Comments on: Weekend Box Office: Technology Beats ‘Book of Eli’ With ‘Avatar’ On Top

By: Rabi

Rabi — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 21:15:54 +0000

"Avatar! has yet to register the best per-screen average during any weekend of release, unusual for a film touted as a box office game changer, and a cursory look at the numbers suggests a strong difference between those seeking the immersive IMAX experience (many many many) and those settling for the regular 3D showings (mini mini mini)."

Avatar averaged $13k per screen over the weekend. Eli averaged $10,500. Overall, Avatar has averaged $22k per screen since its premiere. Titanic averaged $10k per screen for its ENTIRE run.

What the fuck are you talking about? Avatar has killed per screen. Why does Playlist constantly fail to fact check its own shit?

By: gabetoro

gabetoro — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 01:30:05 +0000

Who's knocking Avatar? What we're saying is that aside from it's surface-level success, the regular-screen audiences aren't all there. It's not to say the film is doing poorly in any way, but rather how strong the potential is for a film to play in IMAX AND regular screens. "Avatar"'s per-screen average has consistently been in line with the per-screens of every other big blockbuster this year, but "Avatar" has massively outgrossed them all, and (if you really look at the numbers) in an actual smaller screen count (probably largely due to a very large runtime).

"Avatar"'s success model has made it the potentially highest grossing film of all-time, but the number-spread suggests that won't be a record that stands for very long. And so what?

Obviously per-screen average isn't the be-all, end-all, but if we were honestly comparing the per-screen of The Last Station to Avatar, wouldn't that be at the front and not complete bottom of the piece?

Also, before I forget- did I miss something? Do we owe Avatar some sort of precious respect? There's absolutely zero slagging of the film itself in this article.

By: Frank Steiner

Frank Steiner — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 00:54:08 +0000

What the hell are you blabbering about now? Look at the per-screen averages of movie in wide release, you morons! How it is fair to compare the per-screen average of a movie playing on over 3,000 screens to movies playing on just a few?

I cannot fathom why the people who run this site continue to take any opportunity to knock the success of Avatar. You didn't like it all that much. We get it. Move on. It's a huge success. It's okay. That doesn't mean you can't still like your obscure movies with no-name actors and "hip" soundtracks.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 23:58:35 +0000

Yeah, shame about Avatar's per screen average. I guess Fox will have to settle for $1.6 billion worldwide as consolation. Aside from bungling the relative popularity of IMAX (which accounts for a little over $100 million worldwide) vs. regular 3D (over $1 billion worldwide), continuing to push the "it's all because of higher ticket prices" line is getting old, and pretty close to factually inaccurate.

Even if you want to chop 30% off the film's worldwide gross, it would be at $1.12 billion after five weekends, aka the third highest grossing movie of all time, with no end in sight.

Aside from that, love your work.