Yes.

Of course this doesnt make it the most popular movie, since ticket prices inflate. There's no true way imo to tell the exact most popular movie. Even ticket sales is not a true measure since the population of the USA actually increases over time. Also, beyond the inflation effect, Avatar benefitted from higher 3D ticket prices.

But still, tons of movies had the same inflation advantages Avatar did and didn't break Titanic's record. 3D prices had an effect but not more than something like ~20% (and in the end, the highest gross is the highest gross regardless how it was achieved).

A lot of movies will be 3D going forward now as well (Alice in Wondeland is the first big one) so other movies will get 3D inflation too, but I bet they wont break the record for a while.

@ superchunk

I don't hate 3-D. I actually think it's pretty cool, especially with all the advances in the tech. I liked Ice Age 3-D and I also watched Toy Story 1 & 2 in 3-D (probably go watch the 3rd one too). However, I have to be interested in a movie before I watch it. CGI doesn't draw me in, especially when it's made out to be so great you can't tell it's CGI but I can still tell it's fake.

@ Johann

I've read/watched around 10 reviews for Avatar, Spooney's was one. I always watch his stuff. He's very entertaining. Anyway, every single review had something to say about the unoriginal story and not so great dialogue, but most still insisted on going to watch the movie based on the visuals alone. Some may be able to enjoy it anyway, but I'm not one.

@ mrstickball

You wanted to know a few movies I've seen that have effects as good as Avatar. Well, I'll list just 3 right now, since it's real late.

Now some might pan this since the movie didn't do too well, didn't really like it myself, but Hulk (2003). The amount of detail that went into animating his facial expressions and his muscles under his skin was quit impressive. Unfortunately, there are definitely some times the CGI wasn't as carefully modeled as others, so his effect kinda wears off then. However, there are a few scenes in that movie that just had me impressed with how realistic he looked/moved. In those instances I was definitely more blown away than by any of the characters I have seen so far from Avatar.

As far as scenery goes, the Star Wars prequels have animated lush jungles/forests (actually environments that aren't forests should be included as well) just like Avatar. You may not stay in them for as long as you do in Avatar, so they probably don't seem as alive, but do look just as good. No one went crazy over them, probably because they weren't carrying so much hype behind them, or it might have been the lack of 3-D.

Now let's go way back to 1993, 17 years ago. Of course I'm speaking of Jurassic Park. The best effect in the movie would have to be, hands down, the T-Rex. I recently watched that movie, and I'm just amazed at how well that effect has held up, especially considering I was 9 when it first scared the crap out of me in theatres. I'd have to say it comes pretty darn close to being on par with Avatar.

@darklich13

You think you could do your inflation magic to The Sound of Music? I posted a link earlier where based on just initial US releases, it was #1. Though the guy included population growth and recent ticket sale trends. I was just kinda wondering what it is WW for just inflation.

Also for those who downplay the success of previous movies because of "lack of other entertainment", you're forgetting one major detail. Back when Gone With the Wind and The Sound of Music released, there were far far less theatres in the US (other countries as well). And of those theatres, the overwhelming majority of those had only one screen. Multiplexes didn't really get a start in the US till the mid-60's, becoming the norm in the 70's-80's. So even if some of those movies had re-releases, they probably still ended up having the same or fewer showings than today's films.

Actually, I read quite extensively about the historical context of D9 and there is a HUGE difference in racism and controlling a far more advance alien species. That scenario simply would never playout. Whereas the Avatar scenario is pretty much exactly how it would play out, well, except we'd probably steamroll them just as the D9 peoples wouldn't have let the brutatlity last and steamrolled us.

I've been doing my very best to ignore this discussion buuuut

The alien race in D9? They're the drones of their race, with little or no active minds of their own. They do almsot nothing but follow orders. That's why there's only two drones in the whole movie - the scientist and his son - which are able to take any initiative or think imaginatively. This was explained fairly early on. They're docile because that's just the makeup of their species. They're no good unless told to do something

Of course Gone with the Wind sold more tickets than titanic but with multiple release, according Imdb :

In USA :

1939, 1942, 1947, 1954, 1967, 1974, 1989...

In Australia, 5 times,

In UK, 2 times...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0031381/releaseinfo

Same for Star wars 4, of course...

Sorry, I can't find any data on Sound of Music being released outside of US.  If you can find any data please let me know, but from what I can tell it was a domestic release only. You make a very good point about theaters though.

well i love films and any WW list,however they do it,and it can never be perfect for what people have already said,but they do show you what the really big movies were and are,Avatar has done amazingly and will no doubt get competition from future 3-d blockbusters

personally i went to see avatar 3-d at my cinema and while it was a good blockbuster it was no better than T4 salvation as a film in my opinion,obviously it is a great movie going expereince for everyone with 3-d being the great new buzz as technology powers forward,and the youngsters that will see will love it,like when i saw stars wars at a young age it was and still is the best,but i'm sure older people were like meh whatever

i like a good blockbuster and avatar was a good blockbuster,personally i don't think the 3-d specs at my cinema work that well and i don't want to watch every film in 3-d,we need helmets or something don't we

you have to hand it to cameron though for coming up with the idea and having the two big modern blockbusters under his belt,he can certainly use that when he discussing contracts with the studio

and i agree with whoever mentioned inglorious basterds,i watched that over xmas on blu-ray and thought that was one of the better films i saw last year,very enjoyable

Great movie but I think the 3D is over rated. I enjoyed the 2D more.

Main reason was Avatar wasn't full 3D here. It was 3D behind a glass window. Nothing come out of the screen at you like in full 3D. It was also blurry on the sides when the 3D was playing. the middle was crisp and clean.

Did anyone else found this to be true for their cinema?

on a side note:

http://static1.cinemenu.com.br/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/avatar-pocahontas.gif

MontanaHatchet said: Naum said: One funny thing about that list is "New moon" numbers... 683 million dollars.. not bad for a movie that cost around 50m to do The thing I love about that is that it really really pisses alot of people of oh and another funny thing is that "Twilight" and "New Moon" together have earned more money then pretty much all wampire movies the last 20 years put together I love terrible movies doing well

that ghost movie with the two people that made up a ghos tin their house (I can remember the name come out last year) cost like 10-15K to make.

i think this has grossed over 100million now. so this is good profit haha.