Yes, it should be based on tickets sold, not how much the tickets cost.

Yes and no. The number of tickets sold is a good indicator, but you cannot discount ticket prices. A movie that cost the average viewer $6 and sold a million tickets isn't really much different than one that sells tickets @ $7 and sells 900000 tickets.

We also have to think about the changing of society. In the past, going to see a good movie more than once at the theater was commonplace. In the current day, with technology as it is, most people will only see a movie one time when it is in the theater, then will buy it after it is on DVD because they liked it so much

I woul agree, total ticket sales would be more accurate.....

While I agree it would be a closer measure of success to count actual tickets sold - it's still not really a fair comparison.

Back in 1939, people couldn't wait it for to come out and watch it on Video/DVD/Blu-ray etc. The only way to see it was in theatres - and more importantly still, the only way to see it again was to go back.

Are we going to start rolling video/dvd sales into the numbers as well? - what about rentals and digital downloads? Given you don't know how many people are watching at home even that wouldn't give a true representation.

I think it's fair to say you can't really compare and by any measure both movies have been amazingly successful.

All taken into account, #21 adjusted for inflation according to boxofficemojo. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

Not a bad run for only seven weeks. I think it has a chance to get to the top spot even adjusted over the course of time.

@skyraker - LOL, stupid delayed comment posting. Your comment hadn't appeared when I posted. :)

Yes!!!!

I have been saying this for years to anyone who would listen. It's actually my main pet peeve with North American cinema.

It keeps the focus on the MONEY side of film instead of the ART side - keeps everyone thinking about budgets and how much the film "grossed".

Look at video games, comics, books, shows, plays... do we usually know what the budget is, or how much money they made? No. They always talk "units sold" or tickets sold.

It also creates a false perception of what is popular. The main reason this practice continues is pure marketing. Film companies want to constantly break records so that they can declare "AVATAR #1 ROXORZ!"

Don't get me started...

*sigh* (/RANT)

You know, I haven't even seen the movie, and based on what I've heard, it doesn't really sound like much from a writing or storytelling perspective.

That having been said.. I don't get what people are b****ing about when it comes to the inflation thing. I didn't hear anybody complaining about this (much less headlines being devoted to it) when "Titanic" or "The Dark Knight" broke the record. And, as for the higher-priced 3D tickets.. people are willing to pay it. End of story. That's all that matters.

There are lists out there of highest-grossing movies, best-attended movies, etc.. the highest-grossing lists are the only ones that make headlines, that's the way it's always been, and as far as I've seen, no one's ever made a stink about it until now.

This is a political thing. End of story. The liberal/conservative divide has become so wide (and so bitterly contested) since Obama's election that news outlets, from Yahoo and SciFiWire to Entertainment Weekly and other newsmags, are scrambling to kowtow to the conservative contingent by grandly acknowledging all the "caveats" inherent in the "No. 1" branding.

Again, these caveats have always been present, and they've never been made much of before. The political angle is the only reason they're being exploited now.

Current trends in society's viewing habits are impritant, but you also have to take into account the fact that there is a far bigger population now than there was in the time of Gone With The Wind or Star Wars. So Avatar still has a big advantage there and it sort of evens itself out.

A lot of people are pointing this out, but something no one is pointing out is that that figure only considers money made in the USA. Why is that figure relevant?

Worldwide is what counts.

And that is certainly true in the case of Avatar, which has done 70% ($1.4bn) of its business outside of the US. Star Wars, on the other hand, did 60% of its business in the US.

Adjusted for inflation, Star Wars' worldwide is roughly $2.1 billion. Feel free to correct that if I'm a little off. I did it in my head and I'm not the greatest mathematician.

And Avatar's worldwide is currently $2.03 billion - and still increasing - so, realistically, Avatar is going to take the #2 adjusted for inflation spot fairly soon.

It'd need to do over $3 billion to beat Gone With the Wind's worldwide. I don't see that happening. But hey, #2 is pretty damn good.

Quit being so insular, America!

