Avatar Sees Theater Attendance Bump After DVD Release

from the well,-look-at-that... dept

Mon, Apr 26th 2010 11:20am — Mike Masnick

Earlier this year, we noted that with Avatar still being popular in theaters, it looked as though the DVD release would occur while the movie was still available in a bunch of theaters, and wondered what if it would actually boost sales at the box office. For years, of course, movie theaters owners have whined that they can't possibly compete against home theaters, and have boycotted movies that tried to do a "day and date" release, where they offer the DVDs at the same time the movie is in the theater. This seems to ignore the fact that the theatrical experience is about the social experience of going out -- which is not the same as staying in to watch a movie at home (no matter how good your home theater system is). But most theater owners don't seem to believe this, and insist that if DVDs are out at the same time as the movie is in the theater, it will harm box office sales.

Avatar seems to suggest that's not true.

btrussell points us to the news of the record-breaking sales of Avatar DVDs this weekend. His point, in submitting it, is noting that the sales were so strong even though the movie has been widely downloadable and widely downloaded for months. So, despite the claims that file sharing is destroying the DVD market, it looks like people are still quite willing to buy.

But a more interesting point is the impact on the box office. Last weekend, April 16 - 18th, Avatar averaged $2,006 at the box office per theater. On April 22nd, the DVD was released. This past weekend (April 23 - 25th)? Avatar averaged $2,257 at the box office per theater. That's an increase of 12.5% over the week. That doesn't seem to fit with the theater owners' claims, now, does it?

Admittedly, a bunch of theaters stopped showing the movie this past week, probably falsely believing that with the DVD out, it would harm sales. But... the week before, a bunch of theaters added Avatar back into their lineup. If we go back two weeks, we have a much more apples to apples comparison. The weekend of April 9 - 11, Avatar showed in 454 theaters, with an average take of $1,860 per theater for a grand total of $844,651. Yet, again, this past weekend, when the movie was showing in fewer theaters, 421, it brought in both a higher average take per theater at $2,257 and a higher grand total at $950,000. So if we compare those two weeks, with fewer theaters, there was a bump of 21.3% in box office sales after the DVD was released

As we predicted, it sure looks like the DVD release while the movie was still in the theaters actually may have driven more people to the theater, rather than taken them away from the theater.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: avatar, dvd, movie theaters, movies, revenue, successes

60 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Dark Helmet (profile), 26 Apr 2010 @ 11:28am

Question:
Would this actually work for a different style movie than Avatar? I would think that much of the uptick in ticket sales came from people who saw the DVD version and then wanted to see the 3D version in the theatre (though I am certainly not basing this on anything other than common sense).

Would this work for non-3D and/or non-action movies? Would this work for Mama Mia? Or Sita Sings The Blues?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 26 Apr 2010 @ 11:30am
  
  Re: Question:
  Depends, would those movies be better seen in a social event with friends or alone on the couch with a beer?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dark Helmet (profile), 26 Apr 2010 @ 11:34am
    
    Re: Re: Question:
    Having admittedly seen niether of them, I guess I couldn't answer that question. But how about the new HBO movie, "You Don't Know Jack"? Which, btw, was absolutely amazing and good enough that it probably should have had a theatrical release.
    
    Part of the pleasure of that movie was not only in watching it on the screen, but sitting next to my girlfriend and watching the way she reacted to the events and positioning of the movie and seeing if our reactions were similar. I imagine, in the case of this movie, that finding a way to make the theatre experience social or even interactive in a similar way might increase the pleasure of the experience. I'm having bit of a brain block trying to think of how you could do that (editing latest finished book for submission to an agent is enough to kill off the rest of your brainpower)....
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Marcel de Jong (profile), 27 Apr 2010 @ 5:19am
    
    Re: Re: Question:
    I saw Avatar in the cinema in 3d, and it was a snorefest for me. Well, at least the friend who I took to that movie literally fell asleep about halfway.
    The 3D aspect gave me a headache, the plot was non-existant, and I felt I had been robbed. (22 euros for 2 tickets for a movie not worth half that in my eyes) Sure impressively made, but visually attractiveness does not a movie make.
    
