backtop


Print 118 comment(s) - last by Aloonatic.. on Jan 27 at 5:09 AM


  (Source: 20th Century Fox)
Nothing can seem to stop worldwide audiences' love of Cameron's sci-fi epic

While some may criticize it as unoriginal for parallels to past movies and literature, James Cameron's latest masterpiece, Avatar is a smash hit among critics and moviegoers alike. 

Fueled by strong sales of more expensive 3D movie tickets and fueled by a viral marketing campaign online and off, Avatar proved a triumph in a hit or miss market that's seen even veterans like Harrison Ford recently deliver painful flops.  If Avatar has one problem it's that it's having a hard time keeping up with international demand, as the film quickly raked in over $1B USD within only three weeks of its December 10, 2009 release.

From a tech and science standpoint Avatar is landmark success for 3D animation, marking the first time audiences have embraced (for the most part) emotive human-like 3D characters alongside living ones in a drama flick.  The animation pushes the boundaries of current work, as does the xenobiology featured in the film (Avatar hired a team of experienced biologists to help develop the flora and fauna of the fictional world of Na'vi).

Now Avatar is about to make history as it is expected today to become the highest grossing film ever, sinking the Titanic's record total of $1.843B USD.  What is particularly impressive is how quickly Avatar pulled in the total, reaching $1.841B USD over the weekend, after only six weeks in theaters, and less than that in some foreign markets. 

In many countries, Avatar has become the top grossing U.S. film in their history, and even among their total top grossing films -- a remarkable achievement in countries with strong film industries like France.  Internationally the film has earned $1.288B USD, despite getting a bumped from China's standard theaters for a new Chow Yun Fat epic about the Chinese philosopher Confucius (Avatar continues to play in around 900 of China's 3D theaters).

Even as Avatar rolls towards the epic mark of becoming the first movie to break $2B USD, Cameron has announced that two sequels are in the works.  Considering Fox may have spent more than $300M USD on the film, that's great news for the 3D animation industry.

With its success, Avatar has drawn some backlash.  The U.S. Marine Corps disliked the unflattering depiction of the mercenary marine army whose leadership was corrupted by greed and bloodlust.  Others loved Avatar so much that they reported depression and suicidal thoughts out of regret they could not live in the movie's fantasy world.  And still others have complained of the film being too similar to past work, varying from Pocahontas (first popularized to the masses by the 19th century burlesque The Gentle Savage) to Braveheart.

Critics, for the most part, have been deaf to such criticism.  They rewarded Avatar with awards for Best Motion Picture and Best Director and the 2010 Golden Globe Awards.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I believe it
By Freezebyte on 1/25/2010 11:41:19 AM , Rating: 3
Saw Avatar three times now and I wanna go a fourth! Even convinced my future brother and father in law to go see it with me and my brother in law is a film nazi and even he enjoyed it!




RE: I believe it
By tastyratz on 1/25/2010 12:38:04 PM , Rating: 4
I cant imagine seeing a movie more than once in a row... At best I watch a movie a second time years later after I forgot most of it.

But it does make sense that it grosses so much with such gross ticket prices. I am willing to bet ticket prices for this are 2 or 3:1 ticket prices of titanic so its still not half or 1/3 the sales. I would rather see ticket sales figures compared


RE: I believe it
By The0ne on 1/25/2010 1:36:01 PM , Rating: 2
$16 per ticket for Imax version. Titanic back then was $7?

I'll watch the movie in theaters again to catch more details that I might have missed the first time around.


RE: I believe it
By Oregonian2 on 1/25/2010 5:28:22 PM , Rating: 3
Wife and I each paid $9.50 for the 3D version (including the 3D fee) at a RealD theater (matinee). 2D version was $6 each should we have chosen it (NO WAY).


RE: I believe it
By Belard on 1/25/2010 11:32:22 PM , Rating: 2
In 1999~2000, Movie prices were 5.00 (matinée) and $7~7.50 regular.

I saw Titanic at least 3 times in theaters.
I wish I had the chance to see Watchmen at least twice in the theaters. :(

For Christmas, I bought ticket passes for Avatar for some friends that didn't think it would be worth paying for. Funny thou, is that they ended up getting others to see it after watching it themselves. :)

I found the acting & story in Avatar better the 2nd time. There is a 9min video of how they made the movie, amazing.


RE: I believe it
By Icehearted on 1/25/2010 1:52:49 PM , Rating: 1
A non matinee Titanic was about $5.50. A non Matinee of Avatar was about $11.00. I saw the Matinee, and I saw it in 3D on a non iMax screen, total cost for the ticket was $7.50, with an additional $3.50 for the glasses. Pricing should definitely be a factor in how they gauge this sort of thing, otherwise these claims of success mean nothing.

