Wife and I saw Alice, it wasn't bad. Curious if other people could say what IMAX 3D price is at where they go. For one ticket it is 17.50 all times genral admission. So since most people go in twos thats 35 bucks there.

I almost believe we have to be reaching a point where dollar numbers are a moot point. Lets know how many people were in actual seats. Of course we would see a shrinking number for some of these mediocre blockbusters. I bought tickets for U2 a pair cost almost 600 from ticket master. So i can guarantee they will be the highest grossing concert in my area. But other acts sell the same venue out two maybe three times. For a 1/6th of the price that is more impressive.

Just wait next year at this time report will say Beverly Hills chihua(mispelled?) in 3D grosses 150mill opening weekend :(

I just truly hate the argument about ticket prices, inflation, etc... I highly doubt these discussions were going on when Star Wars became the highest grossing film. Why are they thrown out now when films certain fans don't like seem to do well?

Well, when Star Wars came out, it was a phenomenon. Regardless of the ticket price, it was obvious that the nation as a whole shifted to a new place. So there was not a lot of comparison to what had gone before because it's effects infiltrated almost part of the culture. Not so with, say, Titanic. It was a blockbuster to be sure. But without the immediate cultural trickle-down effect that Star Wars and it's related merchandizing caused, there was breathing room to take a look at the sales figures.

And by then the disparity between pricing for Titanic and, say, Gone with the Wind, was much wider than between GwtW and SW. It started to become more obvious and, as everyone became more obsessed with personal cinema criticism and fan-ism, what was considered to be #1 came under more scrutiny. That's not going to go away now. It's only gotten "worse".

I agree to an extent, but I think saying that 70% of a Box Office figure is because of 3D is a gross exaggeration.  I pulled some figures from the theater I usually go to (an AMC in Columbia, MD).  The prices for a regular evening show, a 3D show, and an IMAX 3D show are $10.50, $13.50 and $14.50 respectively.  Granted, I don't know the number of seats in each house, or how many standard theaters across the country have the movie versus 3D houses.  From what I've read, I am sure there are fewer IMAX seats per show than regular houses.  I would think that due to technological restraints and social inertia, the number of regular seats outnumbers 3D seats, but for the sake of argument and simplicity's sake, let's say the number of tickets for each price level are equal.  That would mean one ticket at each level represents $38.50 in Box Office Gross, $7.00 of which is the excess of the 3D tickets over standard-priced tickets.  That only counts for just over 18%.  Yes, I put waaaaaay too much thought into this, but there it is.  I think a simple notation that the BO figure includes higher priced 3D tickets is sufficient.  It won't really matter anyway.  Mindless buffoons who will see a movie just because it made $116M instead of $108M won't care about the footnote, and either way, Hollywood will continue to jump on the 3D bandwagon because even a $62M week 2 is better than $32.4M, the combined amount that the next 3 movies (non 3D) made in this, their opening weekend.  Whether it makes sense or not, that's how Hollywood works.

I saw Alice this weekend and was underwhelmed.  I didn't hate it, but I cannot really say I like it either.  Let's put it this way, it was a decent matinee.  I'm also not sure that the 3D did much for the film.  In fact, I'm wishing I would have seen Avatar in 2D to really see if I felt there was much of a difference.  I like 3D, and I'm sure it's the next step toward the holographic televisions we have seen in sci-fi movies (you can laugh now, but we probably won't be laughing 25-30 years from now), but I'm not sure that it's worth the few extra dollars that are forked over for each ticket.

Here's a thought...what if movie houses were to become obsolete?  Some films are already released to download the same as their theatrical release date, so isn't it in the realm of possibility that movie distributors may eventually make more money by cutting out the middle man (AMC, Dickenson, etc) and releasing movies direct to the public for prices nearly equivalent to what you would pay to go to the movies?  Yes, I realize pirating and things of that nature will slow the progress on this, but mark my words--some day we will all be watching new releases through high def pay per view in our high tech home theater rooms!!!!! MOOOHOOOOHAAHHHAAAAA

I think there is validity to the argument that 3D and IMAX showings are artificially exaggerating grosses, because the unspoken assumption of most people is that more money means more people saw the movie.  And if more people saw the movie, then it *must* be better (yeah, right). 

But at the same time, anyone who is really paying attention knows that most movies these day make a huge percentage of their total gross in the first week or two.  While "Avatar's" gross is clearly inflated by the 3D craze, there is also something to be said for that fact that it has continually placed in the top ten for three months running.  That is the true mark of a movie that is a cultural sensation, and cannot be denied.  The fact that "Alice" held so well for its second weekend shows that people are clearly curious to see it, even though it has notably not gotten particularly great word of mouth.

Secondly, movies these days (particularly the big tentpole releases) are so ridiculously expensive to produce, they pretty much have to make a ton of money to just pay for the cost of their production and marketing.  "Alice" cost $200 million to make, and who knows how much more to market (Disney put ads for that movie everywhere).  I think the far more telling figures are how profitable these movies wind up being, not their raw gross.  What's more impressive:  "Avatar's" $700 million on it's rumored $500 million budget, or something like "Paranormal Activity" making millions on a $100,000 budget?  I don't know the answer.

And finally, I will be very interested to see how well these big 3D releases sell on DVD, when the spectacle is not as much a factor.  I think what we're seeing is that, whatever our personal feelings about the 3D craze and it's effect on the artistic quality of movies, it is doing exactly what Hollywood producers want: it is putting butts in the seats of theatres as opposed to illegal downloads or waiting to rent the movie when it comes out on video.  And as long as it does that, we better get used to it.

I do think a push to change to a "tickets sold" system would be better, but Hollywood is all about $$ and it doesn't matter where it comes from. If they sold 1 ticket for $500MM, they wouldn't complain and would claim the record for highest 1-day or whatever else.

Look at just Cameron's work. Forget the quality of the movies for a moment, that's open for debate and is subjective. Titanic stayed in theatres for the better part of 10 months. Avatar beat the numbers, but did so in just a few months. It seems to me that more people WANTED to see Titanic, with the crowds there week after week. Avatar got huge numbers early, and now it's fading, especially in areas with limited 3D screens (My town has 1 out of 9 screens in 3D, and Avatar - in 2D or 3D - is gone.

Like I said, I know $$ is king in Tinsel Town, but they need to be very careful, because it's no longer the be-all-end-all of public demand when it comes to movies.

Also, one note to add about box office vs other sources of income, it was about 4 years ago I saw a quote from a Hollywood exec who said the mentality at his studio (don't recall the studio, sorry) was changing to reflect theatrical releases are now 2-hour trailers for the DVD releases. I think that's why you're starting to see smaller theater exit/DVD release timespans.

I saw Avatar on Christmas, when it had only been out a week or two.  The theater I saw it in did not have IMAX.  But it did have Avatar on 2 or 3 screens in 3D and only 1 screen in regular old 2D.

Another local theater doesn't offer 3D and only had Avatar in 2D.  But I'm sure newer theaters with 3D capability (or 3D equipment or whatever) offered more screens in 3D than 2D. 

It would be interesting to find out how many screens were showing Avatar in each format. 

I passed on Alice in Wonderland this weekend. I saw Green Zone and Shutter Island instead. Both were pretty damn good. Shutter Island was an excellent flick, right down to the old school suspense music. It was definitely a well done homage to those types of movies from the past by Scorssese. DiCaprio and Ruffalo were great. Green Zone  was also well done, but because you essentially know how its going to end there is less of a punch to it. Still, Matt Damon is a badass