RIsky Logo

Posts Tagged ‘Box Office’

Just how high is ‘Avatar’ going in the box-office pantheon?

January 3, 2010 - 2:00 pm

By Jay A. Fernandez

OK, so “Avatar” is fiercely clawing its way up the box-office charts. It burst into the top ten grossers of the decade Sunday, and seems poised to push well into the all-time list within the week, when it passes “Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith” at $380.3 million.

But given how long it took to reach the decade list at $341.8 million – 17 days – can we predict just how high it will go?

Cameron’s “Titanic,” which opened December 19, 1997, took almost eight weeks to cume $341.8 million in mid-February 1998. Granted, “Titanic” ran for three hours and 14 minutes, which minimized the number of shows theaters could jam in each day. Tickets were also cheaper then, of course, but the film’s tragic romance beckoned repeat viewings unlike any film had before.

More comparably, “The Dark Knight” – the No. 2 all-time grosser – opened July 18, 2008 and crossed $341.8 million on its 13th day, July 30. On Day 13, “Avatar” was still at $268.9 million. It took Cameron’s film another four days to cross the $341.8 million benchmark. “Avatar” is only 10 minutes longer, so running time won’t make a difference, and both films – for different reasons – encourage repeat viewings.

The No. 4 all-time grosser, “Shrek 2,” also got there in less than three weeks in the summer of 2004. So did “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest” (#7) in 2006, and “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” (#9) got there on its 20th day, July 13, 2009.

“Spider-Man” (#8) took more than three weeks. “E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial” (#5) took almost a year in 1982-83, and the original “Star Wars” (#3) required two re-releases to get there. “The Phantom Menace” (#6) took almost five weeks in 1999 and “Revenge of the Sith” (#10) almost four weeks in 2005.

Had Imax 3D theaters been more widespread these last three weeks, “Avatar” undoubtedly would have gotten there faster – Cameron’s film grossed just $2 million less in its second weekend than in its first, indicating that demand was constant. With its additional word-of-mouth appraisals (e.g. “you have to go see it”), “Avatar” is likely to continue a fairly lengthy climb with less-than-typical drop-off each week.

My prediction? Top five of all time, easy. With a nice nest prepared for it at No. 4, just under its inspirational ancestor, “Star Wars.”

What kept the ‘Avatar’ grosses low? Hint: it wasn’t the snow.

December 21, 2009 - 4:34 pm

By Jay A. Fernandez

I’m finding the picayune back-and-forth over whether the “Avatar” numbers were good, or good enough, or snowed under, or inflated, or whatever, just a little vaporous. The truth is, this movie was going to need long, Na’vi-like legs to make its bank from the very beginning.

As such, $77.3 million is a plenty fine opening.

Yes, the East Coast snow probably dented the haul by a few million, but word of mouth is what will carry Cameron’s film forward into the black.

lush pandora 517x2911 150x150 What kept the Avatar grosses low? Hint: it wasnt the snow.If anything is keeping the box office numbers from bursting through the multiplexes like one of those ornery Pandora rhino-bugs, it’s this: People are waiting to see it in 3D.

Much more than any other 3D film to date, “Avatar” demands to be seen in its full dimensions. The nature of its depth and immersiveness has been part of every review — professional or amateur. And audience members — even those dying to see this new cinema universe — are not going to settle for a 2D version.

Given that the full Imax 3D treatment is still under-represented in the exhibition space, not everyone who wanted to see it this weekend was able to. Seats were filled. So others are waiting for their chance to see it in full-blown 3D.

Christmas weekend will be the real test. My prediction is that Fox and Cameron will see less-than-normal fall-off as new audiences flood in to get the premium experience.

As they should. Two dimensions of Pandora is decidedly one dimension too few.

‘New Moon’s’ (possible) halo effect

November 23, 2009 - 2:00 am

By Steven Zeitchik

11 20blindjpg 0db94c176a888df6 large New Moons (possible) halo effect

People who get paid handsomely to watch boxoffice were surprised to see just how well “The Blind Side,” Sandra Bullock’s feel-good football pic, did this weekend.

The ode to all things American (or at least to all things Hollywood uplift) earned an impressive $35 million — and over a weekend when it seemed like everyone with a pulse was flocking to “New Moon.”

The conventional assumption to explain the numbers (”Blind Side” was expected to earn only in the mid-twenties) is that filmgoers who were sold out of “New Moon,” dressed for a night out but with nowhere to go, opted to pick up tickets to the pigskin-fest instead.

That would suggest a halo effect for movies that open wide opposite a juggernaut — even though the (other) conventional assumption about tentpole openings is that it’s better for rival studios and movies to get the heck out of the way.

cont reading button New Moons (possible) halo effect

The Hollywood Reporter is Your Complete Film Resource

The columnists and bloggers who write for The Hollywood Reporter have their collective finger on the pulse of the boxoffice. From Robert Osbourne to Martin Grove and the rest, THR columnists deliver their thoughts on the film industry in an uncompromised style. Subscribe to THR today and get the latest views from these film experts and get the latest movie reviews as well.