Counting ticket sales have their problems too. Star Wars didn't have to compete with the internet and Gone with the Wind didn't have to worry about cable TV. Avatar had greater competition in terms of media options plus it was released during a world wide recession when people are less likely to go see a movie with high ticket prices.

And the fact that the higher ticket price actually causes the number of tickets soled to decrease doesnt come in to play at all in your calculations does it? And like I said before, all you people just ignore things like

The Internet not being around when all of those other movies were in the theater. Meaning no downloaded movies (Avatar is the most downloaded movie in history)

There not being any dvds and in some cases not even vhs (some of those movies are OLD!) Todays hometheaters make allot of people stay at home most of the time instead of going to the movies. People renting, buying and downloading movies today is a huge disadvantage for todays movies if you just look at the number of tickets soled and the cash they earned, or in this case didnt earn.

How about the fact that all those top movies that are in front of Avatar, and Titanic for that matter, were re-released. Some of them multiple times. Like the number one on your precious list, Gone with the wind. That was re-released like 5 times.

And the small thing that those numbers (tickets sold) by the old movies are questionable. There are many that say that those numbers were exaggerations by the studios at that time.

The fact that people and media, yes you are also included in that group SciFi Wire, dont even mention all those advantages that the old movies had over todays movies is just shameful. Why do people feel the need to attack everything that becomes successful?? "The Da Vinci Code" became one of the most soled books in history and when that happened people bashed the author and the book. When the Harry Potter series became successful people bashed it, when The Dark Knight became successful allot of people bashed it and NOW we have people bashing Avatar and dragging it down because it became a huge success.

Why?! Can anyone answer that? Why do people feel the need to bash something that becomes successful and that doesnt fit their taste?

none of those movies are in MY top 10.
so the system is obviously flawed.

Basing it on tickets sold doesn't take into account the higher world population that we have now. It also doesn't account for all the small theaters that have closed or all the megaplexes that have opened. There is no "fair" or "correct" way of calculating this stuff. Avatar has made more money than any other theatrical release EVER. Put as many footnotes after that as you like, but it's still true.

correction, Gone With The Wind was re-released 7 times. It was re-released in 1947, 1954, 1961, 1967, 1971, 1989 and 1998. Things like picture quality and format were improved on it to justify the re-releases.

But nobody in the media or among the "bashers" ever care to aknowledge that fact.

JoshP:

so what? That does not prove its a quality film, or popular, or least of all validate your reasons for liking it when weighed against the critics.

It just proves the balance sheets for the studio might look good. So unless you own stock in FOX, why should we care?

PS: I enjoyed Avatar.
PPS: go team Coco!

I fail to see the value in comparing the box office numbers of a film released 7 weeks ago to a film released 71 years ago. Compare GwtW's first 7 weeks with Avatar's first 7 weeks, and I think you're onto something. But any other comparison is meaningless.

Oh I agree, number of tickets is the immutable measure of how popular a movie is, the $$$ value ao a ticket will always change, but the # of tickets that get sold will always be the same.

Okay, here's a new perspective on the issue: When only counting individual ticket sales (which is obviously the only way to measure popularity-- the only thing that really matters when talking about how "big" a movie is)... when ONLY counting ticket sales "Avatar" is STILL the biggest movie in over a decade (since "Titanic") and it's only HALF way through it's scheduled run in theaters! That certainly says something!! But it goes even further: There are only TWO other films of the last 30 some-odd years that have sold more tickets thus far-- "Star Wars: Episode I" and "Jurassic Park".... and "Avatar" is poised to overtake them all, especially when considering the likelihood that its run will be extended or re-released.

So with that said "Avatar" will probably be the BIGGEST movie of the last thirty years.

That's still a pretty huge achievement, regardless of any other facts.

Satisfied?

@SamusekTDS: Actually the amount of money made does prove that Avatar is at least popular. You cant deny that. Popular doesnt make something good or bad, its just popular.

SO WHAT! Even considering ONLY ticket sales, which I agree is the only way to measure how "big" a movie is (by it's popularity) "Avatar" will STILL be the biggest movie of the last 30 some-odd years by the time it's done!! THIRTY YEARS!!! (check the facts)

I'm sorry but that's a pretty HUGE achievement, no matter how you look at it.

