
01-23-10, 08:54 AM
#32
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Box Office: Jan 22-24th Titanic and Dark Knight both go down?.
Early weekend estimates per deadline.com:
Come on, who didn't know "Extraordinary Measures" would bomb? And I'm thrilled "The Tooth Fairy" won't be a huge hit.
1. Avatar (Fox) Week 6 [3,141 Theaters]
Friday $9.1M (-12%) Est Wkd $35M, Est Cume $550M
2. Legion (Sony) NEW [2,476 Theaters]
Friday $6.8M, Est Wkd $18M
3. Book of Eli (Warner Bros) Week 2 [3,111 Theaters]
Friday $5.0M (-57), Est Wkd $15M, Est Cume $60M.
4. The Tooth Fairy (Fox) NEW [3,344 Theaters]
Friday $3.8M, Est Wkd $14M
5. Lovely Bones (Paramount) Week 7 [2,571 Theaters]
Friday $2.8M, Est Wkd $9M, Est Cume $31.8M
6. Extraordinary Measures (CBS Films) NEW [2,549 Theaters]
Friday $2.1M, Est Wkd $7M
7. Sherlock Holmes (Warner Bros) Week 5 [2,670 Theaters]
Friday $1.9M, Est Wkd $6.5M, Est Cume $190.7M
8. It's Complicated (Universal) Week 5 [2,301 Theaters]
Friday $1.7M, Est Wkd $6M, Est Cume $98.4M
9. Alvin & The Chipmunks: The Squeakquel (Fox) Week 5 [2,973 Theaters]
Friday $1.4M, Est Wkd $6.5M, Est Cume $204M
10. The Blind Side (Warner Bros) Week 10 [1,932 Theaters]
Friday $1.2M, Est Wkd $4M, Est Cume $233.5M
Come on, who didn't know "Extraordinary Measures" would bomb? And I'm thrilled "The Tooth Fairy" won't be a huge hit.
1. Avatar (Fox) Week 6 [3,141 Theaters]
Friday $9.1M (-12%) Est Wkd $35M, Est Cume $550M
2. Legion (Sony) NEW [2,476 Theaters]
Friday $6.8M, Est Wkd $18M
3. Book of Eli (Warner Bros) Week 2 [3,111 Theaters]
Friday $5.0M (-57), Est Wkd $15M, Est Cume $60M.
4. The Tooth Fairy (Fox) NEW [3,344 Theaters]
Friday $3.8M, Est Wkd $14M
5. Lovely Bones (Paramount) Week 7 [2,571 Theaters]
Friday $2.8M, Est Wkd $9M, Est Cume $31.8M
6. Extraordinary Measures (CBS Films) NEW [2,549 Theaters]
Friday $2.1M, Est Wkd $7M
7. Sherlock Holmes (Warner Bros) Week 5 [2,670 Theaters]
Friday $1.9M, Est Wkd $6.5M, Est Cume $190.7M
8. It's Complicated (Universal) Week 5 [2,301 Theaters]
Friday $1.7M, Est Wkd $6M, Est Cume $98.4M
9. Alvin & The Chipmunks: The Squeakquel (Fox) Week 5 [2,973 Theaters]
Friday $1.4M, Est Wkd $6.5M, Est Cume $204M
10. The Blind Side (Warner Bros) Week 10 [1,932 Theaters]
Friday $1.2M, Est Wkd $4M, Est Cume $233.5M
01-23-10, 10:20 AM
#33
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Behind the Orange Curtain
Posts: 20,085
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
7 Posts
Re: Box Office: Jan 22-24th Titanic and Dark Knight both go down?.
I really didn't see Legion doing that well, it looked like shit. I figured Eli would hang on to #2.
01-23-10, 11:27 AM
#34
Re: Box Office: Jan 22-24th Titanic and Dark Knight both go down?.
Well, at this rate, breaking Titanic's domestic record will be a given. Avatar will only need another 50mil after this weekend, which it should be able to do within another 2 weeks. I only started to think about very small possibility that it would break the record after it passed 300mil in no time at all, and that it appeared to have pretty decent legs.... but this is very impressive indeed. I think 640-650mil might be the final tally. 700? nah.... 
01-23-10, 12:39 PM
#35
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Traverse City, MI
Posts: 3,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Box Office: Jan 22-24th Titanic and Dark Knight both go down?.
Well, at this rate, breaking Titanic's domestic record will be a given. Avatar will only need another 50mil after this weekend, which it should be able to do within another 2 weeks. I only started to think about very small possibility that it would break the record after it passed 300mil in no time at all, and that it appeared to have pretty decent legs.... but this is very impressive indeed. I think 640-650mil might be the final tally. 700? nah....