    I'd be just as happy to watch it on my non-3d-tv with a beer in my hand.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Free Capitalist (profile), 26 Apr 2010 @ 11:36am
  
  Re: Question:
  Yup, I think spectacle-factor has been the major draw for theaters for quite some time. If it's that good a ride, people will go back multiple times.
  
  Would this work for Mama Mia?
  
  No, not a chance.
  
  Or Sita Sings The Blues?
  
  Yes, without a doubt. :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Steve, 26 Apr 2010 @ 11:45am
  
  Re: Question:
  "I would think that much of the uptick in ticket sales came from people who saw the DVD version and then wanted to see the 3D version in the theatre (though I am certainly not basing this on anything other than common sense)."
  
  I dunno, I doubt many people would want to go see the movie twice in one week ... but who knows.
  
  I'll say, though, that I saw How to Train Your Dragon the other week, and I do wanna go back and see it in 3D after some friends suggested doing so. But I'm not gonna do it so soon after seeing it the first time.
  
  IOW, I doubt that people are going to see it a second time *so soon*, but I imagine that the hype surrounding the DVD release only made people realize, "O hey, I can still go see it in the theaters! Let's do that!"
  
  Of course, I'm just guessing too. :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Alan Gerow (profile), 26 Apr 2010 @ 11:49am
  
  Re: Question:
  Avatar isn't playing in 3D in theaters anymore. Most 3D theaters are now showing How To Train Your Dragon on their 3D screens, showing Avatar in 2D.
  
  So the 3D aspect of the film is not a contributing factor to the bump in attendance.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dark Helmet (profile), 26 Apr 2010 @ 11:58am
    
    Re: Re: Question:
    "So the 3D aspect of the film is not a contributing factor to the bump in attendance."
    
    Ah, thanks. Good to know that my common sense is actually moronic, uninformed sense....
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - chris (profile), 26 Apr 2010 @ 3:02pm
    
    Re: Re: Question:
    So the 3D aspect of the film is not a contributing factor to the bump in attendance.
    
    i went to see fellowship of the ring something like 4 times in the theater. the last time i saw it was after it was out on DVD because they ran the trailer for the two towers at the end.
    
    i also paid to see the extended dvd editions of fellowship and the two towers in the theater on the night the return of the king premiered at an event called trilogy tuesday.
    
    i also went to the 25th anniversary screening of "war games" in the theater with a bunch of my hacker buddies.
    
    the theater for me is all about the social aspect and is never about the availability of the film.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 26 Apr 2010 @ 12:10pm
  
  Re: Question:
  Actually, this is exactly the kind of movie that gets people out of their homes and into cinemas - always has been. The experience of seeing the cinema version is different enough to get people out on to the big screen - that's why so many idiotic blockbusters rake in cash while more intelligent movies do better on DVD.
  
  It's been that way at least since Jaws and Star Wars kicked off the "summer blockbuster". A shame, but that's the way it is. Would a smaller movie benefit in the same way? Maybe, the cinemas in question offer something more than a home viewing offers. It's down to them to work out what this is, which may be different for each movie.
  
  "Would this work for Mama Mia?"
  
  Yes. Mamma Mia is one of a few musicals that has been re-released in a singalong format, with lyrics on the screen so the crowd can sing along. Not my cup of tea, but certainly one of the movies that proves what's been said here for a long time - offer an experience that's different enough from the home experience in a positive way, and people will pay for it.
  
  Sita? Well, maybe. There are some people who would love to see this on the big screen, and it certainly could take a profit if marketed correctly But, again the cinemas and distributors may have to come up with something other than "watch on a bigger screen for the same/higher overall cost as a DVD for 2 people", which is what they currently offer.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ECA (profile), 26 Apr 2010 @ 12:07pm

its in the DETAILS
Something I try to explain to people about resolution vs SIZE.