I liked the movie (it was my first 3D), but I didn't think it was the greatest thing on film. I heard that it ran and won against UP for some award recently, and I felt UP was a much better movie (better story, very stylish and well-animated). Take away the very pretty special effects and sci-fi elements and all you get with Avatar is an allegory to the plight of the Native Americans.

Again though, it wasn't bad, this just feels undeserved to me.


RE: I believe it
By porkpie on 1/25/2010 2:02:32 PM , Rating: 2
Except that, unlike the Navi, Native Americans were busy bloodthirstily killing and plundering each other long before any Europeans ever arrived.


RE: I believe it
By ClownPuncher on 1/25/2010 2:18:37 PM , Rating: 3
Crazy how people tend to act like people, no matter where they are from.


RE: I believe it
By whiskerwill on 1/25/10, Rating: 0
RE: I believe it
By mofo3k on 1/25/2010 4:54:26 PM , Rating: 5
Yes, I'm sure the Native Americans who were nearly wiped off the face of the Earth by diseases and genocidal acts are even grateful for the Europeans coming over to steal all their land and resources.


RE: I believe it
By whiskerwill on 1/25/2010 5:09:03 PM , Rating: 1
Considering there are more Native Americans today than there were then -- and more Native Americans killed by each other than by Europeans -- I think your comment is a bit off base. Also, how many Native Americans alive today would actually prefer to give up modern food, clothing, housing, and medical care-- to go back and live in a teepee? To have 75% of your children die before the age of 18? To die of a toothache, because dential care didn't exist? To have to abandon your grandparents to starve to death, because they were too old to move with the tribe?

As for the stealing allegation, why do you call it "their" land? Every square inch of soil had already been fought over, taken from one tribe by another a hundred times already before any Europeans ever arrived. Who does the land actually belong to? The person who stole it first, or the one who stole it last? Or the society that actually put an end to stealing, by creating and enforcing the concept of property ownership?


RE: I believe it
By ClownPuncher on 1/25/2010 5:53:12 PM , Rating: 3
There absolutely are not more Native Americans alive today than before the colonial period. There are fewer than 3 million AI/AN living in the US today compared to the 25+ million pre-expansion period

http://www.census.gov/popest/national/asrh/NC-EST2...


RE: I believe it
By whiskerwill on 1/25/2010 6:18:04 PM , Rating: 1
Lol, does no one learn basic science any more? You don't even need to know history to realize that 25M is a wildly outrageous estimate for what population North America could support with the primitive agricultural methods in use. Even if you throw in the (much more highly populated at the time) regions of Central and South America, many estimates of pre-Columbian population don't rise that high...and the vast majority of that is in the Aztec/Mayan empires

At the time Columbus showed up in America, there were less than 4M people in all of England (a nation using advanced agricultural methods, rather than mostly primitive hunter-gather techniques) and still starvation was not uncommon. How on earth do you think 25M could survive in North America?

Also, you don't seem to recognize that, while Central and South America did experience largescale depopulation, the vast majority of that was due to disease, and not widescale killing by Europeans.


RE: I believe it
By ClownPuncher on 1/25/2010 6:39:05 PM , Rating: 3
I never said anything about Europeans depopulating the continent. Disease is undisputably the #1 cause.

Yes, I absolutely do think North American could support more than the estimated 4 million living in England. You do know that England is pretty small, and not very well known for fertile soil, right? Not to mention fairly advanced corn agriculture areas here.

25 million is probably a high estimate, but even the most conservative estimate fall over 10 million.


RE: I believe it
By whiskerwill on 1/25/2010 7:03:44 PM , Rating: 2
Wrong again. An estimate of 10-12M for North America is the HIGHEST claim that has ever been made. The LOWEST estimates for indigenous population have been in the 5-8M range for all the Americas, with nearly 90% of that in or south of modern-day Mexico. In other words, the lowest estimates of North American Native Indians are substantially below one million.

In any case, the estimates continue to climb over time, for obvious political reasons.

http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072879130/s...


RE: I believe it
By BaronMatrix on 1/26/2010 1:11:36 PM , Rating: 2
At the time Columbus showed up in America Europe had just prior very nearly wiped itself out with Bubonic plague.

And as far as advanced agricultural methods, how do you know what they were using?

Besides, agricultural: Plant seed, add water, repeat. Unless you mean they had automated scythes and plows. No they had horses dragging them too.

Also, the Pilgrims almost died without the Indians in the northeast helping them make it through the winter. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT.

