Avatar's ascent to the position of "Box Office Champ" means something lovely. Everyone knows that a ticket to Avatar costs more than a ticket to a movie that isn't 3-D. 100 tickets to Avatar cost far more than 100 tickets to Tyler Perry's newest movie. Now that Avatar has destroyed the late 90's box-office gross record Titanic set, the ridiculousness of the designation becomes all the more clear. Titanic sold thousands more $5.00 tickets than Avatar has $13.00 tickets. Thousands more people saw Titanic than Avatar. My mom saw Titanic ten times in theaters. She hasn't seen Avatar once. Almost twice as many people saw Gone With the Wind as Titanic, paying a dollar or less. Common sense tells you that the term "box-office champ" doesn't mean much, and the outrageous sums Avatar has pulled in makes this all the more clear to people that maybe didn't realize this before.
Do I have a grudge against Avatar?
No. Actually, beyond this setup, Avatar has nothing to do with this post.
The point is, the headline every Monday morning blares off which film beat out which film for money-making. Outside of the business section, what place does this headline really have? Shouldn't we and our media be more focused on what films are actually worth seeing? I feel like more and more media outlets are firing their film critics, yet still write articles that make Mount Box-Office loftier every week.
What does that have to do with art? The movie's already been made. A bad box-office gross does not negate its existence. Why are we rewarding business savvy over artistic excellence in an artistic medium?