Shall we leave it at that?

Instead of trying to explain something that makes pefect sense... could you guys try to explain the need for fanboys to rabidly defend their favorite film to the point of ignoring common sense?

Of course Star Wars has sold more tickets, it has been released how many times now?

What else was playing when Gone With the Wind came out?

Does any of this really keep anyone from enjoying any of these really great movies?

@asfm: you cannot calculate worldwide totals for inflation based on US dollars. The rest of the world does not use US dollars and the value of US dollars has caried greatly in the past century, nor do ticket prices overseas increase at the same rate as US ticket prices. The $2.1 billion you came up for Star Wars is totally meaningless.

Mochlod: +1

Nikst: But thats my point - it DOESN'T prove that. Not when you factor in disproportionate to inflation ticket prices and the significant amount of high-cost IMAX tickets sold for this movie.

Show me figures with total tickets sold, amount of screens it aired on, and population increase stats and we'll talk.

I think it would be interesting to see the total number of tickets sold as a percentage of the world population at the time. Yes, this discounts repeat vieweing. But, it is a number that removes money valuation completely. Purely how many tickets sold compared to how many were alive. Population increases on an exponential scale, but make it a ratio/percentage, and we have an interesting talking point.

YES!!! Absolutely... I've been saying this for years!

@Tony,

But we definitely had a row here over whether 2009's STAR TREK numbers were meaningful.

@TJ9000

You'll probably find this more pertinent:

http://boxofficemojo.com/forums/viewtopic.htm?t=82668&sid=632d11ce1cc179b02320a9131bb2091f

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,763541,00.html

@asfm

Couldn't agree with you more and it was very entertaining watching the Paramount hype machine build up STAR TREK's modest domestic blip into the best performing Trek picture of all time.

@Alverant & Nikst ,

People keep throwing that "internet" word around like it is the sole embodiment of "piracy" which is the real issue. STAR WARS was the most pirated film on videotape (Beta and VHS) in the 70s. But piracy was an issue even before video tape. Outfits used to knock-off illegal film copies from circulating prints fairly regularly. So there's nothing special about the "internet". It's different and yet the same issue: piracy.

And Nikst, the studios control all the numbers released even today so the "exagerations" didn't just end with the cessation of reporting the number of tickets sold by the studios.

Tickets sold are still subject to manipulation. There's nothing illegal about a studio taking profits from an uber performing film and buying tickets to prop up the "popularity" of their marginally performing ones still in the theaters.

First, Avatar has made a ton of money. No one questions that. The makers and fans of Avatar can celebrate the success of this movie. They should.
Second, anyone that merely questions Avatar’s historical significance is not necessarily a “hater”. There are many logical and reasonable arguments to say that this is not the most popular, most important, best, or most successful movie of all time.
Third, the world was not the same 70 years ago or even 40 years ago or even 20 years ago for that matter. The world has gotten smaller. Can you imagine Gone with the Wind being “released worldwide” 70 years ago? The fact that Avatar was release everywhere all at once is something that people could have only imagined 70 years ago. In light of the changes in the world, it is therefore impossible to compare movies based upon their worldwide gross receipts from these different eras. Not to mention the constantly fluctuating currency exchange rates make it extremely difficult to put an actual number on worldwide receipts for movies of previous eras (when they simply did not keep such records). This is why all the records for the “All-Time” movie records use domestic receipts.
Fourth, there are people that say we should still compare gross receipts for movies from different eras, but we should not adjust for inflation. These people say that when you compare a movie of a different era with a movie of today you should not factor in inflation because other social factors (number of other entertainment options, number of other options to watch the movie other than in a theater, recessions…) somehow “balance out” the inflation. These people are all morons. (I am sorry if you are one of them, but it is true.) Let any of these people come up with a universally accepted mathematical formula to take all of these things into consideration and have them figure out the actual numbers. It simply can’t be done.
Fifth, movie studios do not release figures for the number of tickets sold. That would certainly be a better way to compare movies from different ears, but any numbers on tickets sold are simply educated guesses.
Sixth, if people insist on using terms like “all-time” when describing records, then they should adjust for inflation. I just paid $15.00 to see Avatar. I paid less than $5.00 to see Star Wars when I was I a kid. My grandfather probably paid $0.30 to see Gone with the Wind. Comparing gross receipts from 2010 with those 70 years ago is not fair. It is simply not accurate unless you add the caveat that other movies were higher grossing when you factor in inflation.