And to the TeePee comment, have you ever heard of a pueblo? Why do some people want to believe everyone needs them when that PARTICULAR person has invented NOTHING but a false sense of bravado.


RE: I believe it
By whiskerwill on 1/27/2010 2:35:25 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Also, the Pilgrims almost died without the Indians in the northeast helping them make it through the winter. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT.
Lol, do you honestly not realize that's a myth? The Pilgrims thanksgiving at Plymouth Plantation was for the large harvest they had, as a result of giving up their originali idea of wholly communal farming.

quote:
And as far as advanced agricultural methods, how do you know what they were using?
Um, from any of the tens of thousands of primary sources documenting their agricultural methods? Are you trying to embarrass yourself?

quote:
Besides, agricultural: Plant seed, add water, repeat. Unless you mean they had automated scythes and plows.
It just keeps getting better and better. Actually, I mean agricultural advances like crop rotation and fallowing, fertilization (sheep in the Middle Ages were primarily used to fertilize crops; their wool and meat were secondary factors), horse-drawn steel plows, and the beginnings of husbandry techniques leading to higher-yield strains. The European farmer of the late Middle Ages was productive enough to feed some 12-20 families in addition to his own, compared to the 3-4 the average Roman did (which is about the best the Mayans could do...North American hunter-gatherer Indians were even worse).

Honestly, learn a little before you try to debate these things.

quote:
And to the TeePee comment, have you ever heard of a pueblo?
I have. I also don't see many Native Americans today wanting to live in one either.


RE: I believe it
By Reclaimer77 on 1/25/2010 5:14:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes, I'm sure the Native Americans who were nearly wiped off the face of the Earth by diseases and genocidal acts are even grateful for the Europeans coming over to steal all their land and resources.


Somebody clearly goes to public school....


RE: I believe it
By Freezebyte on 1/25/2010 5:31:42 PM , Rating: 2
Histories a bitch for truth. How did your mommy and daddy teach you what happened to the indians then?


RE: I believe it
By whiskerwill on 1/25/2010 6:05:42 PM , Rating: 2
Why don't you try reading actual historical documents? Start with something like Hakluyts Voyages, which contains accounts of the first English contact with Native Americans. For several of the tribes encountered, their very request of the Europeans was for weapons of metal...to help them finish off some neighboring tribe. In another case, the Indians they encountered (on islands off the coast of Va. IIRC) pretended to befriend the Europeans...as a pretense to allow them slay everyone in their sleep that evening.

Roll forward all the way up to the time of Sitting Bull, the great 19th century symbol for Indian rights...and a man who originally became known for killing neighboring Crow Indians, while on war parties trying to expand into their lands. The list goes on and on.

Were Europeans harsh on the Indians? Not nearly as harsh as they were on themselves. Had Europeans not arrived, we'd still be a group of illiterate savages raping, plundering killing each other as fast as possible. What "happened" to the Indians was civilization...and a damn good thing it did, too.

To throw you a bone, there are admittedly many sad tales to be told against the Europeans, particularly in cases like the Cherokee, who did try to play by the white man's rules, and still suffered as a result. But even they were better treated than they would have been if conquered by some other native tribe.


RE: I believe it
By Belard on 1/25/2010 11:49:29 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah!

Just like the blacks were so lucky to have been slaves in America. (Boondocks on AS just did a parody ep on this)

Humans suck in general.


RE: I believe it
By whiskerwill on 1/26/2010 12:15:39 AM , Rating: 2
Those blacks who were slaves were not 'lucky', but their descendants certainly are. Which is why you see so few wanting to emigrate to Africa, but millions of Africans still trying to flee their own continent.

I recently met a young gentleman from the Gold Coast. He arrived in the US by stowing away on a deadheading cargo ship...he spent four days on a tiny shelf inches above the ocean, and only feet from a massive propeller that would have diced him in a second had he fallen off. Eventually he managed to attract the attention of the crew, who brought him aboard the ship proper. Why not ask him if he'd have preferred to have been born here instead, even if it meant his great-great grandfather would have been a slave?

And let us not forget that nearly all those blacks sold into slavery were those captured not by Europeans, but by neighboring tribes in Africa itself. Had they not been sold, most would have either been killed or spent a lifetime in slavery on their own continent.

While not condoning slavery in any way, shape, or form, that fact does help put into perspective those mental infants who consider slavery to be nothing but a European exploitation of other races. For that matter, the very word slave itself derives from the word "Slav". Why? Because so many Europeans of Slavic descent were made into slaves, that the term eventually came to denote bondage.

Pretty much every person on the planet is not only descended from ancestors who kept slaves, and other ancestors who were slaves. Try to remember that when you're crying about past injustices that one one alive had any part in.