I dont care if you can display 1900x1200 on your monitor. The monitor is STILL only 17-20", it sucks.
Displaying HIGH res, on a small display is worthless when you have High definition.
From games to movies. Even Low res looks good on larger screens. There is a point where you start to see pixels, which means you need Higher res.
Even in games, HiRes only takes up MORE RAM, and slows processing. Iv seen games that look Exactly the same from 640x480 as they do at 1900x1200.
NOW you take a High res movie, and EVEN showing it on a Large screen(52") may not do it Justice.
A few things you may not know about your Video player and your 52" LCD/Plasma.

1. MOST of these sets(LCD/PLASMA) are not designed to show more then 500,000 colors. Compare that with your computer at 16/32 bit. with Millions of colors available..
I dont think you are using XBMC/pc Video card to process your video and a Full sized (52") PC monitor.

2. Your video player MUST have a good video output. And ram enough to HOLD the video to keep it Stable.
Many of you know what is happening. But I would suggest that over 1/2 of those with a DVD player, probably use a NON-DIGITAL connection, and the easiest way to USE a NEWER TV/LCD. COAX connections will NOT give you a good picture.

Another thing to remember. There is DRM on these disks. That works over the HDMI channel. If it does not sense this connection or the correct DRM response, I will BET it down grades the video.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- milrtime83 (profile), 26 Apr 2010 @ 12:16pm
  
  Re: its in the DETAILS
  "Even in games, HiRes only takes up MORE RAM, and slows processing. Iv seen games that look Exactly the same from 640x480 as they do at 1900x1200."
  
  The graphics may look similar, but you get a much larger field of view at 1900x1200 than you do at 640x480 which can be very beneficial in some games.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ECA (profile), 26 Apr 2010 @ 12:41pm
    
    Re: Re: its in the DETAILS
    That is only if it is allowed and a function of the program.
    Otherwise Nothing happens.
    IN THE OLD DAYS,
    When you raised res, you lost color options. As the requirements took more ram.
    
    You need to understand something strange.
    Your Video/display is around
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Kosh (profile), 26 Apr 2010 @ 2:00pm
  
  Re: its in the DETAILS
  Watching my 24" 1080p computer monitor from 3 feet away is roughly equivalent to watching your 52" plasma from 7 feet away. Being 3 feet away from a monitor is actually quite far, while being 7 feet from a 52" tv is quite close.
  
  Your anecdotal example of 640x480 games looking the same at 1900x1200 (who uses 1900x1200? I didn't think 19:12 ratio screens existed?) must have come from a decade ago. Yes, some games used sprites that literally cannot scale up besides increasing the size of the pixels. 3D computer games DO scale up because computer models are inherently vector-based. Unless you were referring to XBOX, PS2, Wii and older generation consoles which were specifically designed for 480i/p (like DVDs) and don't scale up without stretching.
  
  Your argument on screen size vs resolution is missing the vital variable of distance between viewer and screen. A 24" TV across the room won't be worth the price at 1080p, and 720p might even be iffy. But if it's on your desk, you can make out the individual pixels. I can't make out the pixels on my 15.6" 1080p at ~20" away, but I can on a 24" monitor.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
BBT, 26 Apr 2010 @ 12:08pm

Not to be a killjoy, but it could simply be due to the large increase in Avatar-related marketing that surrounds the DVD release. Marketing leads to increased sales, not exactly a groundbreaking idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DCX2, 26 Apr 2010 @ 12:15pm
  
  Re:
  It's not the increase that Mike is pointing out specifically. It is the lack of decrease. The DVD release did not kill theater sales.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 26 Apr 2010 @ 12:21pm
  
  Re:
  That's kind of the point, actually.
  
  Under the system normally used today, there's a huge marketing blitz announcing the theatrical release, but the DVD is delayed by 3-6 months. The thinking is that people won't wait and will be more likely to go to the cinema. Of course, this backfires in 2 ways - it means that a new expensive marketing blitz is required to announce the DVD release, and many people will choose to download the movie as they won't/can't go to the theatrical screening.
  
  Some of the reason for this is fear on the part of cinemas that if the DVD is available at the same time, then people will just stay at home. This increase in theatrical viewers, even amid record-breaking DVD sales, suggests that a simultaneous release may not be necessarily harmful to theatrical sales.
  
