rkt.india Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 Budget $237 million[3] $9 million+ (Re-release)[2] Gross revenue $2,782,275,172 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar_%282009_film%29 Has any other film surpassed this yet?
Ramzz Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 I think Titanic was the leading grosser before Avatar. Damn...those are some numbers.
Zap_Brannigan Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 1.8 billion for titanic. I think the next biggest is LOTR 3rd part around 1.2. Dark knight, toy story 3, Pirates 3 have all crossed 1 billion. James cameron is in a completely different stratosphere. Adjusted for inflation, Gone with the wind is probably at 2 billion.
Temujin Khaghan Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 this is the list after adjustment for inflation... also only in the us, since movies like zhivago and gone with the wind did not get as wide a release in foreign markets as titanic and avatar. avatar is 1 on all time list worldwide and titanic is no.2 when unadjusted for inflation.
Ram Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 Not surprising at all. Avatar was truly an epic movie. Cant wait for the sequel. My prediction is that it will be as good, if not better than, the original.
achilles Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 ^ There was just one sequel better than the original. They call it-
rkt.india Posted June 9, 2011 Author Posted June 9, 2011 this is the list after adjustment for inflation... also only in the us, since movies like zhivago and gone with the wind did not get as wide a release in foreign markets as titanic and avatar. avatar is 1 on all time list worldwide and titanic is no.2 when unadjusted for inflation. I don't think this is the right way of calculation. According to this theory, can we calculate Bradman's runs now. Only 2 films Avatar and Titanic of the last 15 years which says it may not be the right way.
zen Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 this is the list after adjustment for inflation... also only in the us, since movies like zhivago and gone with the wind did not get as wide a release in foreign markets as titanic and avatar. avatar is 1 on all time list worldwide and titanic is no.2 when unadjusted for inflation. Yep, it is Gone with the Wind when films are adjusted for inflation
zen Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 Btw, Adjusted for inflation = number of tickets sold * today's ticket rates So for example a film released in 1940 would have sold say 100K tickets at $2 per ticket for a gross of 200K When you adjust for inflation, you take those 100K tickets sold * today's price, say $10, so its gross after adjusting for inflation would be 100,000*10
zen Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 PS can anyone post the list of bollywood top grosser after being adjusted for inflation .... Hoping to see films like Sholay, Mugal-e-Azam amongst the top
10DuLKaR Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 PS can anyone post the list of bollywood top grosser after being adjusted for inflation .... Hoping to see films like Sholay' date=' Mugal-e-Azam amongst the top [/quote'] Here is the link for All Time Earners Inflation Adjusted(In India) - http://www.boxofficeindia.com/showProd.php?itemCat=304&catName=TGlmZXRpbWUgQWRqdXN0ZWQ= You might want to have a look at this site for various other lists - http://www.boxofficeindia.com/ :)
nikred Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 I don't think this is the right way of calculation. According to this theory' date=' can we calculate Bradman's runs now. Only 2 films Avatar and Titanic of the last 15 years which says it may not be the right way.[/quote'] I think the number of films at theaters at any given time might have an effect on the earning of a movie. If you have less choice of movies to view you might end up watching the most popular movie more often than not. Then there is piracy, DVDs/blue-rays being released within a year or aired on TV. So even if you do not watch the movie in theater you can still view it within a year.
zen Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 Here is the link for All Time Earners Inflation Adjusted(In India) - http://www.boxofficeindia.com/showProd.php?itemCat=304&catName=TGlmZXRpbWUgQWRqdXN0ZWQ= You might want to have a look at this site for various other lists - http://www.boxofficeindia.com/ :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_Bollywood_films,_adjusted_for_inflation wiki gave a different list though it appears to take some numbers from boxoffice ind's list .... Appears as if there is no definitive list for bollywood :(( PS "Technically however, 'Sholay' remains the biggest blockbuster of all times with an adjusted gross of over Rs 300 crore. But 'Sholay' of course, never made its millions in two-three weeks." http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2009-01-12/india/28035919_1_ghajini-akshay-kumar-highest-grosser
Zelig Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 Not a big fan of both Avatar and Titanic. Two of the most overrated movies. ^ There was just one sequel better than the original. They call it- http://www.wallz4u.com/plog-content/images/movies--tv/lord-of-the-rings/lord_of_the_rings_-_return_of_the_king_-_aragorn.jpg I like Godfather II more than I. I think it's richer and more complex.
punjabi_khota Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 Not a big fan of both Avatar and Titanic. Two of the most overrated movies. I like Godfather II more than I. I think it's richer and more complex. Shut the **** up snob. Stick to your T20s :hysterical:
Mariyam Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 Btw, Adjusted for inflation = number of tickets sold * today's ticket rates So for example a film released in 1940 would have sold say 100K tickets at $2 per ticket for a gross of 200K When you adjust for inflation, you take those 100K tickets sold * today's price, say $10, so its gross after adjusting for inflation would be 100,000*10 I'm no expert on economics, but I find this method very . All you are doing is adjusting for the price of the ticket over the years. For eg, what you are saying is that if a ticket cost 1 Re in 1900 and 300 Rs in 2011, you will simply multiply the ticket sales in 1900 AD by 300. Let me ask you this: There would have been a big change in population between 1939 ( Gone with the wind) and 2009 ( Avatar 3D). There are so many more people now ( sheer numbers, not percentages going to cinemas) who go and watch movies. Even a relatively bad movie today would draw in as many people as a good movie of the 20s/30s because of many theatres and overseas crowds. Overseas crowd was a non factor before a few decades. Shouldn't that be accounted for somewhere? PS: Sorry, if this a retarded question.
Zelig Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 Shut the **** up snob. Stick to your T20s :hysterical: I'll cuss anyone who doesn't agree with me :hysterical::hysterical: Proud to be a Punjabi :bhangra:
zen Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 I'm no expert on economics, but I find this method very . All you are doing is adjusting for the price of the ticket over the years. For eg, what you are saying is that if a ticket cost 1 Re in 1900 and 300 Rs in 2011, you will simply multiply the ticket sales in 1900 AD by 300. Let me ask you this: There would have been a big change in population between 1939 ( Gone with the wind) and 2009 ( Avatar 3D). There are so many more people now ( sheer numbers, not percentages going to cinemas) who go and watch movies. Even a relatively bad movie today would draw in as many people as a good movie of the 20s/30s because of many theatres and overseas crowds. Overseas crowd was a non factor before a few decades. Shouldn't that be accounted for somewhere? PS: Sorry, if this a retarded question. Adjusting for inflation is not spot on but gives you a general idea of how a film would do if it were released in a different year/time. For old films, sometimes, data like number of tickets sold is also not available but then you take the gross and divide it by the avg ticket price of that time to estimate the number of tickets sold. And you are right when you say that even a relatively bad movie today could gross more than some of the classics, which is why many go by 'the adjusted for inflation list' :winky:
Recommended Posts