RE: I believe it
By delphinus100 on 1/26/2010 4:14:56 AM , Rating: 2
Many Africans today (and other immigrants, historically) do indeed vote with their feet, there's no denying that...

Which doesn't change the fact that most African-Americans are not descended from people who chose to come here, and for most of the time since, have not been allowed to forget their second-class status, long after abolition. Slavery, at the time, was not seen as a finite condition.

There are more ethical ways to encourage immigration, if that was the idea.


RE: I believe it
By eddieroolz on 1/26/2010 1:23:10 AM , Rating: 2
Is this what the American schools really teach?


RE: I believe it
By delphinus100 on 1/26/2010 4:03:09 AM , Rating: 2
The point is (like, say, The Borg) they weren't asked if and how much of the white man's 'gifts' they wanted...

There is a lesson here for interstellar contact. The next time we (that is, humanity as a whole) could be the 'Indians.' (Some have proposed a variation on the Principle of Reciprocity [Golden Rule] for this; 'Treat your inferiors as you would have your superiors treat you.')


RE: I believe it
By BaronMatrix on 1/26/2010 1:05:12 PM , Rating: 3
The two of you above have problems. You're not special. No race is special. Technology created before Amrrica contributed to technology created after.


RE: I believe it
By Belard on 1/25/2010 11:36:07 PM , Rating: 1
Er... yeah. The Europeans were bigger experts at killing and plundering.

We, as a modern world (by todays standards), we should know better. :(


RE: I believe it
By fishman on 1/26/2010 6:50:39 AM , Rating: 2
The native american tribe depicted in the movie "Dances With Wolves" had driven out another tribe to take their territory.


RE: I believe it
By Reclaimer77 on 1/25/10, Rating: -1
RE: I believe it
By CHAOQIANG on 1/25/10, Rating: -1
RE: I believe it
By Belard on 1/25/2010 11:25:41 PM , Rating: 2
Well, not everyone is like you, eh?

With todays ticket prices and job market, I saw 4 movies in 2009 (other than Avatar). But I've seen Avatar twice already. The only reason I haven't seen it 4 times by now is because my required expensive repairs. But I'll be seeing my 3rd viewing in the next 2~3 days.

Avatar was better then 2nd time around.


RE: I believe it
By Guyver on 1/26/2010 4:44:49 PM , Rating: 2
In today's dollars, Titanic made the equivalent of $803,061,031 in domestic box office sales. To be fair, inflation should always be factored in.

Otherwise, comparing a movie from a future date to a movie made in a previous decade or two is rather pointless since the dollar gets weaker over time.

Case in point, The Ten Commandments made the equivalent of $5,166,240,257 in today's dollars for domestic box office sales. That's $5.1 billion. In terms of popularity, Avatar has yet to match even an old movie such as Ten Commandments.

You need a baseline.


RE: I believe it
By Freezebyte on 1/25/2010 6:05:42 PM , Rating: 1
Then again, I also went and saw Titanic 4 times back in 1997/1998 but that's because i've been a Titanic fan and historian since I was 8 years old, so........

Oh and Kate Winslet is one of the hottest fucking woman on the planet as well.


RE: I believe it
By Reclaimer77 on 1/25/2010 7:24:15 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Then again, I also went and saw Titanic 4 times back in 1997/1998 but that's because i've been a Titanic fan and historian since I was 8 years old, so........


????

The movie has NOTHING, absolutely nothing to do with the Titanic or it's historical importance. It's a cheesy love story that just happens to take place on the ship.


RE: I believe it
By sigilscience on 1/25/2010 7:28:12 PM , Rating: 2
I think you're being too harsh on the film. Yeah, its entertainment -- but its supposed to be. It's not supposed to be a documentary. It does an excellent job of making you feel the enormity of the disaster, and what it might have been like to actually be on the ship at the time. The effects were groundbreaking at the time too. Was the love story cheesy? Very. So what?

BTW, Kate Winslet is borderline chunky with a florid farmgirl complexion. I can't imagine anyone thinking she's the "hottest gal on the planet".


RE: I believe it
By Freezebyte on 1/25/10, Rating: 0
RE: I believe it
By sigilscience on 1/25/2010 7:48:15 PM , Rating: 2
I do dig them actually. But hey, if you like the meaty chicks, more power to you. Here's some good lookin' luv for ya:

http://www.topnews.in/files/Obesity.2007.jpg


RE: I believe it
By sigilscience on 1/25/2010 7:50:22 PM , Rating: 2
BTW, why did you quote the word opinion? Do you think my opinion is actually fact? Or are you somewhat punctuation challenged?