  So, marketing will still equal sales, but the customer chooses the venue rather than the distributor. Not a bad thing, considering that much of the reason for "piracy" is people trying to circumvent the artificial restrictions in the first place, and a single marketing campaign will naturally be cheaper.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2010 @ 12:14pm

perhaps after seeing it on dvd and being disappointed people decided to go see the movie in 3d. perhaps with all the publicity surrounding the release people who didnt buy it went to see it in the theater. perhaps the link to earth day drove people to go see it in the theater without regard for the dvd release. so many potential reasons why do you only think it is one? oh yeah, it supports your manifesto.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2010 @ 12:26pm
  
  Re:
  Where can one read your manifesto?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2010 @ 12:43pm
    
    Re: Re:
    TAManifesto:
    
    "Disagree with whatever is written on Techdirt."
    
    The End.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2010 @ 3:38pm
    
    Re: Re:
    i dont have one. only the masnick has a new world order he wants to impose.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2010 @ 5:31pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Do you get a discount at the tinfoil store?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2010 @ 5:31pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Cue Jon Stewart + Gospel Choir singing go *beep* yourself.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2010 @ 7:24pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Prove it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Casual Observer, 26 Apr 2010 @ 2:05pm
  
  Re:
  It's rather funny to watch the right wing conservative response to the movie Avatar.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - slander (profile), 26 Apr 2010 @ 4:37pm
    
    Re: Re:
    As opposed to the left-wing fanboyism? Careful, when your knee jerks like that you might spill your Kool-Ade...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Casual Observer, 26 Apr 2010 @ 6:36pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "left-wing fanboyism"
      
      See ... told ya, now that's funny!
      
      "Kool-Ade"
      
      btw , it's spelled "kool-aid". And according to informed sources, they did not use kool-aid in Jonestown.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - slander (profile), 26 Apr 2010 @ 7:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Tit-for-tat, bucko.
        
        True, they didn't use Kool-Aid. They used an organically-grown, non-hypoallergenic, carbon-neutral, soy-based, naturally-flavored liquid gently trod upon (but not down-trodden...) by an indigenous, recently-discovered tribe of socially-advanced, at-peace-with-nature, Birkenstock-wearing ironic hipsters.
        
        Yep, that about covers it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2010 @ 8:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        omg
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        FX, 31 Jan 2011 @ 3:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That is one of the funniest and clever comebacks I have ever read!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 26 Apr 2010 @ 12:36pm

Better see it in 3D while you still can
How about people realizing that the DVD coming out would mean it would be exiting the theater soon? I could see wanting to see it in 3D again in the theater since it will be some time before you could duplicate that experience in home.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael (profile), 26 Apr 2010 @ 12:41pm

I think a great deal of this presupposes the quality of the movie. If the movie sucks, it will never do well...unless it's a whole new level of suck that happens to be cool. If it really is a good movie then the buzz should be quite good and sales of dvds and box office should support each other.

As Mike has suggested, if a movie is really good, being able to buy the dvd on the way out would be like an impulse buy.

One of my favorite movies is Wedding Crashers. I saw it three times in the theater and I couldn't wait for it to be released. I got curious looked around and found a crappy version online to tide me over until it was released on dvd. Then bought the dvd and watched it several more times. And, watch it whenever it's on tv.

I think, box office sales of dvds would be great...if the movie is good too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2010 @ 12:55pm

Whatever happened to Occam's Razor. It's much more likely that the DVD had more to do with the resurgence in movie viewing than Earth Day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- slander (profile), 26 Apr 2010 @ 4:39pm
  
  Re:
  Whatever happened to Occam's Razor
  It went straight to DVD faster than Snow Dogs...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
NullOp, 26 Apr 2010 @ 1:00pm

Theatre...
Theater owners argue against anything that might take a dime away from the boxoffice. They don't seem to realize going to the theater is still the best experience that can be had for movie viewing. A huge number of films are simply best viewed on the big screen, no matter how large your home screen is it can't compete, period. Oh, and they're a bunch of greedy bastards too!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brooks (profile), 26 Apr 2010 @ 2:03pm

Oh, Techdirt. Correlation / causation, really?
Also, it was sunnier here in Seattle two weeks ago, and cloudier this past week. Hey, it looks like the weather in Seattle may have driven people to theaters all over the country!

