‘Avatar’ sinks ‘Titanic’ as world's biggest movie

[tinman]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35085070/ns/entertainment-movies/

[Thor]

I was upset when Titanic took over Star Wars but come on Avatar. It's not even a good movie. Nice effects but that's all it has going for it.

[kbf_private_joker]

The only issue I see with this is that tickets nowadays are $12-16. It's no wonder it has exceeded Titanic. I would much rather they track success by ticket sales.

Here are the top 20 ticket selling movies of all time: http://www.thrfeed.com/2010/01/avatar-ticket-sales-.html

[Mister Zero]

The only issue I see with this is that tickets nowadays are $12-16. It's no wonder it has exceeded Titanic. I would much rather they track success by ticket sales.

Agree. And thus Titanic had exceeded Star Wars.

I still haven't seen Avatar, but it doesn't look so special. Seems like an okay movie but others in theaters now have gained more of my attention.

[tinman]

I was upset when Titanic took over Star Wars but come on Avatar. It's not even a good movie. Nice effects but that's all it has going for it.

Myself, I enjoyed the story more than all the 3D stuff...don't get me wrong all the effects were neat, but the story did it for me anyways

[Data]

Some of the scenes of the people falling to their death was entertaining in Titanic and it gave me an accurate idea of what happened, even more than the book A Night To Remember. I'm way too critical and especially swayed by first impressions. When I see Avatar I can't look past the freaks. What planet are they from and why should I care? I have no plan on seeing it in the immediate future. I suppose if it airs on Satellite I'll watch it.

If comparing success of a movie means adding up the total sale in dollars of each movie then, they might as well add up the total popcorn sales and multiple it by the bags of JuJu Bees sold for each movie.

I could also say that my computer is 5 times as fast as the best computer in 1999.

[KiwiArcader]

Still .... James Cameron now has the #1 & #2 movies along with The Terminator & Aliens ... both of which are the best of those franchises ... so his movie record isn't too shabby at all. While none of them come close to Ridley Scott's Blade Runner as far as I am concerned they are all very watchable movies.

I go to the movies to be entertained and these fit the bill including Avatar. They are fine popcorn movies. If you approach watching it with that mindset you won't be too disappointed.

[E-Day]

I first read the headline as "Avatar stinks...", and I was like, "Yes. Yes it does".

[Thor]

Myself, I enjoyed the story more than all the 3D stuff...don't get me wrong all the effects were neat, but the story did it for me anyways

The problem with the story is that it's already been done. So it was nothing special to me.

Thanks for bringing that website to my attention because I feel that Star Wars should still be up on top, not counting Gone With the Wind because I can't stand that movie.

[SuperFrog]

The problem with the story is that it's already been done. So it was nothing special to me.

Thanks for bringing that website to my attention because I feel that Star Wars should still be up on top, not counting Gone With the Wind because I can't stand that movie.

Can you please specify where the story has been done??

It's not like 'I am Legend', the same movie with different actor and better visuals. Avatar has new story, no well-known actors, great message and superb visuals.

It's all back to simple question: 'Do people watch movies for enjoyment or to annoy themselves???'

[KiwiArcader]

Well .... how many times have we seen the "Man ruins own world ... man tries to ruin other world ... man gets ass kicked" story line used? You can substitute "world" for "country or land" and a whole lot of movies become similar in their theme. So yeah .... Thor is right if you look at it from a theme perspective.

Like I said .... I go to a movie like this particular one to enjoy a spectacle. Big explosions ... great visuals ... and this movie certainly has that. I rate this one the same as Aliens. If I wanted a philosophical discussion I'd just watch Schindler's List or The Pianist again ... or Moon [which is a great movie BTW but it is way different to Avatar].

[SuperFrog]

Well .... how many times have we seen the "Man ruins own world ... man tries to ruin other world ... man gets ass kicked" story line used? You can substitute "world" for "country or land" and a whole lot of movies become similar in their theme. So yeah .... Thor is right if you look at it from a theme perspective.

Like I said .... I go to a movie like this particular one to enjoy a spectacle. Big explosions ... great visuals ... and this movie certainly has that. I rate this one the same as Aliens. If I wanted a philosophical discussion I'd just watch Schindler's List or The Pianist again ... or Moon [which is a great movie BTW but it is way different to Avatar].