I am guessing Avatar will end up at 630 Million, Which is amazing!
01-23-10, 01:22 PM
#36
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Behind the Orange Curtain
Posts: 20,085
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
7 Posts
Re: Box Office: Jan 22-24th Titanic and Dark Knight both go down?.
The forums over at BOM are hilarious. People over there keep predicting that, with GG and potential Oscar buzz, Avatar could hit $800m. I've never seen anyone get so heated about BO numbers as the members over there do.
I think it'll wind up with $647m.
I think it'll wind up with $647m.
01-23-10, 01:57 PM
#37
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
Re: Box Office: Jan 22-24th Titanic and Dark Knight both go down?.
Honestly, I don't think the GG wins will help it *that* much, but a BP win at the Oscars? Might give it a couple of extra weeks at the theaters..
01-23-10, 04:48 PM
#38
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Re: Box Office: Jan 22-24th Titanic and Dark Knight both go down?.
In the decade or so I've been a movie fan, it seems like it's gotten way easier to get into the 300s and the big movies can be expected to get into the 400s, but it's still not at all easy to get out of the 400s and into the 500s. Even in a time of raised ticket prices, Avatar and Dark Knight's holds are still considered surprising and impressive.
Even though the cost of movies is going up, it's not going up as fast as people's attention span is going down. The effectiveness rate is all in the first 200 million; most studios can market their tentpoles within that range in the first 3 or 4 weekends without breaking a sweat, and then it's all about DVDs.
Even though the cost of movies is going up, it's not going up as fast as people's attention span is going down. The effectiveness rate is all in the first 200 million; most studios can market their tentpoles within that range in the first 3 or 4 weekends without breaking a sweat, and then it's all about DVDs.
Revenge of the Fallen, Dead Man's Chest, Phantom Menace, Shrek 2 and The Dark Knight were all sequels of VERY popular movies, so they had a huge built in audience. Plus Phantom Menace had the extra benefit of being the first Star Wars movie in almost 20 years and The Dark Knight had the benefit of extra interest due to Heath Ledger's death.
E.T. was the highest grossing movie of all time for quite a while so it's no suprise that it broke the barrier. Same with Star Wars. Spiderman was a movie that people had been waiting years for and fans of the comic desperately wanted to see a live action version. Titanic was a worldwide sensation, obviously since it's CURRENTLY the highest grossing movie of all time. A lot of things went right for that movie including having a love story that made teenage girls see the movie a dozen times plus the fact that hardly any big movies came out around the time it was released which allowed it to be number one for 12 weeks in a row or whatever. Finally, there's Avatar. Again, a worldwide sensation. Deserved? I don't know. I enjoyed it a lot, but does it deserve to be the number one movie of all time? I don't know, but it sure looks like it's going to be. All I know is that it's been in development for God knows how long, had the biggest budget ever and has had VERY good reviews. All that adds up to a big blockbuster.
So anyway, my point is that just some random movie starring Miley Cyrus isn't pulling in $400 million. So far, the 10 movies that have broken that barrier have all had something extra going for them.
01-23-10, 05:38 PM
#39
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,046
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Box Office: Jan 22-24th Titanic and Dark Knight both go down?.
Roughly 75%-80% of Avatar's box office take is from the 3D viewings, and it's losing more and more 2D screens as the weeks go by and new films open each weekend, so the option to see it in 2D is dwindling, but even with the "lesser" 2D screenings, people are choosing to spend more for the 3D viewing experience because that's the way it was meant to be experienced (James Cameron created a 3D shooting camera just for this film).
So, you have a film that cost more to see in its intended theatrical exhibition, i.e. 3D, but people are not shying away from the higher cost because the good word of mouth has convinced people to plunk down their hard-earned money in a so-so economy to get the full immersive viewing experience with the RealD 3D and IMAX 3D screenings. It's a tougher sell than what Titanic had to deal with (mainly a very long running time over roughly 3.5 hours), but the average ticket price in 1998 was much less than it is today with the more expensive average 3D ticket price.
What James Cameron has done is create a film that required a higher admission price because of the perceived value of the theatrical exhibition of the film in its 3D format. No one else has come close to creating such a 3D experience to benefit from the higher admission price. There is skill in creating a film that produces good word of mouth from those who have seen it, with a higher price point that is still not seen as a deterrent for those who have a desire/demand to see the film in 3D, while the supply of the 3D screenings remains consistent to today's number of 3D-capable theaters, and not hindering its profit maximization (had the number of 3D theaters be far less than what exists today). In economic terms, Avatar 3D is a high quality product that can demand a higher price from those interesting in the 3D viewing experience.
