Features
Headlines
Search
Archives
*All historical figures cited are adjusted to today’s dollars.
First off, I should apologize for neglecting to write a Friday Forecast column this week. Fridays are my day off from work so while I have plenty of time to cook up an article, it’s also the one day where the box office is farthest from my mind, so I beg your pardon. I’m pretty sure the world went on spinning without it and rest assured, I would have predicted all these numbers to the cent.
So, our number one film this week is “Avatar.” That’s five weeks in a row and it’s the first film to accomplish that feat since “The Sixth Sense” a decade ago. Yes, the entire naughties nearly went by without a single film setting up residence at the top for more than four weeks. The fact that “Avatar” has done it and dropped only 18% in the process is flat out jaw-dropping.
The film grossed $41.3 million for the weekend, which is only 47% off from the film’s debut weekend almost a month ago. In other words, this would have been a perfectly respectable second weekend total, but as a fifth weekend, it trails only the $47 million of “Titanic.” So, Cameron’s latest has finally dipped below the weekly performance of his last, although “Titanic” only had $371 million at this point, while “Avatar” has $491.8 million.
Only “The Dark Knight,” “Shrek 2” and “Spider-Man” still stand ahead of it from the new millennium and they should all fall by the end of next week. Then the film only has to pass the $623.5 million of “Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace” to officially be the most attended film since “Titanic.” Whew!
Second place goes to “The Book of Eli,” which actually topped the chart on Friday. A $31.6 million weekend haul is exactly on par with “Paul Blart: Mall Cop” from one year ago, but Denzel won’t have the staying power that Kevin James had. This should finish in the $90 million range, which is where almost all of Denzel’s films end up. I didn’t see it yet because if it’s any good they’ll make a “The Film of Eli” and I’ll just see that.
Hey, remember “The Lovely Bones?” Arthouse audiences turned up their nose but regular joes seem to think it’s alright. The film earned $17.1 million for the weekend and took third place, which is pretty good for an expanding Oscar contender. It’s not quite the $19.9 million of “The Bucket List” or the $30.2 million of “Gran Torino,” but there aren’t any hilarious old people in it so you have to take what you can get.
Jackie Chan’s “The Spy Next Door” landed with a thud in sixth place and $9.7 million. This is a weekend where “Kangaroo Jack” can make $20 million and “Hotel for Dogs” can earn $17.5 million, so to fail in hitting double digits is pretty sad. Good news for “The Tooth Fairy” though as it now stands to monopolize the kiddie market next week. God help us all.
Only “Leap Year” kept any credibility from last week’s batch of films, dropping 36% to $5.9 million. It’ll still be forgotten by Valentine’s Day but “Youth in Revolt” and “Daybreakers” have already made ignominious exits from the top 10 so it’s a small victory for Amy Adams.
I saw “Youth in Revolt” on Sunday and was pleased to get my 2010 cinema experience off on a pleasing note. It’s not a perfect film, but Cera and Arteta hit enough of the right notes to make it head and shoulders above most teen romantic comedies.
What did you guys see? Wait, was it “Avatar” again? Here are the weekend’s top domestic grossers, courtesy of Exhibitor Relations:
30 responses so far
1 1-17-2010 at 10:30 am
Chris said...
“I didn’t see it yet because if it’s any good they’ll make a “The Film of Eli” and I’ll just see that.”
:)
I want to frame that sentence.
2 1-17-2010 at 10:57 am
Michael said...
I saw The Lovely Bones and it sucked! What an overindulgent bore. We had a few audience members who decided to loudly talk back at the screen during any of the suspenseful moments, which I normally hate, but b/c this movie was so bad I actually revelled in the opportunity to crack up out loud without sounding out of place. My favorite shouted zinger was when the sister was stuck in the house when Stanley Tucci came back home and this lady in the audience started screaming, “Girl, you better get outta that house now. You better jump outta the window or walk through walls or something!” You had to be there but the audience was in stitches which was the opposite reaction of what I am sure Peter Jackson intended in that overdirected suspenseful scene.