@Miraxian and SamusekTDS: There are ALLOT more things that come in to play than total tickets sold, amount of screens it aired on, and population increase stats. Check my first post on this thread for more details but the quick answer is: Internet, VHS, DVD, Cable-TV, Hometheater, number of movies available. All theese things were not available when Gone With the Wind was released and re-released (the first 4-6 times). Even StarWars had the benefit of not having most of those things around. So basically there is no point in comparing the movies in any way. But thinking that inflation and that the number of tickets sold is the only things that matter is as wrong as it can possibly get. There are way more things to consider and in the end, no matter how you calculate you cant make a right estimate of which movie is nr 1.

But Avatar has the largest number (money) so far and that stands. Trying to take that away from Avatar is just silly. Because like I said, both todays movies and the old ones have plenty of guns (arguments) at there disposal.

@Son of a Maui Portagee: Saying that Internet and VHS-copying is the same is just ignorant. Im sorry but thats just what it is. Dont compare what the Internet brings to the "piracy table" with VHS. VHS isnt even a factor until the movies have done there thing on the big screen. Sure you could get bad copies made by people videotaping it in the movies but thats nothing in comparison with the DVDrips you can get a few days after the release of a movie on the big screen today. Sometimes even before the release. And to be honest not even VHS was around when Gone With The Wind was out and doing its thing.

Yes! Absolutely the figures should be based on equal terms... one of the easiest being tickets sold... or bodies in seats... that's the only way to do it - I'm so sick of unadjusted $ figures - they've got to stop that!

To those that are complaining that Gone with the Wind didn't compete with DVDs, Cable and the internet for people's money - don't forget that in 1939 there were a lot less people! I think butts in the seats are all that should count, not the $$ raked in.

Nikst: again... so what? We are talking about pure asses in seats here.

Ok, yes, I will concede that gone with the wind is unfair because ppl saw it multiple times in re-releases etc vs now there is less likelihood w rental sales and tv (+p2p, but thats a whole other debate)...

So what I'm really talking about is not to compare to films of another era but the one-upmanship that occurs in THIS one. "Transformers 2 is #1" "Spiderman!" "biggest weekend ever" "biggest 4 day gross ever"

BLEUGH!

Gross indeed...

@InsomniacNightmares,

I think your Domestic numbers reasoning falls apart when one points that it includes Canada whose currency is NOT based on the U.S.s dollar.

@Nikst

It is ignorant to read what I wrote and come to the conclusion that I equated the internet to VHS. I said it is DIFFERENT but the issue of rampant piracy is the same.

And you are making the same mistake of inflating the importance of the internet to the pervasiveness of piracy by not taking into account the increases in population, number of authorized circulating prints, etc. that the inflation ignorers are doing with ticket prices.

VHS piracy was the only way the USSR got to view Hollywood movies in its era and a major reason why Russia is piracy central today.

And I envy your pirate sources because most of what I've seen that passes for pirated movies on the internet IS equivalent to a VHS copy.

Also you are woefully ignorant of history, if you think GWTW and other films of its era didn't have piracy problems with unauthorized celluloid prints being made from the studios' circulating prints.

As far as it goes, Avatar is more likely to be seen by more people than 'GTW', not including tv release. It is just the nature of the business that most movies are viewed more at home than in the theatres. VHS was a god-send for me and my wife, we could go to the movies at home, stop the film when the kids got obnoxious or needed to be cleaned up, changed, etc., then continue the film. Now with dvd's, I can watch the movie on the way to/from work, while traveling, etc..