RE: I believe it
By Freezebyte on 1/25/10, Rating: 0
RE: I believe it
By sigilscience on 1/25/2010 8:40:34 PM , Rating: 2
The chick in the first link is pretty hot, thanks.

I think you and I should go bar-hopping together. We certainly wouldn't have any problems deciding who would get which girl.


RE: I believe it
By Freezebyte on 1/25/2010 8:43:49 PM , Rating: 2
Tried it and and not my thing. I'd rather stay home with a diet energy drink and play games while petting my cat.


RE: I believe it
By Chocobollz on 1/26/2010 2:44:05 AM , Rating: 2
Size 12 and 16 is a meatbag :p


RE: I believe it
By Chocobollz on 1/26/2010 2:46:51 AM , Rating: 2
RE: I believe it
By n0ebert on 1/26/2010 10:32:50 AM , Rating: 2
Meh, the films only saving grace is the CGI effects. There's no doubt it's a beautiful movie, however the plot and storyline felt like it was made by a 12 year old (unobtainium? really?). It should certainly win the award for best special effects, but certainly not best picture.


I think it is a must see for the 3D
By Esquire on 1/25/10, Rating: 0
By Souka on 1/25/2010 11:57:03 AM , Rating: 2
I wonder what the number of unique people seeing this is?

I ask because I know a number of people who saw various combinations of the 2d, 3D, 2d-IMAX, and 3D-IMAX...

Would Avatar been so sucessful if it had been 2D or 3D only?

Crazy man.


RE: I think it is a must see for the 3D
By DtTall on 1/25/10, Rating: 0
RE: I think it is a must see for the 3D
By rcc on 1/25/2010 12:38:43 PM , Rating: 2
But really, are there any original story lines left? Everything appears to be a rehash of an old story/movie. Often times old enough that the younger generations don't recognize it, but still.....


RE: I think it is a must see for the 3D
By callmeroy on 1/25/2010 2:47:48 PM , Rating: 2
Good point and one of my "favorite points" to make whenever someone says "same old storyline".....

All the storylines have been done, there is nothing original left.

Any movie you look at -- its story or type of story has been told in a thousand other movies.

All movies are is a different version of storyline (with different actors and sets).


RE: I think it is a must see for the 3D
By Reclaimer77 on 1/25/2010 5:10:57 PM , Rating: 2
I don't agree, you are being an apologist and using cop outs.

For example I saw Daybreakers this weekend. Very few things are as beat to death as the Vampire genre, but I was actually impressed at how original the movie was. They took something beaten to death and made it feel new and refreshing and very original. With great writing, acting, and very few if any plot holes.

Would you say Serenity is the "same old stuff" as well ?

Saying "nothing original is left" is just sad. Do you believe man has reached the end of it's imagination ? That just isn't possible.

There is a big difference between being unoriginal and something being recycled. Avatar is recycled content, in the truest sense of the word.

Movie making is still an art to some people. Just because Cameron has sold out and has strictly gone for maximum profits doesn't mean everything that can ever be done has already been done.


RE: I think it is a must see for the 3D
By banthracis on 1/25/2010 5:57:54 PM , Rating: 2
Well technically Serenity is a complete ripoff of Cowboy Bebop, which in turn was heavily influenced by Trigun, which is turn was based off of Battle Angel Alita...

so yea, I'd say most things have been done.

Any hero story adheres to, or is a variation of the Monomyth.

Major processes of the monomyth include:

The Call to Adventure- Jack Goes to pandora
Refusal of the Call- Initially didn't want to go.
Supernatural Aid- Saved from being killed by the female navi because of the seeds landing landing on her bow.
The Road of Trials- The training portion
The Meeting With the Goddess- The connection to the tree of ancestors scene
Atonement with the Father- In him case, admittance and atonement for betraying the tribe.
The Magic Flight- obvious
Master of Two Worlds- obvious
Freedom to Live- Final scene

You could fill events that fit these categories in any hero story. From beowolf to Avatar.

In the context of the monomyth, everything that can be done will still be just a variation, and not truely original.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomyth


RE: I think it is a must see for the 3D
By Reclaimer77 on 1/25/2010 6:47:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well technically Serenity is a complete ripoff of Cowboy Bebop


That is so absurd. Right I'm so sure Josh Weadon has to look to amine for plot points. Are you insane ?


By ClownPuncher on 1/25/2010 6:54:31 PM , Rating: 2
Don't bash Cowboy Bebop :) Being a fan of both Firefly (Serenity was a bit meh for me) and Cowboy Bebop, there are obviously some parallels, but there is no "complete ripoff" going on.

