web
counter
 

Will (You Care If) Avatar Surpass(es) Titanic As Highest Grossing Film of All Time?

By Christopher Campbell | Posted Under Miscellaneous | Comments (24)



titanic avatar.jpg

The holidays are over, but the news continues to be slow out of Hollywood this week. My guess is the studios are all scrambling to figure out which of their films to Avatize, or Avatarize, or simply shoot in 3D. Right now, execs are stiffly walking onto sets a la Millard Mitchell in Singin’ in the Rain and shutting down production because of the latest game-changing picture. Makes me wonder if there are any actresses who’ll lose their careers because they just don’t look as beautiful in three dimensions.

With so little to talk about, everyone continues to concentrate on the box office success of James Cameron’s little blockbuster that could. Amazingly Avatar, despite not being based on a popular comic book or amusement park ride or historical tragedy (unless you count the white man’s takeover of America, Africa and Iraq), has cracked the $1 billion mark worldwide and crushed the hearts of international Batman fans by besting The Dark Knight as the fourth largest grosser of all time.

Of course, domestically, The Dark Knight remains #2, with Avatar way down at #15. And of course, the latter’s $50 million or so earned solely from 3D and IMAX surcharges can make the achievement seem unfair. Enough for people to be adding asterixes and happily pointing out that Avatar will never legitimately beat the #1 film of all time, Cameron’s Titanic.

But think about it this way: Avatar’s 3D-ness may currently give reason for lengthy clarifications, but it also should help the film in the long run. Geeks are seeing the movie over and over, possibly because once the thing is out of theaters, Avatar just won’t be the same on TV (not even on the new 3D TVs). In fact, Fox could easily keep it in theaters long after releasing it to home video, provided there are enough 3D and IMAX screens available to do so.

Not that it really matters if Avatar beats Titanic or breaks any other kinds of records. All this shows is that Cameron really knows how to make money. And maybe it means the next Batman, Harry Potter, Hobbit and Pirates of the Caribbean movies will be made in 3D to maintain the status of their franchises. But that’ll only help until Avatar 2, for which Cameron will invent new technology that allows us to plug our ponytails into our chairs and truly feel what it’s like to be tamed/raped by the Na’vi. I predict it’ll be called Symbi-O-Vision.

Here are some other reactions to Avatar’s latest numbers from around the blogosphere:

  • Scott Tobias at AV Club:
    There was never any middle ground for James Cameron’s sci-fi spectacular Avatar: it was either going to be a studio-busting flop of epic proportions or one of the biggest hits ever produced.
  • Jeremy Kay at The Guardian Film Blog:
    Will Avatar overtake Titanic to become the undisputed champion of the modern box office? At this rate it may well do so. Box-office observers believe that at this relatively early stage, Avatar is regarded as a spectacle that must be seen by everybody. And those who have seen it are going back a second or third time. This is what needs to happen for a movie to graduate from being a box-office hit to a juggernaut. Titanic did it. The Dark Knight did it. New Moon did it, albeit on a smaller scale. The movie must slow down at some point, but it only dropped off 10% in North America and a mere 4% in such countries as France and Germany, so it still has huge momentum.
  • Alex Billington at FirstShowing.net:
    He’s done it again. The true cinematic “king of the world” has made another movie that has earned over $1 billion worldwide at the box office, only the fifth movie in history to ever do so. Early reports are indicating (via Variety) that James Cameron’s Avatar will pass $352.1 million domestically this weekend pushing it just over the $1 billion mark worldwide in only 17 days. I don’t think Titanic was even this successful, this fast, which makes me wonder. It only needs $800 million more worldwide to pass Titanic, could it happen? It took The Dark Knight 33 weeks (and a re-release) to pass the $1 billion mark in 2008. This is incredible!
  • Josh Wigler at MTV Movies Blog:
    For more than a decade now, “Titanic” has comfortably held the distinction of being the highest grossing feature film of all time, both domestic and worldwide. But in case you haven’t noticed, there’s a not-so-little iceberg called Pandora, filled with Na’vi and other dangerous indigenous creatures, heading straight for Cameron’s previously established “Titanic” — and judging by the box office numbers, it’s entirely possible that “Avatar” could sink the boat.
  • Adam Markovitz at PopWatch:
    Clearly, pricey 3D tickets are giving Avatar a (lanky blue) leg up. But if memory serves, Titanic had an advantage of its own: repeat views. I remember classmates arguing over who had seen the movie more times, resorting to impromptu quote-offs to prove their claims. Avatar has earned plenty of raves, but is it inspiring the same level of obsessive devotion?
  • Rob Beschizza at BoingBoing:
    Avatar ‘s made a billion dollars in 17 days. Haters may take some vanishingly small measure of solace in the fact that ticket price inflation means that despite the incredible financial haul, it may have been seen by only half as many people as Titanic.
  • Gabe Toro at The Playlist:
    Isn’t there something better to do with your time? “Avatar” is a good bit of fun, for sure, but does this film really merit these ridiculous grosses? At $350 million domestic, part of a billion dollar worldwide take (Jesus, man!), “Avatar” is unquestionably the people’s choice. But maybe you should read a book or something. Have sex with your significant other. But wear a condom, lest “Avatar” become a $2 billion movie.
  • Craig Kennedy at Living in Cinema:
    Worldwide, Avatar has raked in over $1 billion in a little over two weeks making it only a matter of time before it takes over The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King’s #2 all-time spot where it sits with 1.12 billion in 2003 dollars. Will it reach the $1.84 billion of Cameron’s own Titanic? It’s hard to imagine, but I’m officially out of the Cameron doubting business.
  • Mark at I Watch Stuff:
    Within the week, it’s expected to surpass Return of the King and Dead Man’s Chest in worldwide box office, placing the film in second place behind a fellow James Cameron film, Titanic. Just goes to show how effective playing sci-fi MadLibs with a Pocahontas book report can be.
  • Dan Hopper at Best Week Ever:
    Pretty impressive showing by James Cameron’s blue people, although even with inflation, they’re still nowhere near catching James Cameron’s fleshtone people.

    What’s the lesson here? Have James Cameron do things. The man knows his talkies.

  • Michelle Collins at Best Week Ever:
    That’s right: Avatar is a huge success, almost as huge as those unexplainable Stanford baby tees seen on Sigourney Weaver’s giant blue Avatar, which is clearly a mythical 7XL.

  • Vince Mancini at FilmDrunk:
    Sources say that upon hearing the news, [Cameron] barbecued a unicorn over a slow-burning pit of $100 dollar bills, and after his personal chef finished it with a fine truffle and komodo-dragon sauce, a high-priced call girl spit it into his mouth while she pleasured herself with a gold bar.








Pajiba After Dark 1/4/10 | Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe













Comments

Will (You Care If) Avatar Surpass(es) Titanic As Highest Grossing Film of All Time?

No.

And I've been desperately trying to simply not care for months...but they won't let me!!!

Posted by: Jay at January 4, 2010 8:07 PM

I really don't understand the point of non-inflation-adjusted box office "records." It's almost akin to holding the Olympics, changing the definition of the word "meter," and marveling at the resulting new world records as if breaking them was ever even a question.

So, no, I don't care.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at January 4, 2010 8:43 PM

Really, I don't care. But I guess it would itch some back corner of my mind, as Titanic was better than Avatar.

Posted by: Cindy at January 4, 2010 8:46 PM

That header pic made me spray Coke Zero at my computer screen in mirth. AHAHAHAHA!!!

Posted by: Jelinas at January 4, 2010 8:49 PM

I'm just waiting for Slim's reaction to the fact that James Cameron has enough money to kill him, and get away with it several million times over.

Posted by: George at January 4, 2010 8:51 PM

I have to admit, the blurb from Vince Mancini at FilmDrunk is pretty damn funny.