Personally, I prefer watching old movies on movie screens. They were made for that and the directors did have to make adjustments for eventual tv viewers, unlike modern film makers. The detail that just blends into the background on tv, even in something as visually stunning as 'LoTR' just pops on a movie screen.

Is it a ground-breaking film? Not quite, dozens of westerns had basically the same plot, like 'Dances With Wolves', 'Comanche' and others.

What is ground breaking is that it ushers a new/old technology into the world of movie viewing. Theatre owners have made the decision to invest in modern 3-d projector systems which will increase the number of 3-d movies being made, as we have already seen.

It is much the same as 'The Wizard of Oz'. It was't the first movie made in color but it was the one which rode the crest at a time where more theatre owners were willing to invest in color projectors. Once that happened, they started demanding more color movies and Hollywood obliged.

As far as complaining about the higher Imax prices, don't! Even 'Avatar' has discount showings which pretty much equals out the limited number of IMAX tickets sold.

We actually need both ticket and earnings to get a better view of how popular a movie is, while it is in theatres. Don't give a dang over earnings from DVD's, Blue Ray or even Tv viewing.

I would love to have them switch to tickets sold. The reason we've seen such a huge shift in the movie industry and people's viewing habit is because of the drive towards the almighty dollar. Ticket prices have far exceeded inflation, and the way movies are shown in theaters has changed greatly in the last few decades.
If success of a movie were based on eyes viewing it, not dollars in the bank more than maybe we would see a move back to the days where going to a movie was affordable.

@Son of a Maui Portagee: Oh come on. We are comparing todays movies with the old ones (even though we shouldnt) and with that in mind GWTW had NO piracy problems in COMPARISON with todays movies. celluloid prints? You really think that people preferred that to going to the movies? (if they had the choice) really?

And you are ignoring what I am saying as well. I never said that the increases in population, number of authorized circulating prints, etc. doesnt count. If you bothered to look at the last part of almost all of my posts I say that you cant compare these movies because they both have good arguments for and against them. The only reason I posted in this article was because nobody seemed to care about the fact that the old movies had ALLOT of advantages that todays movies didnt have. They only talked about the inflation favoring Avatar and nothing else. That ticked me off.

And you dont have to envy my piratesources. The most common torrent pages has them, loads of movies in good quality. So if you dont have them its because you havent looked for them.

@SamusekTDS: I had answered to your last post earlier but it got deleted for some reason, didnt use any foul language or insults so I dont really know why it got deleted. Anyway, what I said in it was that you must be ignoring what I am saying because the fact that people have allot more alternatives these days with things like having both the ability to download and having hometheaters makes people chose not to go to the movies or be very selective of what they see on the big screen. Not to mention that most people chose not to rewatch movies in the theaters unless the really, really, REALLY liked the movie. They choose instead to buy it, rent it or download it. All this adds up to LESS ASSES IN THE SEATS.

Thats why Im saying that the number of ASSES in the seats are not a good measure of comparison between movies. At least not when you compare movies with allot of years between them.

What I am trying to say is this: you cant/shouldnt compare movies that have allot of years between them ( Im talking about comparing success). Compare, if you must, movies that are from roughly the same period. Like for example the movies from 99-today with each other, 76-89 with each other, 90-98 and so forth. Or just dont compare. Have your own opinions on which movies are the best and respect that other people most likely wont have the same opinions.

@Gallowglass,

As an A/V geek from way back am I with you there.

It's like the 2009 STAR TREK movie. Abrams mastered it onto 35mm film. Its CGI was designed to create artificial film grain and lens flares to match that of the 35mm film principal photography. Most people who think they've seen that movie really haven't seen it as it was artistically created. The digital theaters (including IMAX) and the discs all run the images from that master through DNR that scrubs the grain out of the images.

The BD enjoys the absurdity that the artificial grain of the CGI fooled the DNR in some segments so that the CGI looks more like film than the actual filmed parts do in that xfer.

To me, the best way to say a movie is a hit is to count movies sales on individual tickets sold NOT $ amount. Because ticket prices have done nothing but go up over the last 30 years. It would seem then and only then would we know how good a movie was by the amount of tickets sold.