I support the point that the DVD release does not appear to have had a catastrophic result on ticket sales. But there are so many variables here it's impossible to say much more than that. Maybe sales were up for totally different reasons -- strength of competition, promotions, weather, tax day, whatever -- and the DVD release depressed sales (some) from where they would have been.

Or maybe sales would have collapsed and only the DVD release propped them up. There is no telling.

For a site that constantly attacks poor reasoning, over-simplification, and idealogically-driven conclusions from the entertainment industry... this sure smacks of poor reasoning, over-simplification, and idealogically-driven conclusions.

If you're not going to let other people posit that correlation = causation, you should really stop doing it yourselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 26 Apr 2010 @ 2:21pm
  
  Re: Oh, Techdirt. Correlation / causation, really?
  If you're not going to let other people posit that correlation = causation, you should really stop doing it yourselves.
  
  I didn't say it caused it -- I just pointed out that it suggests the theaters claims that it would take away from the box office are not supported.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Brooks (profile), 26 Apr 2010 @ 2:50pm
    
    Re: Re: Oh, Techdirt. Correlation / causation, really?
    Well, you did say:
    
    As we predicted, it sure looks like the DVD release while the movie was still in the theaters actually may have driven more people to the theater, rather than taken them away from the theater.
    
    Maybe I'm misreading it, but that sure sounds like a suggestion that the DVD release and theater sales are somehow linked.
    
    Like I said, this neither supports nor refutes theaters' claims. The DVD release could, in fact, have hurt sales. Without a control, there's no telling. There are too many variables to use past performance as a proxy for a control.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2010 @ 6:09pm
    
    Re: Re: Oh, Techdirt. Correlation / causation, really?
    sort of typical masnick double speak. you are pointing at something and saying 'see i predicted that', yet you have no cause / effect proof that your concept has anything to do with movie ticket sales. time for you to bring some proof or admit you are just speculating and claiming success for random events that have potentially no connection at all, just like any good guru would do.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2010 @ 11:12pm
  
  Re: Oh, Techdirt. Correlation / causation, really?
  If you're not going to let other people posit that correlation = causation, you should really stop doing it yourselves.
  
  Bingo.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kosh (profile), 26 Apr 2010 @ 2:12pm

Just a quick note, assuming equal numbers of sales, less vendors = higher sales per vendor. There were less theaters showing Avatar and the tickets sold / theater rose, so until the very end of the article where actual numbers of tickets sold was listed, the argument didn't hold much weight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Kosh (profile), 26 Apr 2010 @ 2:13pm
  
  Re:
  Sorry, not number of tickets sold, but money made.
  
  Also, 3d tickets sell for a lot more than regular tickets, so increase in revenue could mean less in total attendance, but more viewing 3D.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mike Masnick (profile), 26 Apr 2010 @ 2:20pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Sorry, not number of tickets sold, but money made.
    
    Uh, no. Considering that money made is the WHOLE point, I think it means everything.
    
    I think the theaters are perfectly happy making more money for less tickets.
    
    Also, 3d tickets sell for a lot more than regular tickets, so increase in revenue could mean less in total attendance, but more viewing 3D.
    
    As was noted earlier in the comments: Avatar isn't showing in 3D in most places any more, as other 3D movies have taken over those slots.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Modplan (profile), 26 Apr 2010 @ 5:44pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Uh, no. Considering that money made is the WHOLE point, I think it means everything.
      
      I think the theaters are perfectly happy making more money for less tickets.
      
      Audience attendance figures are just as important if not more so than pure revenue. Especially if the trend for audience figures is overall down.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michial Thompson, 26 Apr 2010 @ 2:21pm

Insignificant rise
$200 average increase per theater proves nothing other than 25 people more attended the theater that particular week... Attendance fluctuates easily by 25 people EVEN with out the DVD release.