One can argue over inflation adjustment and 3-D ticket prices, or hurl insults about lack of story, terrible dialogue, etc...

but James Cameron is still wiping his ass with hundred dollar bills. And you're not.

Posted by: MM at January 4, 2010 9:01 PM

For the past year or so I've had this lesion in the center of my retina that gives me only periferal vision on my left eye. Not really sad or anything. Doesn't bother me at all... Except I can't see 3D movies. I'm yet to decide if that's such a horrible thing.
For once, saves me a lot of money, a lot of crappy movies and keeps me from going to the movies with little cousins and such (ok.. the last one can be entertaining).

Problem is (and this kind of makes me care a bit): if every thing is going to be 3D now, I might as well quit the movies and start playing banjo in a folk band or something. :/ So here's hoping the whole thing just stops now!

Posted by: Mariazinha at January 4, 2010 9:11 PM

And MM takes the argument to the level of asinine.

Posted by: Alex at January 4, 2010 10:16 PM

Mariazinha, I feel your pain. I can't see 3D as well as most people--or so I imagine since I don't know what anyone else sees. It never quite works for me and I end up feeling sick if I strain my eyes to "see" the 3D.
Is there anyone else out there who doesn't enjoy 3D? Maybe if there are enough of us it will remain financially viable to show films in 2D...and no one will have to resort to the banjo. Man, I hope it doesn't come to that.

Posted by: katyv at January 4, 2010 10:56 PM

I wouldn't worry that all movies are going to be 3-D The novelty will fade. Again.
All of this has happened before all of this will happen again....

Posted by: Lindsey with an 'e' at January 4, 2010 11:01 PM

I posted this this morning on another thread but it applies here:

OK, I saw it on Friday. Imax 3-D. That's right, I lost my 3-D virginity to that Cameron bitch. It was a little awkward and uncomfortable at first. You know, didn't quite know where to look or what to do with my hands, but man, what a finish!

I think it was visually stunning, really something to look at and marvel. And if Cameron could raise $500 MILLION FUCKING DOLLARS to make this movie, he should have tossed a few hundred grand more toward the writing. But it was well worth the $10. I mean really, $3.33/hr is not a big price to pay to be visually stimulated. Ask any guy who hangs out in strip clubs.

Posted by: Lindsey with an 'e' at January 4, 2010 11:03 PM

I really don't understand the point of non-inflation-adjusted box office "records."

Very much agreed. Maybe because no movie will ever have a shot at breaking the adjusted gross of Gone with the Wind?

Posted by: branded at January 4, 2010 11:12 PM

I'm one of the ones who have been comtemplating seeing it again in IMAX becase I know I won't ever be able to see it in its intended format again once its gone. This movie has nothing on Titanic as far as storytelling goes but I liked the experience and I seriously wouldn't mind doing it again.

As far as it beating Titanic, I'd say if it were someone else it would probably hurt. It'll probably annoy me a little if this movie surpasses it with inflation factored in but it would not outrage or destroy me. Ha ha.

Posted by: Candy at January 4, 2010 11:13 PM

Candy, Candy, Candy I can't let you go!

Dammit, not afuckinggain.

Posted by: Cindy at January 4, 2010 11:19 PM

I just saw it the other night and am comfortable wholeheartedly recommending it to other people. I never got too into titanic, but the experience reminded me of the fervor of seeing Jurassic Park for the first time. I ended up going about five times, because the experience was fresh, it was a new visual benchmark and the story was good enough. Avatar will indeed bump titanic, until the next guy spends a billion. It's the nature of this game, and the intention of it all. We buy what they sell us because they show us what they're selling. We are no longer a culture of seekers.

Avatar's story is just fine in my opinion. Like they say, there aren't any new stories...just new presentations...I thought too much more story would have been irrelevant. The visuals were always the priority 'newness and vision' delivery mechanism. the narrative served the visuals well, and thank christ there wasn't any techno babble. In fact, let us be pleased with the show-don't-tell at the very least. I'm pretty done with moralizing speeches, defiant stances and declarations - overall, the characters just did stuff that generally made sense. I agree with Lindsey - it was well worth the money and I'm likely to see it again.