Well I went last Friday to see what all the hype was about and watched Avatar in 3D. The movie was worth watching for the 3D which was pretty cool. However, as I was watching the credits roll by at the end of the movie, I could not stop thinking that Jake was a fraking traitor to the whole human race and should be air locked as fast as possible.

I agree. Here in New Zealand, standard ticket proces are $15.50. To see Avatar in 3D is $18.50.

@Nikst

I get it that you understand inflation. I just think you are turning a blind eye to it with respect to the inflation of piracy that you blame wholeheartedly on the internet for its large numbers.

Back in GWTW's time releases were on a much more regional basis even domestically with far fewer circulating film copies of that of future times. AVATAR had 3,461 simultaneously copies (most not actual film either) circulating domestically. I guesstimate GWTW would have been lucky if it had 20 in its first U.S. region release. This is why you so readily dismiss celluloid piracy because you don't realize the economic impact of one extra copy running rogue screenings in an unauthorized theater to the economic model back then. I assume you were just being coy about putting the film canister in the home?

I'm beginning to suspect that it isn't the quality of your torrents but that I have a more discriminating eye. But it isn't as if picture quality was all that significant a factor when VHS piracy skyrocketed either.

To summarize: I contend piracy was growing (inflating if you will) whether the internet existed or not. All the internet offered was a way for piracy to keep up with improving (inflating if you will) authorized theater (and soon to be direct to home) distribution numbers.

I don't know how many times it must be said, but inflation really doesn't count for anything.

A ticket price increase makes up for the loss of tickets sold.

The only true way to actually count inflation in is to make the ticket prices the exact same as it was when Gone With The Wind was released. Different ticket price/different period of time when released. All this stuff is accounted for.

If you really want a close, but inaccurate comparrison divide the amount of tickets sold by the price of tickets. Another words today a ticket price of 1 person is 10 bucks that's about 2-3 people going to see Gone With The Wind years ago. But because of high ticket prices some people won't go to the theater so you see how inaccurate this stuff gets.

Sounds to me someone's just upset that Avatar beat Titanic and is making up any excuses he/she can to make it seem like it isn't.

I've been thinking about this for weeks. Living in the UK we've seen an increase in the price of all tickets by not less than 15% in the past 12-18 months.

It's no wonder the cinema business is booming. It's not (necesarily) because more people are going to the cinema. It simply costs more to go!

In case anyone is confused as to how studios in 1939 could start with 20 copies and end up with 156 copies in its 8th week, it's because studios would bootstrap the costs of film prints based on the successes of opening and following weeks, i.e. printing more copies as the demand increased and the profits allowed. This was because color film prints were very expensive and they'd take a bath being stuck with 156 prints that tuned out to be a turkey on its opening weekend.

But I freely admit the data is scarce to me as to how the studio actually plotted out GWTW's 1939 release.

@Son of a Maui Portagee: Once again, I AM NOT TURNING A BLIND EYE. I am simply trying to turn attention to the fact that the older movies had allot of advantages over todays movies, and yes I know vice versa can be said. But thats part of the problem as I see it. People and media are ONLY putting articles together that bash the thought of Avatar being the most successful movie in history and ignore the FACT that its not that simple. Inflation doesn't prove anything when you put all other things that we have talked about here in to consideration. I never said that the Internet was the only thing responsible for piracy but the advantage/accessibility that it provided dwarfed everything else, DVD,VHS,celluloid. The Internet made allot of things take a giant leap forward. And if piracy is something good or bad depends on how you look at it. Allot of movies that normally would have been forgotten and hidden among the big blockbusters can with piracy get allot of attention and make allot more money than it normally would have. The negative aspects I dont have to talk about since thats pretty much all that gets talked about in the media.

As far as the torrents goes, DVD quality copies come out fairly quickly. Only if you want HD quality do you have to wait a bit to get it. Otherwise no matter how discriminating you are, your standard of quality will be met.