I fully agree, Avatar was completely derivative. I also agree that there are still film makers out there making original films. This BS that every story has already been done is garbage.


By ClownPuncher on 1/25/2010 6:56:57 PM , Rating: 2
You need to read more.


By Belard on 1/26/2010 12:01:07 AM , Rating: 2
And how many Star Trek eps are actually original?

Oh, there is a Live-Action version of Space Cruiser Yamato (Star Blazers) coming from Japan. It looks pretty good.

Or how about the thousands of Kung-fu / Triad movies that have come out in the past 50 years? Or the countless of Anime that is magical girls or cute school girls that beat up boys? We have Bakugun(whatever) that is replacing Pokemon...

Avatar is a movie that is well put together and entertaining - doesn't matter if its a re-told story. How many people (younger) watch movies made 20, 40, 50 years ago? Black and white... ew!!! Personally, I don't mind watching a good movie, even if its not in color.


By Hiawa23 on 1/25/2010 12:17:02 PM , Rating: 2
I thought the movie was great, but honestly, it really doesn't matter to me how much it or any movie makes. Some of my alltime favorite movies have been by J C, so I am glad for him.


Heh
By judasmachine on 1/25/10, Rating: 0
RE: Heh
By judasmachine on 1/25/2010 11:38:28 AM , Rating: 2
Wow at the USMC guy, and those who were depressed afterward. This I believe shows how personal and striking this film is.


RE: Heh
By rcc on 1/25/2010 11:53:28 AM , Rating: 4
Or how pathetic people are getting.


RE: Heh
By judasmachine on 1/25/2010 11:56:44 AM , Rating: 3
I just didn't want to say it out loud. :)


USMC
By WillBach on 1/25/2010 12:19:26 PM , Rating: 5
I saw Avatar for the first time last night, in 3D. I thought the USMC was depicted as totally badass . When Colonel Miles Quaritch landed round after round on a moving target at least a hundred feet away without the benefit of an oxygen mask, I thought to myself, "damn, that reminds me of Gunnery Sergeant Hunt of the NROTC." Hoorah.




RE: USMC
By abraxas1 on 1/25/2010 12:32:37 PM , Rating: 2
The Colonel was my favorite character and the actor who plays him is nothing like the character. That's good acting.

MASKS ON!


RE: USMC
By theflux on 1/25/2010 2:10:50 PM , Rating: 2
He was easily my favorite character. Two dimensional? Maybe, but 100% awesome villain.


Adjusted for inflation...
By theinnkeeper on 1/25/2010 4:29:52 PM , Rating: 4
Every time the $$$ come out for this movie I hear people talk about how it's not a fair comparison if inflation isn't taken into account. And that's fair.

Using that logic we need to do some other calculations: What's the ratio of tickets to population in US compared to Gone With the Wind (most ticket sales ever)?

What's the ratio of ticket sales to other movies in theaters while this movie is in theaters? There were a lot less movies out during GWtW run. So it had less competition.

What about factoring in how many options people have to entertain themselves? There are so many more forms of entertainment now than then. Surely that has to be considered as well.

Lastly, you can factor the ratio of cost to make vs. ticket sales. This is important to movie studios.

Also, in 10 years this comment will inflate to a be a really good comment.




RE: Adjusted for inflation...
By whiskerwill on 1/25/2010 4:40:00 PM , Rating: 2
Lol at that last line :)


RE: Adjusted for inflation...
By manofhorn on 1/26/2010 11:04:42 AM , Rating: 2
i think the biggest problem is the fact that tickets are nearly twice as expensive for this movie.

it's not a "$2 billion" mark anymore. it's a "$4 billion" mark. call me when a movie ACTUALLY outdoes a classic in ticket sales.

i do admit it might be harder now for movies theaters to win the public's attendance, but for me that is ONLY because of freaking outrageous ticket prices. for nine dollars i'd rather eat for two days... or run the electricity in my apartment for weeks.


Why???
By dragonbif on 1/25/2010 11:43:46 AM , Rating: 1
In the movie they are picking up former Marines to go to another world that could take them away from our world for years. What kind of people are going to be jumping up and down looking for the chance to go? I would say that one with nothing to loose, love fighting or just looking to kill some aliens. So only the worst of the Marine Corps would go and they are no longer part of the Corps.




RE: Why???
By corduroygt on 1/25/2010 12:50:43 PM , Rating: 2
The same kind of people that work for Blackwater and such.


RE: Why???
By talozin on 1/25/2010 2:49:12 PM , Rating: 2
What kind of people are going to be jumping up and down looking for the chance to go? I would say that one with nothing to loose, love fighting or just looking to kill some aliens.

