It's just like the original Star Wars.

You have insane cult like fans who see it every day for about 2 weeks straight. I'm sorry, but there is no way enough "different" people have seen Star Wars VII to have grossed 600M domestically this fast.

If you look at Avatar, it was at 250M at this point, but ended up with 750M domestically. Which means so many people went to see it "Word of Mouth" I remember my Mother and Father and Grandparents saw Avatar.

I know lots of people in my everyday life who haven't seen Star Wars VII yet, but it's still grossing 29M per day. Then I have 3 buddies who have seen it 10 times each already.

I love Batman and Superman, but there's no way I'm going to see BvS 10 times in theaters. Geez, there is a thing called obsession.

Um, no.

That isn't even a competent response to what I said. It isn't a yes or no question.

It is a yes or no question.

You're quite demonstrably wrong, so "no", the box office is not skewed.

That seems like a pretty straightforward assessment of facts, but it seems to go without saying that people are going to see it again. Star Wars is the type of movie that drags out people who usually don't go to movies anymore (like you saying your parents and even grandparents saw Avatar) but it's also likely to inspire repeat viewings among the more "fan" fans of the movie.

I've never really thought it to be claimed that the entire weight of its gross are first-time viewings so...yeah, there's a thing called obsession but who cares? It still counts in the gross. What I'm seeing a lot of is people who've already seen it going for a second/third time with people who have not so they don't miss out on the theater experience.

It's The Dark Knight all over again, but that's not a bad thing.

Not really. I mean, you are aware that Star Wars appeal isn't just exclusive to nerds, right anon?

The cool thing about Avatar is that it did it over such a long time. It had a theatrical run of like 34 weeks (2/3 of a year!). And it became the biggest film ever domestically despite only making $77 million in its first week. It actually made MORE in its second week, and it made at least $70m for like 6 or 7 weeks in a row. It was like an avalanche. A movement.

It's funny though because I feel Avatar didn't really stand the test of time. Record breaking at the theater I guess, but I don't even remember the last time outside of today, now, I heard Avatar even referenced.

Maybe I'm biased because I didn't care for it much myself (though the violence was tear-jerking beautiful I admit) but I feel for a record breaking movie it's sort of fizzled out of the public conscious.

Maybe I'm wrong.

There's a really good article about this very question.

http://screencrush.com/back-to-pandora-why-is-avatar-forgotten/

That was a really good article! Thank you.

The author is definitely right in pointing out that Avatar's not being a sequel, prequel, or part of any property larger than itself is playing a huge role here. Nothing has happened since 2009 to remind us of the movie - and of almost no other blockbusters in recent decades can this be said.

But while this helps to explain the sea of indifference into which the film has sunk, it is by itself not sufficient. Avatar is only rare, not unique, in being a stand-alone blockbuster, and others were not so quickly forgotten. The author mentions Titanic; other counterexamples can be found among the animated films to be big successes, like The Lion King and subsequent CGI features.

The explanation the author dismisses is actually also true, I believe: Avatar is a hollow, soullessly manufactured piece of CGI bombast with unmemorable stick figure characters and an emotionally uninvolving QED plot. Its neglect today is a reflection of how few people in 2009 truly enjoyed it. (I know I was fighting to hold back the yawns by the time it finally ended.) With The Force Awakens, people who know full well the film is no masterpiece nonetheless had a great time; I remember someone telling me she watched it from start to end with an irrepressible grin on her face. If anyone told me they watched Avatar in that state I'd recommend they take a CAT scan to find out what was wrong.

an irrepressible grin on her face. If anyone told me they watched Avatar

I'd say that is exactly what many did - it was a visual feast while telling the most told myth of all time (like Star Wars did as well).

You personal opinion is yours, doesn't mean others agreed or agree with it. I happen to agree with ya but I know tons and tons of people of all ages who loved it and still love it. And who were absolutely blown away with their chins on the floor througout the screening.

as for OP - not sure how you mean it's skewed. If the question is "what number of people saw Avatar vs TFA" then ye I agree Avatar most likely wins since I'd guess (have no idea if this is true) that there are more people who rewatch TFA many times whereas Avatar got grandparents and other non-movigoing demographics into the theaters to a larger extent that TFA. But even if my guess is true - why would you consider that skewed?

There's certainly a sense in which many people were, as you put it, "blown away" by Avatar. Perhaps I was one of them. I don't doubt that the film was overwhelming; but I do doubt that being overwhelmed by it was a joyous experience.