I think it's unfair to allow films that got MULTIPLE RELEASES to use the follow-ups as part of their box office evaluation. It's not to say you shouldn't count re-releases or home video or streaming or cable but you have to classify the total total as different then the initial release run. Number of tickets is the most accurate barometer for popularity and should be the baseline.

how many tickets a movie sells should have a more prominent place in movie news. how much $ a film has made is still noteworthy, but tickets-sold is a much more accurate and legitimate form of determining a movies true success with audiences

Everyone is harping on ticket sales, but no one is taking into account competition from other forms of entertainment.

What did Gone with the Wind have to contend with? Radio, books, plays?

Star Wars had what? Three major networks, a hand full of syndicated stations, very primitive hand held and arcade games (by today’s standards) and no internet.

Even with the higher prices charged for movie attendance, what has been attained by Avatar so far should be applauded, not derided because it upsets some Star Wars fanatic, or one who has not seen or did not like the film. No is trying to supplant your favorite film, whatever it may be. So how about a little tolerance for something that keeps the Science Fiction/Fantasy Genre viable, and brace for all the bad clones that are sure to follow.

Just saw another article about 4 hours ago that basically says the same thing in other words and actually provides a chart. With that being said.

Why Avatar is REALLY the box-office champ:
Because people like you are still talking about it isn't.

This article tries to downplay a movie that has sold world-record box office totals in just seven weeks by comparing its total take, adjusted downwards due to various considerations, but not re-adjusted upwards due to other considerations, against the total take (adjusted upwards) of other movies that have been out for decades.

Why exactly?

Competition for a similar audience, perhaps?

Gone with the Wind, when accounting for inflation, should be #1. Here are some things to take under consideration:

When Gone with the Wind came out, a "blockbuster" would remain in theaters for almost an entire year. Today they only remain for a month if that.

Most theaters had one actual theater. There were no 24+ screen multiplexes in the 30's.

About a 1/10 of movies were released per year in relation to how much crap is released now.

Bottom line, Avatar did it with way more competition, a recession, and in less time. Take that inflation equation.

Put simply, Avatar's unique box-office accomplishment is that it is the first movie to convince this many people to pay that much to see it.

Ticket sales, and even that more accurate measurement should be factored by size of population somehow.

@Athenaeus,

It depends on what you are looking for in comparison. If you are making the claim that a picture is the most popular picture of "all time" then I don't have a problem with including multiple releases. It's not as if all movies have equal runs anyway. Some close after 3 days, others after 3 weeks, most after 3 months.

For example:

https://secure.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=mummy3.htm

https://secure.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek11.htm

THE MUMMY 3 made $401,128,639 worldwide in only 56 days while 2009's STAR TREK took 147 days to take in only $385,494,555 a year later.

Ticket sales are only half the story.

How about accounting for the population increase as well? Since the worlds population has more than tripled in that time, we should have a system that calculates the number of tickets sold adjusted to the population and reported as a percentage.

Any argument that movies should be bumped up because of the decreasing popularity of the medium are ridiculous.

I will retell the same argument. Black Russian codpieces are the most popular codpiece in history because 100% of current codpiece aficionados now wear Black Russian codpieces... all three of them.

It is hard to argue that the current X is more popular than previous X because a larger percentage of a smaller group likes it.

No, I don't. Ticket sales don't take into account repeat-viewings. I think what people really want to know is how many individuals paid to see that movie. Without that distinction, ticket sales are just as meaningless as the gross. Interestingly enough, though, knowing that the world was prepared to spend $2 billion during a time of economic depression to see a movie is fascinating. Failing to report that is no better than failing to report how many people went to see it.

You're not serving the masses by replacing one broken group of statistics with another just-as-broken set of statistics.

This doesn't take into account that Gone With the Wind has been re-released into theaters about six times since 1939, and that tally draws from all of them.

Avatar sucks.

@Alverant:

Your logic is faulty in suggesting that Avatar's performance is more impressive that GWTW because Avatar was released during a recession. GWTW was released during the Great Depression, which didn't end in America until WWII started. If you think we have it bad now...

Anyway, this is an interesting discussion but I'm more of the mind that you can't fairly compare films of different periods. Too many variables.