"The Avengers" Becomes Biggest Disney Release Of All Time

[Vibranium]

occording to Boxofficemojo Avenger is 10 million shy of beating TDK domesticly
and 28 mil to beat Harry potter world wide.

and has yet to release in Japan and various Asian countries

[thenerdal]

Woo!!! Avengers beat Harry Potter and is the 3rd top grossing film of all time. Not infated, cause I don't care about that. Today, people pirate movies, back then, they didn't.

[wildclaw]

@Waveheater

Theatrical movies back then had the following advantages:

-Much longer theatrical runs compared to today's movies. The reason why is probably because near 100% of the revenue came from the theatrical release, so studios would let a movie ride out in theaters as long as possible. Look below in bold for another reason.

-Movies back then didn't have home video, digital, Pay-Per-View, or premium cable channel releases 6 months after their release, so the only way people could re-watch a movie they liked would be to go back to the theater over and over.

-Even for the movies that came out when VHS were popular, you would still have to wait at least a year before it came out on video anyway, so a lot people probably wouldn't have the patience to wait for the home release. Today, it's common for people to be selective about which movies they go to the theater for, and which ones watch on netflix, because the gap home video release window is much smaller. Safe house, is good example, it came out Feb 10, and will be out on dvd this week, only a 4 month gap. If movies release on home video this quickly, then a lot of people won't feel compelled to run out and watch it, but instead wait a reasonable amount of time before they can watch it in the comfort of their own home.

- Competing entertainment mediums like video games can distract the target audience from spending their time/money to go out to the theater for movies they aren't heavily anticipating. One $60 video game can give someone at least 8-20 hours of single player entertainment, multiplayer can provide 100's. A movie would have to be pretty special to get that person to spend $12 + overpriced popcorn & soda on 2 hours of entertainment, much less watch it a second, third, or fourth time.

-Internet piracy

[icctrombone]

Just bringing the subject of theater availability closer; I remember Star Wars being in the Loews Astor plaza in NYC for over a year back in 1977. While its true that a year is along time to show a movie and accumulate ticket sales, it had to keep getting enough interest to justify continual showings. There's no way that theater would have kept it there if there were only 10 people watching it a day. The Avengers movie is still justifying 2 screens in my local movie place despite all the weeks it's been out. Marvel did what no one has ever done before in that it used 3 characters that have supported their own movies all star in one movie. Fans of Thor will see the movie even if they didn't like the Ironman or Captain America movie. And visa versa.

[Simbob4000]

@Waveheater

Theatrical movies back then had the following advantages:

-Much longer theatrical runs compared to today's movies. The reason why is probably because near 100% of the revenue came from the theatrical release, so studios would let a movie ride out in theaters as long as possible. Look below in bold for another reason.

-Movies back then didn't have home video, digital, Pay-Per-View, or premium cable channel releases 6 months after their release, so the only way people could re-watch a movie they liked would be to go back to the theater over and over.

-Even for the movies that came out when VHS were popular, you would still have to wait at least a year before it came out on video anyway, so a lot people probably wouldn't have the patience to wait for the home release. Today, it's common for people to be selective about which movies they go to the theater for, and which ones watch on netflix, because the gap home video release window is much smaller. Safe house, is good example, it came out Feb 10, and will be out on dvd this week, only a 4 month gap. If movies release on home video this quickly, then a lot of people won't feel compelled to run out and watch it, but instead wait a reasonable amount of time before they can watch it in the comfort of their own home.

- Competing entertainment mediums like video games can distract the target audience from spending their time/money to go out to the theater for movies they aren't heavily anticipating. One $60 video game can give someone at least 8-20 hours of single player entertainment, multiplayer can provide 100's. A movie would have to be pretty special to get that person to spend $12 + overpriced popcorn & soda on 2 hours of entertainment, much less watch it a second, third, or fourth time.

-Internet piracy

I'm pretty sure people could buy 16mm prints of movies to watch at home. I'm also pretty sure studios owned there own theatre when Gone with the Wind came out, so to see it you may have had to go to a MGM theatre. Stage shows were still huge back then, and theatre companies would traveling around. Clubs that played live music are also big at that time. This idea that movies didn't have anything to compete with is pretty stupid, they just had different things to compete with.

Gone with the Wind being turned into a movie was also a huge event at the time, it's still in the top 200 for worldwide gross. When the domestic is adjusted for inflation the only other movie from the 30s in the top 200 is Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, which was another huge movie at that time. Also, here's someone that tried to adjusted the worldwide, which bumps Avatar (a movie from 2009) up to number 2 on the adjusted scale.

[Deep_Sleeper]

I was looking forward to the Avengers establishing itself as the bigger movie between itself and Harry Potter. The biggest Harry Potter movie has been thoroughly trounced by the Avengers!

Way to go, Marvel.

[WaveHeater]

@Waveheater

Theatrical movies back then had the following advantages:

-Much longer theatrical runs compared to today's movies. The reason why is probably because near 100% of the revenue came from the theatrical release, so studios would let a movie ride out in theaters as long as possible. Look below in bold for another reason.

-Movies back then didn't have home video, digital, Pay-Per-View, or premium cable channel releases 6 months after their release, so the only way people could re-watch a movie they liked would be to go back to the theater over and over.

