AVATAR - Highest grossing film of all time
A few weeks ago I found myself in the projection booth of an Imax theater, (along with several other of my geek buddies) of one of the most advanced projection booth on the planet. And as I looked out through the window over the audience, I noted that it was a packed house. Here it was just days before Avatar was being pulled out of the theaters to be replaced by Alice in Wonderland and they were still selling out shows on weeknights to a nearly 3 month old movie.
After being yanked out of 3-D screens nationwide, Avatar’s weekly gross – which had held steady for quite some time – dropped dramatically. As it turns out, people were, as Cameron had long surmised, paying again and again to get the immersive 3-D experience; going on a cinematic theme park ride for the third or fourth time. But the ride’s existence at the park was cut short because there simply aren’t enough 3-D screens in the world yet to support multiple, big draw 3-D movies. Immediately FOX and Cameron began to speak about a possible Fall re-release of the film (when the window would be open without a big budget 3-D film to interfere) and even have tossed around the notion of cutting scenes back into the film.
Of course, despite 40 minutes of deleted footage, Cameron only wants to put 10 minutes back in – because 170 minutes is as long as IMAX can support . Besides, why wouldn’t Cameron want his film re-released in the best possible theater? Avatar is the highest grossing movie of all time – the 14th highest when adjusted for inflation against films that enjoyed sometimes decades of re-releases – but its run wasn’t done yet. It had not, as some bitter bloggers have noted this week, run its course. It was still making more money every week than most other new releases. But it looks like FOX and Cameron have a small, but profitable window waiting for them to shake out any interest left.
My question is this: now that every studio is turning their tent-pole releases into 3-D projects, whether before or after filming, how long can the current screen
limitations allow for an Avatar? FOX wasn’t happy the their film was bumped out of theaters despite still making money – and many theaters weren’t happy to see that steady income go away in lieu of a gamble that might not pay off in the long run. Right now many people are excited about the coming stream of 3-D content, and while industry folk seem to be writing piece after piece denouncing the rising trend of 3-D, it isn’t in any way diminishing real interest in the films.
There are a limited amount of screens in this country capable of showing 3-D movies. It requires expensive pure silver screens, top of the line digital projectors and often eats up the largest seating areas in a Cineplex. What’s going to happen when the weekly summer tent-poles that pop in, dominate the chart for a week or two and then slowly fade away over the course of a few weeks all instead begin fighting over the same handful of screens in a given area? What will happen if movies can only secure a 2 week 3-D run – or worse, can’t book a screen at all because another company has booked them up by locking in their release date a year or two in advance?
This is the next, big, ugly trend you’ll see us writing about, folks. The 3-D Wars. You think the studios can get ugly now? Wait until the question isn’t “who made the better or more marketable movie” and becomes “Who can book all the 3-D screens first?”
Jonathan C Rayos
CEO || Founding Partner
http://www.filmemerge.com
