It's official: 'The Avengers' passes 'The Dark Knight' for no. 3 all-time

Is 'Titanic' about to sink from the no. 2 slot?

By Gregory Ellwood Saturday, Jun 2, 2012 1:26 PM

The Hulk is ready to smash that iceberg into the 'Titanic.'

Credit: Marvel Studios

Are you a fan of Breaking News?

Sign up to get the latest updates instantly.

It was a nice run for Christopher Nolan's "The Dark Knight," but it's time to vacate the no. 3 slot on the all-time U.S. box office grosses chart. As expected, "The Avengers" surpassed "Dark Knight's" $533.3 million take by grossing another $5.6 million on Friday for $538.1 million to date.

Joss Whedon's remarkable take was achieved in only 28 days. Comparatively, the all-time champ "Avatar" hit that cume in 36 days. It's hard to believe that "The Avengers" can continue at a pace to overtake James Cameron's 3D game changer and its $749 million cume, but what about the no. 2 film?

"Titanic" held the top slot for 12 years, but was cast aside by "Avatar" just three years ago. Its $600 million take was once seen as insurmountable, but that was before Hollywood realized the magic of higher 3D ticket prices.

Want More...

The Avengers?

Check out everything there is including photos, reviews, videos.

Go There ►

Now, "The Avengers" is less than $62 million from crossing that threshold - or is it? Paramount Pictures re-released "Titanic" in 3D this spring where it grossed another $57.8 million. In theory, that means the lifetime gross for "Titanic" is now $658.6 million, but does the combined total count? Studio pride is at stake, but unless "The Avengers" crosses the higher number, $600 million plus may not be enough to claim the no. 2 all time take.

Where "The Avengers" winds up is finally becoming hard to peg. The Marvel Studios blockbuster is finally going to face increased competition for repeat business from "Snow White and the Huntsman" this weekend and "Prometheus" next Friday. Moreover, it's going to start to lose many of its 3D screens to the aforementioned "Prometheus" (as well as IMAX screens), "Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted" (also opening on June 8) and studio stablemate "Brave" on June 22.

Can it weather the storm to earn $120 million or so? Considering the disastrous run Walt Disney Studios had to deal with before "The Avengers" became a sensation, don't be surprised if they keep it in theaters as long as possible to eke out the take. In any event, something to keep your eye on during the sweaty box office grosses in July and early August.

15-superheroes-who-deserve-a-great-reboot

15 superheroes who deserve a great reboot: Green Lantern, Fantastic Four, Catwoman

Launch Gallery ►

Gregory Ellwood
Editor-in-Chief, Co-Founder

With over a decade of experience in the movie industry, Ellwood survived working for two major studios and has written for Variety, MSN and the LA Times. A co-founder of HitFix, Ellwood spends his time relaxing hitting 3’s on the basketball court and following his beloved Clippers.

Related Searches: Box office, The Avengers, The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises, Titanic

Next Article - Watch: Pixar aims for the bullseye in 3 new 'Brave' clips
Previous Article - Box Office: 'Snow White and the Huntsman' is the fairest of them all with $20 million Friday

scottish_punk

Disney had to resort to 3D for THE AVENGERS to make that kind of money and break those records. THE DARK KNIGHT, by contrast, didn't have a 3D bone in it's body, and still made the same amount of money. The studio greed continues to elevate.
June 2, 2012 at 2:17PM EST Reply to Comment
- Le sigh, that was also a year before the 3d craze hit and theaters added thousands of more 3d capable screens. Not to mention it played on every available imax screen to stretch its dollars.
  
  TDK was a great movie, but its box office has been beat by the only official count that matters in the industry. It has a sequel in a month and a half, helping it beat avengers is a much more productive way to waste energy. It'll probably need the help given the nonexistent marketing that WB is using for some dang reason.
  June 2, 2012 at 4:20PM EST
- NIcoel Really, who cares? $533 million is still a crap ton of money last time I checked. Is the WB really going to cry that they now have only the #4 movie of all time?
  
  I'm more interested in how well TDKR has to do in order for people to not say it's a failure. It could make $450 million and there will be articles saying that it failed.
  June 2, 2012 at 5:17PM EST
- Chris138 The marketing for TDKR will probably go into full gear in the coming weeks leading up to the film's release. And I'm sure it's going to be relentless. By the time the movie is released we all may be sick of hearing about it, in fact.
  June 2, 2012 at 10:39PM EST
- scottish_punk @Cory - actually, the marketing for TDKR has grown by leaps and bounds over the last few weeks, and will continue to heat up following on the heels of its July 20th release date. I appreciate the way they've marketed the picture so far, instead of giving things away and over-bombarding everyone like AVENGERS and PROMETHEUS did.
  