-Even for the movies that came out when VHS were popular, you would still have to wait at least a year before it came out on video anyway, so a lot people probably wouldn't have the patience to wait for the home release. Today, it's common for people to be selective about which movies they go to the theater for, and which ones watch on netflix, because the gap home video release window is much smaller. Safe house, is good example, it came out Feb 10, and will be out on dvd this week, only a 4 month gap. If movies release on home video this quickly, then a lot of people won't feel compelled to run out and watch it, but instead wait a reasonable amount of time before they can watch it in the comfort of their own home.

- Competing entertainment mediums like video games can distract the target audience from spending their time/money to go out to the theater for movies they aren't heavily anticipating. One $60 video game can give someone at least 8-20 hours of single player entertainment, multiplayer can provide 100's. A movie would have to be pretty special to get that person to spend $12 + overpriced popcorn & soda on 2 hours of entertainment, much less watch it a second, third, or fourth time.

-Internet piracy

How do you account for such a diverse range of decades in the top 50 Adjusted movies? There is no 1 era that dominates the list from the 30's to 2000s.



Today movies compete with DVD releases, internet and Video games, back then it was Books, Play's and radio broadcasts. The Movie theatre was a novelty for folks who lived in big cities, You didnt have a 4,000 theatre nation wide release.

[wildclaw]

I'm pretty sure people could buy 16mm prints of movies to watch at home. I'm also pretty sure studios owned there own theatre when Gone with the Wind came out, so to see it you may have had to go to a MGM theatre. Stage shows were still huge back then, and theatre companies would traveling around. Clubs that played live music are also big at that time. This idea that movies didn't have anything to compete with is pretty stupid, they just had different things to compete with.

Gone with the Wind being turned into a movie was also a huge event at the time, it's still in the top 200 for worldwide gross. When the domestic is adjusted for inflation the only other movie from the 30s in the top 200 is Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, which was another huge movie at that time. Also, here's someone that tried to adjusted the worldwide, which bumps Avatar (a movie from 2009) up to number 2 on the adjusted scale.

How big was the 16mm market for films back then compared to the home video market of the past ~30 years? I said the studios were making closer to 100% of there revenue off the theatrical release compared to today, where movies make a big chunk of their money off of home video, PPV, Premium cable deals, Basic Cable deals, network tv deals, rental, and the digital download market.

Studios make less % off of a movie's theatrical revenue the longer it's in theaters, so it's now in their best interest to cut down the theatrical run as soon as the percentages goes against their favor, which is usually 3-6 months average. As good as Avatar did in theaters, the movie still came out on DVD 4 months after release, because they wanted to capitalize on people double dipping for the $20-30 dvd/blu-ray where they get a bigger chunk of the revenue compared to ticket sales.

We have still have clubs, and live theater, plus concerts, live sports events(Basketball, Baseball, Football, Boxing, MMA, etc...), comedy clubs, and other entertainment options besides the ones that I listed, vying for people's attention. I think the competition has only increased for today's theatrical movies because there are superior, equivalent, or cheaper alternatives of entertainment to indulge in.

I just don't see this adjusted for inflation talk as cut and dry as you seem. Sure, I can buy that Gone with the wind was the most massive theatrical run, but that movie, and many others that came out pre-DVD, were released during a long era when much more stock was placed in the movies original run over all else.

[the goddamn batman]

Way to go, Marvel.

yes, congrats to you, child company of giant parent corporation. you did it. you made huge amounts of money. suck it... other corporations?

sorry, I just think it's odd that people cheer on corporate identities.

[J. Robb]

sorry, I just think it's odd that people cheer on corporate identities.

Especially Disney.

[GokaiRed]

Marvel... as in Marvel Studios, who hired Joss Whedon, who wrote and directed the film... did a good job in bringing all of the elements together to make a genuinely good movie, regardless of whatever financial gain that motivated it, right?

Congratulating them is more apt than congratulating whoever it was that put together the Transformers sequels, which I don't even think deserve the kind of praise they get, financially or otherwise.

[Jake V]

yes, congrats to you, child company of giant parent corporation. you did it. you made huge amounts of money. suck it... other corporations?

sorry, I just think it's odd that people cheer on corporate identities.

Yeah, it's so silly to recognize the success of something you like.

[icctrombone]

Maybe , but the worst thing for a fan is to see is a favorite piece of fiction tank in the box office. It was kinda sad the way the Superman movies of the 70's and 80's went away. Success means movies continue to be made.

[Simbob4000]

Yeah, it's so silly to recognize the success of something you like.

It is silly for people to get onto the internet and thank Marvel for the movie, I thought is was silly when people were coming on here thanking Joss Whedon and saying things like: way to go. But at least he's a person...sure, corporations have personhood, but they aren't literally people.

[Prodigy X]

It is silly for people to get onto the internet and thank Marvel for the movie, I thought is was silly when people were coming on here thanking Joss Whedon and saying things like: way to go. But at least he's a person...sure, corporations have personhood, but they aren't literally people.

Actually, they are. And it doesn't matter. Continued success means a continuation of what we like and want to see.