I'm tempted to seek out a non-3D version (although I know it'll come along if I wait long enough) because although the 3D was excellent, I hate being 'told' what to look at. It offends me to be led around the screen somehow. I wanted to suss out a lot of background army guy stuff because it's always the background and the 'group traveling in a landscape' shots that look shitty if they blow the lighting.

Posted by: replica at January 4, 2010 11:39 PM

Also - I live in hippie land - Carmanah Valley, Clayoquot Sound, big ups to my aboriginal homies - this movie kinda had me when I saw the big tree.

- pardon me, must run - I can't find my toe cymbals, and my patchouli is running out of funk.

Posted by: replica at January 4, 2010 11:45 PM

Huh. I wasn't actually making an argument. I haven't seen Avatar. I may, I may not. I don't know if it's bad or good. James Cameron is rich. That's not an argument. It's a fact.

I just thought the last blurb in the post was amusing, with the unicorns, and the hookers...

Posted by: MM at January 5, 2010 12:17 AM

My husband can't see in 3-D either. Says it has something to do with focusing more with one eye rather than distributing his vision with both at any given time. As a result we don't go see 3-D movies cause it drives him crazy.

So we stay at home and bump uglies. Works for me. Fuck 3-D. In its ass.

Posted by: Beckster "tri-tip" Goddess at January 5, 2010 12:53 AM

First of all, I gave my 3D V-card to Coraline. Little bitch gave me movie crabs....

I did finally catch Avatar during the holidays. And I realized: it's not worth all the air and all the effort that it's been taken up on it.

Is it a beautiful film? Yes.
Is it a "game-changer"? No.

Avatar is like watching a supermodel reading Joseph Campbell and Isaac Asimov and Stephen Hawking -- you're excited cause she's hot, but the delivery is ear-splitting awful.

It might have made for a slightly better movie if we had seen the hinted-at issues on Earth and if we had seen Ribisi's corporate man and the Colonel's superiors being pressured into speeding up the aliens' relocation. As it stood, it felt like it all boiled down to: "Natives good and scientists good. People who make money bad. People with guns bad."

But dressed up like a debutante at a ball.

Posted by: Fredo at January 5, 2010 3:52 AM

Won't see it - don't want to see it - think Cameron is an a--hole (albeit a rich one). Think he is paying people to go see it as I don't know anyone who is going to see it - and I live in a large Metropolitan area.

There are better movies out there. Think - if you go see it you are making Cameron richer!!


Posted by: juliam at January 5, 2010 6:12 AM

All I see is a bloated over-budgeted clunker that is BARELY breaking even.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at January 5, 2010 9:30 AM

District 10 is going to kill it!
Avatar was ruuuuubish. It was ONLY watchable because of 3d, it might (MIGHT) even have been a good movie in IMAX, but for real, seeing that bullshit in a regular format must have been super depressing.

Posted by: Alexis at January 5, 2010 9:52 AM

I wasn't expecting a game-changer, so I really enjoyed it. This may have something to do with the amazingly cheap 3D tickets ($8 for 3D by my parents' house, and near me it's $13!), but I was prepared for Ferngully 3D anyway.

Posted by: Phaeolus at January 5, 2010 11:22 AM

Phaeolus is right. Cameron's base story line is Ferngully, but now with more expensive animation.

Posted by: tsavo at January 6, 2010 12:13 AM


















Viral Hits

>> Pajiba Movie Posters

>> Pop Culture's 20 Greatest Dancing GIFs

>> Mindhole Blowers

>> The 100 Greatest Insults of All Time

>> The "Other" 100 Greatest Movie Quotes

>> The 100 Greatest Movie Threats of All Time

>> The Sean Bean Death Reel

>> Chicks Dig Beards: It's Science

>> The Coolest TV Show Title Sequences

>> The Most Rewatchable Movies

>> The Most Expensive Movies of All Time