  About TDK stretching it's dollars with IMAX - as opposed to the way 3D is now, is that really a big deal? IMAX is a unique experience. It was then and it still is now, and more so because of 3D unfortunately becoming commonplace. To see a crystal-clear (undimmed, non-3D) screen blown up larger than life on a 3 to 6 story screen is an awesome thing. 3D has been done well before, but very rarely. Personally, I'd rather give a guy like Nolan my money to see a 2D picture any day of the week than to see another 3D movie and get an extra $3-4 milked from me and into the pockets of greedy Hollywood execs. THE AVENGERS may have surpassed TDK in terms of grosses, but it did so with a studio-implemented gimmick, not an true immersive experience.
  
  ...not knocking AVENGERS, it was a good movie and an excellent slice of entertainment. But it's not the second coming of comic-book Christ, as all the fanboys would have you believe...
  
  THE DARK KNIGHT got there first :)
  
  June 2, 2012 at 10:43PM EST
- Well if you want to argue semantics, titanic did it first and a decade before tdk. It also had no inflated prices. This is a silly circular argument. I love tdk, but I cant fathom why people are so bullheaded about its gross. Look at avengers global box office, tdk is nowhere close. We'll see where the sequel lands
  June 3, 2012 at 2:02PM EST
- blue_flames LOL keep fighting the good fight SP
  June 3, 2012 at 2:23PM EST
bearcouch

I think a Brett Ratner Avenger's film would have still made a few hundred million. How much credit can we really give Whedon? Who wouldn't want to see Iron Man, Thor and Captain America in the same movie? I'm not clowning on Whedon at all, I enjoyed myself, but I think the movie could have been so much better. It was totally by the numbers. Did he take any risks at all? Perhaps he wasn't allowed to take risks. I don't know.
June 2, 2012 at 6:05PM EST Reply to Comment
- troopermsu But a Ratner version surely would have been terrible.
  June 3, 2012 at 12:42AM EST
Roadshow

I appreciate that the studios care very, very much how much money a movie is making and we, as audience members, care in as much as a movie's success determines whether sequels or similar movies will or will not be made in the future but I am always amazed at the obsession with tracking the top 10 box office movies by a straight dollar count when it is clear to all that it is so much easier for a movie to hit $100 or $500 million when they are charging so much more for tickets compared to 50 or 20 or 3 years ago.
Surely the marker that counts when working out which films are truely the most popular are figues adjusted for inflation or a "number of tickets sold" count?
When adjusted for inflation, 7 of the top 10 have made over a billion.
For the record Box Office Mojo says that the adjusted-for-inflation top 10 box office movies of all time are:
Gone with the Wind
2 Star Wars
3 The Sound of Music
4 E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial
5 Titanic
6 The Ten Commandments
7 Jaws
8 Doctor Zhivago
9 The Exorcist
10 Snow White and the Seven Dwarves
June 3, 2012 at 6:16AM EST Reply to Comment
- Now how many of these were released before homw video? Do you remember how ridiculously long they played those movies? Theres no point arguing because the circumstances arent comparable
  June 3, 2012 at 2:04PM EST
- Roadshow That's an interestig point about the advent of home video and that therefore if you had any interest in "Gone With The Wind" or "Snow White..." you had to go see it in the theatre (or wait for the re-release) but I don't think it chnages my main points;
  1) Which film has made the most money is (For those not working for the studio or hoping for a sequel) a minor point because most money does not equal best.
  
  2) Things aren't being compared equally. It's considered somewhat common knowledge that "Avatar" is the biggest film of all time but if you compare the figues adjusted for inflation, it's not even in the top ten.
  
  I'm a fan of "The Avengers" (I've seen it twice) but I'm saying (From my points above) that
  1) For a fan, how much money it makes is irrelevant beyond "it's made enough to warrant a sequel."
  2) It's not really the number 3 movie of all time anyway.
  
  June 4, 2012 at 4:45PM EST
mgrabois

In theory, that means the lifetime gross for "Titanic" is now $658.6 million, but does the combined total count?

It did count for the re-releases of ET and the various Star Wars movies, so there's no reason why it shouldn't count for Titanic.
June 3, 2012 at 10:38PM EST Reply to Comment

News From Our Partners

Follow HitFix:

Follow @HitFix

Get Instant Alerts on Breaking News

HitFix.com

Event Calendar

Movies

TV

Music

Videos

Photos

Awards

Riot

In Theaters

New to DVD

On Demand

New Music

It's official: 'The Avengers' passes 'The Dark Knight' for no. 3 all-time