Could you also see it in 2D, sure, but those opportunities aren't as high as you'd think they are since Avatar has taken hold of most of the 3D theaters/screens across the country, and the strategy is to maximize profits by keeping Avatar on the non-2D screens, and Avatar is good enough to continue to elicit business at the 3D screening options, even after dominating for 5 weeks in a row at the box office.
So, you have a film that cost more to see in its intended theatrical exhibition, i.e. 3D, but people are not shying away from the higher cost because the good word of mouth has convinced people to plunk down their hard-earned money in a so-so economy to get the full immersive viewing experience with the RealD 3D and IMAX 3D screenings. It's a tougher sell than what Titanic had to deal with (mainly a very long running time over roughly 3.5 hours), but the average ticket price in 1998 was much less than it is today with the more expensive average 3D ticket price.
What James Cameron has done is create a film that required a higher admission price because of the perceived value of the theatrical exhibition of the film in its 3D format. No one else has come close to creating such a 3D experience to benefit from the higher admission price. There is skill in creating a film that produces good word of mouth from those who have seen it, with a higher price point that is still not seen as a deterrent for those who have a desire/demand to see the film in 3D, while the supply of the 3D screenings remains consistent to today's number of 3D-capable theaters, and not hindering its profit maximization (had the number of 3D theaters be far less than what exists today). In economic terms, Avatar 3D is a high quality product that can demand a higher price from those interesting in the 3D viewing experience.
Could you also see it in 2D, sure, but those opportunities aren't as high as you'd think they are since Avatar has taken hold of most of the 3D theaters/screens across the country, and the strategy is to maximize profits by keeping Avatar on the non-2D screens, and Avatar is good enough to continue to elicit business at the 3D screening options, even after dominating for 5 weeks in a row at the box office.
I guess my point, which wasn't probably all that clear, is that Avatar's total box office was helped by 3D more than it was hurt by it... and not the other way around as someone else had suggested.
The additional revenue from higher 3D/IMAX ticket prices (especially if it is skewed as high as 75-80% of sales as you suggest) would seem to far outweigh the lost revenue from people who refused to pay extra for a 3D show AND couldn't find a 2D show.
In other words, if 2D and 3D ticket prices were all the same and there was virtually unlimited 2D availability would this movie really take in more revenue? or would it be lower? I would think the extra sales from people who were unwilling to pay a higher price (and at the same time unable to find a 2D show) is more than offset by the additional revenue from the higher 3D ticket prices.
I realize this may not be true for all 3D movies, and movie quality is obviously important (and I made no suggestion to the contrary), but it seems like Avatar's box office take is higher thanks to 3D. Again, I'm not trying to hate on the movie or JC, just trying to understand the comment that the Avatar #'s should somehow be considered more favorably when compared to past movies.
01-23-10, 05:41 PM
#40
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Box Office: Jan 22-24th Titanic and Dark Knight both go down?.
You make it sound like there are a hundred movies that have broken $400 million. To date, there have still only been 10 movies that have broken that barrier. Granted, 6 of those have been in the last decade and 4 of those have been since 2006, so obviously the current price of a ticket has a huge impact on how many movies have broken that barrier. The thing is that it's not like just any old random movie is pulling in $400 million.
Revenge of the Fallen, Dead Man's Chest, Phantom Menace, Shrek 2 and The Dark Knight were all sequels of VERY popular movies, so they had a huge built in audience. Plus Phantom Menace had the extra benefit of being the first Star Wars movie in almost 20 years and The Dark Knight had the benefit of extra interest due to Heath Ledger's death.
So anyway, my point is that just some random movie starring Miley Cyrus isn't pulling in $400 million. So far, the 10 movies that have broken that barrier have all had something extra going for them.
Revenge of the Fallen, Dead Man's Chest, Phantom Menace, Shrek 2 and The Dark Knight were all sequels of VERY popular movies, so they had a huge built in audience. Plus Phantom Menace had the extra benefit of being the first Star Wars movie in almost 20 years and The Dark Knight had the benefit of extra interest due to Heath Ledger's death.
So anyway, my point is that just some random movie starring Miley Cyrus isn't pulling in $400 million. So far, the 10 movies that have broken that barrier have all had something extra going for them.
01-23-10, 05:56 PM
#41
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Re: Box Office: Jan 22-24th Titanic and Dark Knight both go down?.
Because IMAX 3D tickets are more expensive (a 50% markup in my area), thus it's harder to convince millions of people to spend $12 versus $8 for a regular ticket. Based on the box office numbers, it appears Avatar is getting a lot of people to spend that extra money more than once. That's more impressive to me.
