What is the REAL All-Time Box Office Champ?

Location

Last week, James Cameron's "Avatar" made headlines when the film unseated his own "Titanic" (1997) to become the All-Time Domestic Box Office champ. It's gross of $630M bested the iceberg-romance's $600M, and now has a excellent chance of reaching $700M as well. Of course, the asterlisk is that this list is not adjusted for inflation. Champions of older films will forever note that "Gone With The Wind" (1939) is the true all-time b.o. king, with it's nominal $200M gross translating into $1.5 billion. "Star Wars" (1977), "The Sound of Music" (1965) and "E.T." (1982) have also crossed the billion dollar mark in adusted grosses. In fact, on the adjusted list, "Avatar" only ranks #21; very respectable, but behind such classics as "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" (1937), "The Graduate" (1967), "Ben-Hur" (1959) and "The Exorcist" (1973). Clearly, these other films had mre spectacular ticket sales.

But hold on a minute. These older films reached these lofty box office heights through multiple re-releases in various decades. As late as the early 1990s, older hits were placed back in wide release. Even in 2002, there was the 20th anniversary edition of "E.T." Films like "Avatar," "Lord of the Rings," "Spider-Man" and "The Passion of the Christ" earned their money in just one run; they didn't need multiple re-releases. Then again, how can anyone compare sales from different decades? Ticket prices were cheaper, the population was smaller, they were fewer theaters and the less movies were made each year. Besides, post-1980s box office tallies are shaky at best.

Another thing: different movies have different budgets. Just because Movie A grosses more that Movie B, that doesn't make make it more successful. Example: two of last year's biggest hits were "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" and "The Twilight Saga: New Moon." Similar audience overlap, and close domestic grosses of $302M and $294M, respectively. However, the Potter film cost $250M to produce, while the Cullen pic cost only $50M. So ask  yourself, which only actually made more money? "Avatar" is the top movie of 2009 (and of all-time), but among 2009 films, nothing was more profitable than "Paranormal Activity" (cost: $15.000, gross: $107M). In 1959, "Ben-Hur"'s $15M budget was unheard of, 50 years later that's the budget of a smaller indee film.

Even today, you can not compare movies released as little as ten years apart. When "Edge of Darkness" opened to $17M last weekend, it was declared slighly below the $21M opening of Mel's "Payback" (1999). But at today's prices, "Payback" would have had an opening weekend of about $30M. And that's just an 11 year difference. More to the point, "Avatar" has benefited from 3D surcharges and IMAX sales. how can anyone compare that to a film like, say, "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" which did not have those extra charges?

The point, is that box office records are really only about bragging rights. With the number of factors involved, it's imposible to say one film is more successful than others. Weekend Box Office is really just a sport for amusment. However, what the top-grossers like "Gone with the Wind," "Star Wars," "Ben-Hur," "The Godfather," "Jaws," "The Dark Knight" and "Avatar" all have in common is that they are loved. The films on the all-time lists (note the "s") are on there because audiences really enjoy these movies; they touch our hearts and/or minds. And, numbers aside, that's what the movies have always been about anyway.