3 1-17-2010 at 11:02 am
Loyal said...
I hope Avatar passes Titanic by Feb 2nd. It’ll have the worldwide crown before then but to be able to the say “biggest film of all-time” when Oscar noms are announced would be pretty cool.
4 1-17-2010 at 11:04 am
Me. said...
Avatar is going to take away Titanic’s record.
5 1-17-2010 at 11:12 am
who cares said...
But Avatar still hasn’t even broke even yet. Ha ha ha! How is this news? Let us know when the filmmakers get to keep even one dollar. By the way, The Hurt Locker has already been more profitable than this film and it didn’t cost the entire gross national product of a small nation to do it. Something to consider…
6 1-17-2010 at 11:14 am
Daniel said...
Saw The White Ribbon to a pretty packed house. Any news on its box-office take this weekend?
7 1-17-2010 at 11:21 am
Kristopher Tapley said...
Yeah, 1.4 billion bucks, that’s what “Avatar” cost to make “who cares.”
8 1-17-2010 at 11:27 am
Chad Hartigan said...
White Ribbon did $76,500 from 12 screens. Solid
9 1-17-2010 at 11:27 am
James The Greatest said...
To “who cares”:
Of course Avatar is out of the red by now. The movie has made $1.6 BILLION worldwide. The movie cost $400-500 million to produce and market. Additionally, any sequel they make will likely cost less because the technology and materials already exist. Bottom line: Everyone’s pockets are being lined with money by this film.
10 1-17-2010 at 11:28 am
theoriginal.andrew said...
Was Who Cares being sarcastic or something?
11 1-17-2010 at 11:57 am
James D. said...
I think Who Cares was comparing domestic gross versus what the box office keeps. Isn’t it 45% or something? That would mean it hadn’t made money, but as you all point out, worldwide grosses blow that away.
12 1-17-2010 at 12:01 pm
BJT said...
Do your inflation adjusted figures take into account the split between 3D and 2D showings, or are they just based on the change in average ticket price? Or, to put it another way, are you looking at actually people on seats?
I ask because I’m curious whether Avatar has the “return” factor that Titanic had.
Back in ’96 I went to see Titanic three times with my Uni housemates, but I can’t imagine going back to see Avatar again. (Not that I didn’t enjoy it, but purely as I feel it will dwindle on a second showing when the effects are less exciting and new.)
13 1-17-2010 at 12:01 pm
Chad Hartigan said...
Studios can take as much as 70% of first weekend and then it depreciates week by week until it’s about 40% studio/60% theater. So a film with legs like “Avatar” is manna from heaven for theater owners.
14 1-17-2010 at 12:03 pm
Chad Hartigan said...
BJT- Avatar’s numbers aren’t adjusted and Titanic had no 3D showings so I’m not sure if your question is phrased correctly. But, using the current system, there will be no difference between the 3D tickets and 2D tickets when adjusting Avatar’s number, just as there’s no difference between a matinee ticket or a saturday night ticket.
15 1-17-2010 at 12:14 pm
James D. said...
Is that why some small theaters will hold onto a film for several weeks rather than taking new ones?
16 1-17-2010 at 12:36 pm
Chad Hartigan said...
That’s most likely because small theaters will take whatever they can get. Studios have deals with theater chains so they get first dibs and if a small, independent theater happens to be in the same proximity as one of those then it’s usually tough shit for that small theater and they play whatever used to be at the chain.
17 1-17-2010 at 3:04 pm
BJT said...
Sorry, let me try again.
I am trying to establish if adjusted figures is the correct way of looking at a film like Avatar.
The Fandom Menace took $431m in 1999 when the average ticket price was $5.08, or adjusted to ticket price inflation that’s $624m, as you say above.
Ticket price inflation is based on all tickets so should be a rough indicator to the number of seats as special offers and regional price variations are cancelled out.