Good one little mikee latch onto any little thing that "proves" your point even if it's insignificant. Oh I forgot little mikee also makes it sound like a really big deal and never really pits things in perspective unless it makes his agenda look right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2010 @ 2:33pm
  
  Re: Insignificant rise
  What's with the "little mikee"? You do realize that it makes you look silly, right?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- dorp, 26 Apr 2010 @ 2:46pm
  
  Re: Insignificant rise
  Idiotic as usual. It's 10% rise on average and with 421 thatres, you are talkin about ~$85k increase or ~9,000 people. You rock at failing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2010 @ 6:13pm
    
    Re: Re: Insignificant rise
    try again. 9000 / 421 = 21 extra people per theater. if each theater has 3 shows per day for even a 3 day weekend, you are looking at 2 extra people per show. it is smaller than the rounding error in most sales surveys. one again the masnick reaches and fails badly. figures dont lie, but... you know the rest.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2010 @ 7:28pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Insignificant rise
      Do you work in the movie business? It sounds like you do?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2010 @ 9:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Insignificant rise
        no mike, do you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Groove Tiger (profile), 27 Apr 2010 @ 4:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Insignificant rise
        Wow, all ACs are Mike? Cool! Hi Mike!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - dorp, 28 Apr 2010 @ 9:46am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Insignificant rise
      it is smaller than the rounding error in most sales surveys. one again the masnick reaches and fails badly.
      
      Really? You are using absolute numbers to calculate rounding error that is measured in percent? And 10% is a rounding error of most sales surveys? Would you like to show which surveys you are referring to? We'll wait while you pull them out of your ass.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dude - movies are way expensive these days, 26 Apr 2010 @ 3:31pm
  
  Re: Insignificant rise
  Wow, where did you find this bargin?
  
  $200/25 people = $8/ticket
  
  Michial Thompson -> keepin it classy as usual /s
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
chris, 26 Apr 2010 @ 2:49pm

what's the point
gee...with this kind of logic, i bet if we gave every one on earth a dvd, everyone would go see the movie in the theaters. brilliant!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2010 @ 11:27pm

Techdirt is becoming a parody of itself
I guess the correlation/causation principle can be cited or ignored depending on whether or not the causal insinuation fits in with your agenda? Very interested, Techdirt, very interesting indeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 27 Apr 2010 @ 1:31am
  
  Re: Techdirt is becoming a parody of itself
  I guess the correlation/causation principle can be cited or ignored depending on whether or not the causal insinuation fits in with your agenda? Very interested, Techdirt, very interesting indeed.
  
  Uh, no. Reading comprehension fail. I never said that the DVD release was solely responsible for the boost. Hell, I even noted in the post (did you even read it?) that there were mitigating factors. I just pointed out that, contrary to what the theaters claimed, the release did not appear to decrease attendance.
  
  Are you denying that?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
RST101 (profile), 27 Apr 2010 @ 1:12am

Regardless of how many pixels v blah blah or whether cinema tickets suffered because of dvd, the whole point of it is(from how I view it) piracy has proved yet again that the money these pricks make is not being harmed at all!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wallow-T, 27 Apr 2010 @ 4:22am

One of those April weekends -- probably April 11, with the big jump in number of screens -- marks Avatar passing into the second-run theaters, where most customers are paying two dollars or less. Forgive me for not researching the exact date.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joel (profile), 27 Apr 2010 @ 9:25am

Theaters?
Would have the same thing have happened if more theaters were playing the movie? I know $ per theater would be lower if more theaters were playing the movie and the same number of people would have gone to watch, but would there have been more money made if lets say 1000 theaters played it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
thewindupmouse, 21 Sep 2010 @ 12:44pm

If you take away the numbers of theatres that are showing the movie and (on average) the same number of people want to see the movie, of course your average profit per theatre is going to increase.

The numbers that matter aren't what each individual theatre makes on average, but the total profit the movie make each week.

Just thought I'd point out this flaw in the logic flow....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]