One of the greatest thing that AVatar did was play on human psychology, or the art of mystery. Everything was so hush hush. I remember being a daily poster on the AVATAR boards then and everything was so secretive. One picture of onset in New Zealand would be big news. No one anticipated it, in fact meany were expecting it to fail spectacularly. I remember Roger Evert hating a pre screening or maybe it was the Avatar day footage and then being mesmerized by the film. In this day and age nothing is left to mystery. People have become weary. All stories are known. At least with AVATAR that wasn't the case, in some points.

I expect something similar with Avatar 2. Cameron will purposely keep everything under wraps and then it will explode.

Avatar is a hollow, soullessly manufactured piece of CGI bombast with unmemorable stick figure characters and an emotionally uninvolving QED plot. Its neglect today is a reflection of how few people in 2009 truly enjoyed it.

Of all the untrue things you've ever said, this is probably the most egregiously untrue. For one thing, the most compelling points in the article are about how Avatar was the result of a labor of love of one guy. And it's clear to anyone paying attention that there's a lot more going on in the film than special effects and action scenes. It's packed with all sorts of social and political issues that the artist clearly cares about very deeply, and the film expresses these ideas in a very entertaining way. Perhaps the film bored you because the ideology it's attacking is one that you always seem to support, but "soulless" is a word that simply can't accurately describe a film like Avatar.

Plus, the numbers simply don't back you up. If you look at Avatar's box office pattern, week by week, it's clear it was getting a huge word of mouth push. It's not like there was tons of initial hype and everyone saw it all at once and then left disappointed even though the rush to see it allowed the film to be very successful. That's exactly NOT what happened. Instead, Avatar registered at the box office in a significant way week after week after week after week, all around the world. Clearly, people were seeing it, leaving excited, and then telling their friends and family to go see it.

If you want my personal opinion on why it's been forgotten, I might actually reject that whole idea, and instead argue that it hasn't been forgotten at all. We talk about it on FG all the time, for example. But to the extent that it didn't leave a major lasting impact on pop culture, I might argue that in some ways it's a victim of its own success. It was such a huge success that it became fashionable to bash it. Plus, I think there's been a major right-wing effort to make sure it was remembered unfavorably.

The common knock against the film these days is that it was beautiful to look at but was unoriginal and had no substance. That assessment I think, is actually backwards. While it was a beautiful film, in my mind, the special effects weren't quite good enough. I think the technology to do it right was still a few years away, and some of the animation comes off a bit unnaturally. In my mind, the film's greatest strength is its originality and substance, which I think it had in spades, and was actually the more important reason that so many people around the world were able to connect with it.

Let's get your exceptionally foolish comment about ideology out of the way first. The ideology the film is attacking is one I never support, never have supported, never have in one comment I have made at any time even hinted at supporting. I can't work out if you have a lousy memory, lousy comprehension or are deliberately smearing me. If anything I'm a much more vociferous and ardent supporter of ecological awareness than you are, which might be precisely why I found Avatar's eco-flag-waving so unfelt.

That the film happened to have been a labour of love for one guy is hardly relevant here: all it shows is that Cameron pandering to his own obsessions need not produce a film any less mechanical-feeling than a director pandering to some other people's obsessions.

In another comment you said, of the film's slow build at the box office, that it wasn't so much a film as a movement. I agree. People were blown away by something the like of which they hadn't seen before, and a combination of word of mouth and positive feedback loops dragged fresh audiences into theatres week after week. And as with most crazes, the fever passed and people spent the next few years wondering what on Earth they had been thinking.

I agree with you that the film's visuals weren't quite all that, but they seemed all that in 2009. It was only when they inevitably aged that he hollow, rote plot and lack of character became exposed for all to see. (Anyone complaining the film's plot is unoriginal is, however, being silly. That complaint is always silly. Originality, or the lack of it, certainly doesn't account one way or the other for the film's popularity or subsequent neglect; nor should it.)

I like Avatar, but the Navi just are not an appealing alien design to warrant merchandise. They aren't memorable or interesting the way Star Wars aliens are.

That's what I was saying. It was more genuine.

It was an original film that defied odds.

We're certainly in full agreement on that.

I like Avatar. But the last thing I would call it would be original.