01-23-10, 06:16 PM
#42
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Re: Box Office: Jan 22-24th Titanic and Dark Knight both go down?.
besides the 3D there's no reason to watch this movie a second time right away...don't understand why it's doing so well
01-23-10, 06:40 PM
#44
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Box Office: Jan 22-24th Titanic and Dark Knight both go down?.
Well, whether you understand it or not, it has struck a chord with movie audiences all over the world. And that 3D is the reason to watch it right away and why so many people have. Even more than two times. It's not going to be playing in theaters forever. And since it's the best way to view it, why not? I know I've seen it twice. And plan on going back again.
01-23-10, 07:09 PM
#45
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Louisville
Posts: 7,595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Box Office: Jan 22-24th Titanic and Dark Knight both go down?.
I think what will impress me more with Avatar is how long it will remain at the movie theaters. I remember when I worked at a movie theater starting in June of 1998, and Titanic was still playing (and selling out!) on one of the screens. It didn't go to the dollar/second-rung theaters until mid-July, and then it hit six hundred million a month and a half later. Titanic's closing date was October 1st 1998, nearly ten months after it opened.
If Avatar gets close to seven hundred million, I could see this scenario occurring again. If it tracks the same numbers as Titanic, then eight hundred million may not be as unrealistic as expected.
It took Titanic 98 days to get over five hundred million, producing a daily average of $5,102,541. According to the North American Ticket Owners website (aka NATO), the average ticket price in 1998 was $4.69. This produces daily sales of 1,087,962 tickets. Avatar took 32 days to reach the +500 million mark, producing a daily average of $15,777,139. The most recent data for average ticket prices, according to NATO's website, is 2008's average of 7.18 a ticket. Assuming the average growth is around 25 cents a year, I'll estimate a current ticket average of $7.43 a ticket. Hence, if that estimate is nearly correct, the daily average attendance for Avatar to reach $500 million is 2,123,437 tickets purchased per day, nearly double the attendance average of Titanic in a similar period*. This estimate, however, does not include the premium price for IMAX/3D showings. The average may be slightly lower than my estimate, but I cannot find exact figures for IMAX/3D showings.
To be fair, Titanic opened in 2,674 screens, then eventually expanded to 3,265 screens before it was reduced. Avatar opened on 3,461 screens, and has decreased to 3,285 in the last five weekends (I don't have data for this weekend.)
Titanic's daily box office (by BoxOfficeMojo): http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?pag...id=titanic.htm
Avatar's current daily box office: http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?pag...&id=avatar.htm
*Similar period being the time it took for both movies to reach $500 million in box office receipts.
If Avatar gets close to seven hundred million, I could see this scenario occurring again. If it tracks the same numbers as Titanic, then eight hundred million may not be as unrealistic as expected.
It took Titanic 98 days to get over five hundred million, producing a daily average of $5,102,541. According to the North American Ticket Owners website (aka NATO), the average ticket price in 1998 was $4.69. This produces daily sales of 1,087,962 tickets. Avatar took 32 days to reach the +500 million mark, producing a daily average of $15,777,139. The most recent data for average ticket prices, according to NATO's website, is 2008's average of 7.18 a ticket. Assuming the average growth is around 25 cents a year, I'll estimate a current ticket average of $7.43 a ticket. Hence, if that estimate is nearly correct, the daily average attendance for Avatar to reach $500 million is 2,123,437 tickets purchased per day, nearly double the attendance average of Titanic in a similar period*. This estimate, however, does not include the premium price for IMAX/3D showings. The average may be slightly lower than my estimate, but I cannot find exact figures for IMAX/3D showings.
To be fair, Titanic opened in 2,674 screens, then eventually expanded to 3,265 screens before it was reduced. Avatar opened on 3,461 screens, and has decreased to 3,285 in the last five weekends (I don't have data for this weekend.)
Titanic's daily box office (by BoxOfficeMojo): http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?pag...id=titanic.htm
Avatar's current daily box office: http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?pag...&id=avatar.htm
*Similar period being the time it took for both movies to reach $500 million in box office receipts.
Last edited by DGibFen; 01-23-10 at 07:45 PM.
01-23-10, 07:09 PM
#46
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Box Office: Jan 22-24th Titanic and Dark Knight both go down?.
Here are 2 quotes overheard from "the general public" within minutes after seeing a RealD 3D showing of Avatar today (yeah, I saw it again today):
"It was long, but it was a great movie!"
"Now that was a good movie!"