However a large majority of the money spent on Avatar tickets has been in 3D and IMAX screens which have a higher average cost that normal ticket prices, which when coupled with my corollary that the majority of all cinema tickets are for 2D showings (I’m estimating less than 20% of overall cinema attendance is for 3D screenings).
It therefore seems ticket price inflation does not necessarily correlate to attendance figures for 3D films.
On a more general note I was wondering whether there were many multiple viewers in the same way that Titanic created rabid fans who returned time and time again.
18 1-17-2010 at 3:45 pm
Chad Hartigan said...
It’s impossible to know about repeat viewers, however, you can guess that there has to be some for any movie to do this well.
As for 3D, there’s nothing separating the 3D tickets from the 2D tickets in the estimate for number of tickets sold. So if you want to hold that against the film when comparing it to others, you certainly can. But it’s all the same to me.
19 1-17-2010 at 3:50 pm
BJT said...
Thanks for the answer, Chad.
I do enjoy your columns, by the way.
20 1-17-2010 at 6:40 pm
Zac said...
According to Box Office Mojo, Avatar has the biggest 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th weekends of all time.
I saw Avatar this morning in 3-D on a IMAX screen and it’s the best movie of 2009 and one of the decade’s ten best.
21 1-17-2010 at 8:45 pm
The Z said...
Also according to Box Office Mojo:
The adjusted gross for “Avatar” is $498.5 million vs. $491.8 million unadjusted. Don’t we all remember fondly the last weeks of 2009 when movie tickets were so cheap?
22 1-17-2010 at 8:57 pm
David said...
Yeah, Titanic’s 5th weekend was $30m. It never made as much as $47m on any weekend; it’s highest total was $35m on its second weekend.
23 1-17-2010 at 10:05 pm
Ligaya said...
Uh, Chad? Would you please deconstruct & parse: “I didn’t see it yet because if it’s any good they’ll make a ‘The Film of Eli’ and I’ll just see that.” I want to see if it matches what I thought you to mean.
24 1-18-2010 at 6:53 am
Joe said...
Chad… this was hilarious. “The Film of Eli” was funny, but the “hilarious old people” line was brilliant!
I actually saw “The White Ribbon”. Disappointing and pointless. “The Book of Eli” was terrific.
25 1-18-2010 at 7:40 am
Guy Lodge said...
Ligaya, I give you the words of Mark Twain:
“Explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog: you understand it better, but the frog dies in the process.”
26 1-18-2010 at 7:45 am
Guy Lodge said...
As for the lack of “hilarious old people” in “The Lovely Bones,” it does have a big-haired Susan Sarandon trying (and failing) to liven up the proceedings. Surely that qualifies?
27 1-18-2010 at 8:48 am
Joel said...
I saw “The Spy Next Door” and “The Book of Eli,” and they were both very, very bad. Denzel’s movie was actually worse, though.
28 1-18-2010 at 12:01 pm
Ligaya said...
Oh, I got it, Guy (you’ve used this quote before to someone else). I just wanted to see if Chad had the frog’s guts to insult Denzel & the Hughes Brothers (Gary Oldham, maybe not so much?) in blunt words to their faces (metaphorically) instead of hiding behind what passes for a jokemeister’s wit.
And since Chad says he hasn’t seen this movie, is it too much to hope that he’s seen other movies he’s talked about in this column and not just crunched the numbers? (Sorry, not a regular reader/lurker, just dropped in for GG.)
29 1-18-2010 at 12:30 pm
Chad Hartigan said...
Ligaya,
The only movies I’ve seen in the top 10 this week are Sherlock Holmes and Up in the Air. Thankfully, you don’t have to see them to crunch their numbers.
P.S. How do you pronounce your name? If it’s La-gee-ya, then it’s the same as my babysitter when I was a kid.
30 12-01-2012 at 11:39 pm
Monika said...
cgi wasnt that great on a whole.Movements and look seemed wrong.The artaangang. was cool,some closeups here and there where good.but on a whole It ruined the film .They should be better I mean they did King kong and Gollum.Was expecting much better.