What boggles my mind is how long movies ran in theaters back in the old days. I heard movies could even run for one year. Can you imagine how long the movie played? I wonder how long Jaws or A new hope spent in theaters. Also Jurassic Park.

Star Wars played for about 1 year. At my local theater.

What boggles my mind is how long movies ran in theaters back in the old days.

There were not as many multiple screens at a theatre (many were single screened) - and for the most part only 1 or 2 theatres were playing any given title. If you wanted to see it you had to go there... it wasn't always playing at a theatre near you.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekly&id=jurassicpark.htm

46 weeks and re-release in august 94.

The lead character is a female
The second lead is a black male
Harrison Ford has top billing
It's a Disney movie
It's a fairy tale

There is literally nobody that The Force Awakens WON'T appeal to...

You DO realize that Star Wars (1977) was registered as the most watched film of all time by various cable companies and such? (Wizard of Oz was #2) and adjusting for inflation it's also the second biggest box office film of all time. Star Wars has always been considered the biggest and most popular film series of all time.

You cannot skew money.

No one is heralding that SW is getting the most unique viewers in history.

Avatar was a new thing that got people talking. Star Wars is an established franchise that has an incredibly large audience, but also some that don't care for it or even hate it. Also, Star Wars has been out for less than 2 weeks so it doesn't really surprise me that you would know people who haven't seen it yet. I'd also doubt that everyone in your life that saw Avatar saw it in the first 2 weeks of its release.

I also want to note that Avatar did get its own devoted fanbase that saw the film repeatedly. I myself know people who saw it multiple times in theaters (including someone who saw it an absurd 12 times) and am sure there were plenty of others considering its grosses. Hell, there were even news articles about people feeling incredibly depressed and suicidal because Pandora was not a real place.
Re: Star Wars VII Domestic Box Office is skewed...

That's an interesting side note.

I know plenty of ppl who've yet to watch TFA (& majority say they want to eventually), at the same time several (like myself) who've seen it more than once.
Avatar, I was still trying to explain it to ppl more than 10days after it opened. Which is a bit wild considering how well it was performing... probably also based on repeat business.

Titanic on the other hand... every single person I knew was going to watch it, either alone, or date night, or even with family. Seeing Titanic was akin to attending some live stage show like Phantom of the Opera- lots of built in buzz, geared for everyone & anyone 12 & up.

I remember countless seniors in the Titanic screenings. Cannot say the same for TFA or Avatar.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. I mean, I've seen it three times, but I'm not obsessed with it. The first time was opening night and I felt like I had to be there because I'm such a big movie nerd; the second time, I actually couldn't get out of that; and the third time, tonight, was because I'd just watched the original trilogy and felt that if I watched it again, I might like it more (and I did). But I didn't pay for any of those screenings (first and third times were fulfilled by MoviePass and the second, someone else paid).

damn i know its free but see a new fkn film, star wars is good but not 3 times in 2 weeks good. Expand your horizons a bit

I do. I watch everything.

So you're saying Star Wars needs word of mouth to get people in the seats the same way Avatar did in order to seem like it appeals to a broad audience? Uh... had you ever heard of Star Wars before this movie? It needs zero word of mouth. The terrible ones even broke box office records. Soccer moms and nursing home residents will go see Star Wars on name recognition alone. How many people went to see Avatar because of the title and nothing else?

gad wat.

That doesn't really make it "skewed". It has still made that amount of money, regardless of who is buying the tickets, and how frequently they are seeing and rewatching the film.

Well yes franchise or fanatics fan stuff have bigger box office than movie that don't.

Avatar also had lot of rewatcher, less than Titanic but still a lot of it.

I know lots of people in my everyday life who haven't seen Star Wars VII yet

You need around 33% of the people to see it only one time to do 1 billion at the domestic box office (their is around 360 million in the domestic market), so yes star wars like every movie will not be seen by the majority, at least not in theater.

This thread reeks of butthurt.

People watched Avatar and Titanic over and over again as well.

I had a friend who saw Titanic in theatres 14 times. And I know people that did that with Avatar as well.

Its no doubt a big part of how all those movies get such insane numbers.

Still doesn't stop it from being impressive for Star Wars to be smashing records the way that they are.

Well I'm not a nerd, and generally hate sci fi so much, but I freakin loved TFA and already saw it twice...TWICE!!...and I never do that for any movies...ever! Might even go for a 3rd time...but that could kill the love lolz