Avatar is simply an entertaining film to the masses, and while it may not reach the heights of "engrossing" storytelling that the naysayers wanted from the film, the general public isn't really all that interested in slagging it for sharing common elements with "Dances with Wolves" or "Pocahontas" or "Fern Gully", etc. They were transported to an exciting world, filled with enough drama and emotion for them to have it capture not only their attention, but their imagination, and the 3D played a part in creating such an engrossing world to visit.
Had Avatar not ever been released in 3D, no, I don't think it would be getting close to Titanic's domestic take, but there's nothing wrong with Cameron pushing the envelope for 3D film-making and creating a film whose higher ticket costs doesn't deter the general public from paying the higher ticket prices, mainly because of the perceived value from the 3D viewing experience. In fact, on a price/demand/supply curve, Avatar might be underpriced, or under-supplied in terms of available 3D venues.
I did a check on my local IMAX theater, and found that all of Saturday's IMAX showing had been sold out by Friday (except for the early showing, which sold out early Saturday morning today, and the late show hadn't sold out yet), and this is the 6th weekend for Avatar! I just looked for Sunday's IMAX showings, and the 1st 2 showings are sold out, and I wouldn't be surprised if the 7 p.m. showing sells out, though the late 10:15 show probably won't sell out due it being Monday the next day. Fandango must be raking it on at $2 for each IMAX Avatar ticket it's been pre-selling each weekend.
Also, kudos for Cameron for creating a film that has gotten generally-non-movie-going people to actually go to the movies because of the positive word of mouth, and the "gotta-see-it" event atmosphere in today's pop culture, and being convinced that seeing it at home just wouldn't be the same as seeing it at the theaters.
"It was long, but it was a great movie!"
"Now that was a good movie!"
Avatar is simply an entertaining film to the masses, and while it may not reach the heights of "engrossing" storytelling that the naysayers wanted from the film, the general public isn't really all that interested in slagging it for sharing common elements with "Dances with Wolves" or "Pocahontas" or "Fern Gully", etc. They were transported to an exciting world, filled with enough drama and emotion for them to have it capture not only their attention, but their imagination, and the 3D played a part in creating such an engrossing world to visit.
Had Avatar not ever been released in 3D, no, I don't think it would be getting close to Titanic's domestic take, but there's nothing wrong with Cameron pushing the envelope for 3D film-making and creating a film whose higher ticket costs doesn't deter the general public from paying the higher ticket prices, mainly because of the perceived value from the 3D viewing experience. In fact, on a price/demand/supply curve, Avatar might be underpriced, or under-supplied in terms of available 3D venues.
I did a check on my local IMAX theater, and found that all of Saturday's IMAX showing had been sold out by Friday (except for the early showing, which sold out early Saturday morning today, and the late show hadn't sold out yet), and this is the 6th weekend for Avatar! I just looked for Sunday's IMAX showings, and the 1st 2 showings are sold out, and I wouldn't be surprised if the 7 p.m. showing sells out, though the late 10:15 show probably won't sell out due it being Monday the next day. Fandango must be raking it on at $2 for each IMAX Avatar ticket it's been pre-selling each weekend.
Also, kudos for Cameron for creating a film that has gotten generally-non-movie-going people to actually go to the movies because of the positive word of mouth, and the "gotta-see-it" event atmosphere in today's pop culture, and being convinced that seeing it at home just wouldn't be the same as seeing it at the theaters.
Last edited by Patman; 01-23-10 at 07:22 PM.
01-23-10, 07:18 PM
#47
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 2,506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
01-23-10, 08:27 PM
#50
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,046
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Box Office: Jan 22-24th Titanic and Dark Knight both go down?.
That would be me! I don't want to go around in circles, so I'll just try to make my point one more time...
Because IMAX 3D tickets are more expensive (a 50% markup in my area), thus it's harder to convince millions of people to spend $12 versus $8 for a regular ticket. Based on the box office numbers, it appears Avatar is getting a lot of people to spend that extra money more than once. That's more impressive to me.
Because IMAX 3D tickets are more expensive (a 50% markup in my area), thus it's harder to convince millions of people to spend $12 versus $8 for a regular ticket. Based on the box office numbers, it appears Avatar is getting a lot of people to spend that extra money more than once. That's more impressive to me.
I disagree that being able to charge fewer people more money is somehow a more impressive feat, I think it's just another way to get to the same revenue #. While repeat viewings at high prices is impressive, films at a similar box office total to Avatar would have had to have gotten either even more repeat viewings or reached an even wider audience - and I guess I just don't understand how that's less impressive than getting fewer people to pay more money.
I don't think either way is necessarily good or bad or better than the other, I'm just not sure how one is more impressive than the other.