There are quite a few skills taught in the armed forces that aren't exactly in high demand in the civilian sector. If I'd just gotten out of a stint in the Corps, and I had the choice between working for minimum wage at Burger King, or signing on for a multiyear security gig on an alien world for good wages, benefits, and medical care, I'd have to give serious thought to the latter ... if they didn't go out of their way to portray it as an alien-blasting spree.

It all depends on how the recruiter pitches the job, and how much I know about the situation before I get there. Of course, I gather that the setup for "Avatar" is that the survival of humanity depends on the success of their mission. So you'd probably have to take that into account, also.


About right
By Uncle on 1/25/2010 9:27:38 PM , Rating: 2
No wonder its a world wide smash it depicts US of A Corporations and US mercenary the way they truly are. Can anyone from the US prove differently. From Bechtel corp to Blackwater the list can go on and on.




RE: About right
By Uncle on 1/25/2010 10:20:02 PM , Rating: 2
Edit: Thats how the US of A works, it declares war against a country that has the resources it needs; bombs the shit out of it then sends its companies in to rebuild while they suck the economy dry(pardon the pun) and leave the people destitute by putting in a puppet government under the disguise of democracy.


By PAPutzback on 1/25/2010 4:21:58 PM , Rating: 2
Here in Indy the movie is 9.50 and there is no charge for the glasses. We are pretty lucky I guess. Not to mention this theater does free refills on pop and popcorn. Slurpy refills for .25.




By Uncle on 1/25/2010 11:30:19 PM , Rating: 1
I can understand why your prices are so low your from Indya:) 9.50 rupees, and you don't need glasses cause you all ready see in 3D:)What do you guys put in your drinks the only Slurpy language around here are from drunks.:)


Puns
By ebakke on 1/25/2010 12:03:09 PM , Rating: 2
Enough with the awful puns in the titles and opening sentences of the articles. Sheesh.




twice
By PascalT on 1/25/2010 3:51:42 PM , Rating: 2
I've seen it twice and I would go see it again. It's an incredible experience and a great thrill ride full of beauty and great animation/characters, etc... It deserves all the money it has raked in so far.




Don't shout...
By damianrobertjones on 1/26/2010 3:32:24 AM , Rating: 2
But I found Avatar to be another 'Dances with wolves' film and although I liked it, I'm a big miffed at how nearly every other damn Sci-Fi film has been skipped and then, suddenly, Avatar!!!

Madness.

It's a good film, but not better than the timeless Titanic




pointless comparison
By wushuktl on 1/25/10, Rating: -1
RE: pointless comparison
By stirfry213 on 1/25/2010 12:03:44 PM , Rating: 3
Think its dumb all you want. But don't be ignorant to the fact that you are in the minority with your opinion.


RE: pointless comparison
By The0ne on 1/25/10, Rating: -1
RE: pointless comparison
By ClownPuncher on 1/25/2010 12:53:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
My first dog and donkey show was over 25 years ago in Tijuana. Get over the hype


Fixed for accuracy


RE: pointless comparison
By The0ne on 1/25/10, Rating: -1
RE: pointless comparison
By ClownPuncher on 1/25/2010 2:12:16 PM , Rating: 2
I was just having fun with ya. My first trip to IMAX was about 25 years ago too


RE: pointless comparison
By The0ne on 1/25/2010 2:43:04 PM , Rating: 2
Now you got me curious. Where was your first IMAX experience? I've traveled cross-country for about a year and saw many in the midwest, some even in remote places that doesn't seem to house any living thing :) but there are signs saying IMAX this way hahaha Alabama, parts of IOWA I think.

I think I was about 12 years old or younger when the teacher took us to the museums in TJ and IMAX. Shortly after that I had my 2nd experience with Disney's Captain Neo and that was pretty good :)

Anyhow, good times.


RE: pointless comparison
By ClownPuncher on 1/25/2010 2:57:08 PM , Rating: 2
Pacific Science Center in Seattle.


RE: pointless comparison
By thefrozentin on 1/25/2010 3:19:30 PM , Rating: 1
Man i hope i dont end up grumphy, sarcastic and pointless like you when i grow up!!


RE: pointless comparison
By Dorkyman on 1/25/2010 4:35:52 PM , Rating: 2
Touting sales volume is completely irrelevant in an inflation environment unless you adjust for it. According to BoxOfficeMojo, Avatar is a modest #26 on all-time domestic list, just above "Thunderball" but below "Grease." I expect the ranking to climb, though, as sales continue. As mentioned elsewhere, #1 is "Gone With the Wind," #2 is "Star Wars," #3 is "Sound of Music."