You might be right, but again, not many movies have (positive) message such as Avatar. What's the message of Aliens?? (survival at any cost??)

[E-Day]

The entire movie was one cliché after another. The visuals were great, though. But for me, a movie can't survive on visuals alone. It's not 1994 anymore where a movie can ride the coattails of Jurassic Park's success.

[Thor]

Can you please specify where the story has been done??

It's not like 'I am Legend', the same movie with different actor and better visuals. Avatar has new story, no well-known actors, great message and superb visuals.

It's all back to simple question: 'Do people watch movies for enjoyment or to annoy themselves???'

Dances with Wolves.

It's the exact same story but here the indians win.

The entire movie was one cliché after another. The visuals were great, though. But for me, a movie can't survive on visuals alone. It's not 1994 anymore where a movie can ride the coattails of Jurassic Park's success.

Yeah but Jurassic Park actually had a good story to go with the visuals. I still to this day enjoy watching that movie.

[E-Day]

I have heard Dances with Wolves mentioned by a few people now when talking about Avatar.

And I love Jurassic Park. The visuals are still fantastic for a 13-year-old movie. And the actual story was great. One of my favourite movies.

[SuperFrog]

The entire movie was one cliché after another. The visuals were great, though. But for me, a movie can't survive on visuals alone. It's not 1994 anymore where a movie can ride the coattails of Jurassic Park's success.

Those cliché are best view trough avatar being first movie of all time to reach 2bn dollars worldwide?! What would be a good example of cliché??

Dances with Wolves.

It's the exact same story but here the indians win.

I disagree. Where story has similarities with Dance s with Wolves, whole message is quiet different. Avatar IMHO has another secret meaning of what would happen if private sector gets resources for space explorations. Part where big company + army has different agenda from science and exploration. Interestingly enough, it came just in time when President announced that TAXI of astronauts will be provided by private sector.

Of course, if you see only visuals and loose all those small details, that does not prove the movie is bad or cliché as E-Day said early.

I have heard Dances with Wolves mentioned by a few people now when talking about Avatar.

And I love Jurassic Park. The visuals are still fantastic for a 13-year-old movie. And the actual story was great. One of my favourite movies.

I enjoyed Jurassic Park. Nice idea, couple well know actors and great director - of course you get another blockbuster...

This is interesting, because in Jurassic Park we have science gone mad where in Avatar we have completely different thing. I wonder how did they connect those two movies (except well made and good money maker )

[Thor]

Those cliché are best view trough avatar being first movie of all time to reach 2bn dollars worldwide?! What would be a good example of cliché??

Sorry not trying to be a jerk or anything but... that's what inflation will do to you. As already mentioned the movie industry needs to really judge the success of movies by sales of tickets not by monies earned. Where I'm at I pay $8-$12 for a movie depending on when I go. Back in 1977 it was more like $2.25 that's a big difference. Either way the movie sucked... ok that's a bit harsh it was okay. Nothing special as movies go, but very pretty visuals that is not something that can even be argued.

[SuperFrog]

Sorry not trying to be a jerk or anything but... that's what inflation will do to you. As already mentioned the movie industry needs to really judge the success of movies by sales of tickets not by monies earned. Where I'm at I pay $8-$12 for a movie depending on when I go. Back in 1977 it was more like $2.25 that's a big difference. Either way the movie sucked... ok that's a bit harsh it was okay. Nothing special as movies go, but very pretty visuals that is not something that can even be argued.

You can find lists with included inflation in numbers. Check this link.

When adjusted with inflation, gone with the wind is at 1.5bn dollars. Of course, IMAX is more expensive, but it counts for small percentage of the movie overall profit.

One astonishing thing is that in China avatar made only 80 mil dollars, because of ticket prices...

[Thor]

Yeah Imax does not make that big of a difference. I went to a Saturday afternoon movie at Imax and it was $14 per ticket.

[SuperFrog]

Yeah Imax does not make that big of a difference. I went to a Saturday afternoon movie at Imax and it was $14 per ticket.

How many screens and plays has IMAX compared to other 3D and non-3D??

What's regular ticket price? $9.25? (or something close)

I read it was around 10% of total just for IMAX.

One way to compare movies would be by number of tickets sold.

What do you think about Snow White and the Seven Dwarf vs. Avatar, StarWars and Titanic all together??

Edited February 5, 2010 by SuperFrog