Kinda puts it in perspective, doesn't it?

http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm


RE: pointless comparison
By Oregonian2 on 1/25/2010 5:50:04 PM , Rating: 2
You have a point, but one also has to keep in mind that "inflation" is an averaged statistical thing that gets applied as if it were a homogeneous thing in it's universal "flat" application. There also are some anomalies in terms of the details about how it's calculated that makes one wonder a little about application. I'm not saying it's not very useful, but it just can't be taken TOO seriously as an exact number one can confidently use.


RE: pointless comparison
By trisct on 1/25/2010 1:22:26 PM , Rating: 2
I've seen both versions (2D and 3D IMAX), but other than the huge screen, I didn't think the 3D IMAX version added much to the movie. A very few scenes made use of the 3D effects in a cute way, but equally many scenes were disrupted by the 3D, which just ended up being distracting, and didn't fit in the action scenes at all.


RE: pointless comparison
By DM0407 on 1/25/2010 1:51:09 PM , Rating: 2
I have yet to see this movie, because its just a movie. This is partially a boycott but mostly that I could give a sh!t about any movie this hyped.

If I wanted to spend $20 on some action only to go home disappointed I'd go to the strip club. I'll wait til it comes out on .torrent, I mean DVD.


RE: pointless comparison
By Sazar on 1/25/2010 4:40:18 PM , Rating: 2
You must have an awesome high-definition 3-D setup at your home to get the gist of what many people talk about when referring to this movie.

As a comparison, Beowulf was a below average movie in 2-D. In 3-D, it was actually compelling and become and average to slightly above average movie.

Avatar, pertaining to the movie, story and acting is average at best. Watch Battle for Terra and you'll get 90% of the same stuff. But, watching the movie for the experience with high-def and in 3-D is something else. It transforms the movie and gives it depth that you don't see from anything else.

It's not just about having things pop out at you. It is about rendering things almost as they are happening in front of you and THAT is where the technology used wowed me.


RE: pointless comparison
By Oregonian2 on 1/25/2010 5:53:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's not just about having things pop out at you. It is about rendering things almost as they are happening in front of you and THAT is where the technology used wowed me.


Exactly. I mark down 3D that pops things at you or drops things into your lap. Idea is to be more realistic -- seeing 3d like one does in real life.


RE: pointless comparison
By StevoLincolnite on 1/25/2010 12:15:10 PM , Rating: 2
All they needed was a "Giant fricken moon laser!" - and it would have been better. :P


RE: pointless comparison
By geddarkstorm on 1/25/2010 1:09:22 PM , Rating: 2
Orbital bombardment would have solved all their problems, and the length of the movie.


RE: pointless comparison
By Souka on 1/25/2010 1:35:08 PM , Rating: 2
Or how about something other than minimal armanments?

You can't tell me with such a valuable mineral, interstellar travel, such advanced genetics, and advanced VR technology (ability to control the man-made Navi), that they didn't have more than a few light aircraft, lightly armed aircraft, and a few mechs.

Okok, sure they didn't expect the trouble... but it would seem quite obvious once things were going to be tough to fall back and call in more troops from Earth.... and as said before... carpet bomb the hell out of the Navi.


RE: pointless comparison
By Sillarra on 1/25/2010 8:10:44 PM , Rating: 2
It took 5 years in cryogenic sleep for Jake Sully to reach Pandora...how long do you think reinforcements will arrive even if they called it at the beginning of the movie?


RE: pointless comparison
By PresidentThomasJefferson on 1/25/2010 8:46:02 PM , Rating: 2
as explained in the MOvie's officia wikipedia/website: The Corporation signed a treaty with the world gov that prohibits orbital weapons in exchange for exclusive monopoly rights to mine the unobtanium (that powers their maglev trains)

It also takes 6 yrs 1-way to reach Pandora ...12 yrs round trip
--
The methane/toxic atmosphere also corrodes/damages most materials & the super intense magnetic flux interferes with most advanced electronics (that's why their targeting & sensors/electronics don't work at any range near those fields, as explained in the movie)


RE: pointless comparison
By whiskerwill on 1/25/2010 9:07:17 PM , Rating: 2
That all just fairly screams "plot device"


RE: pointless comparison
By delphinus100 on 1/26/2010 4:21:44 AM , Rating: 2
Of course it was. 'Mutara Nebula,' anyone?

(And understand, I still think ST-II was the best Trek movie...)


RE: pointless comparison
By Aloonatic on 1/27/2010 5:09:25 AM , Rating: 2
Ah, Unobtanium...

Was I the only person who laughed on hearing the name of the element that was causing all the friction, with memoires of Mega-lo-Maniac and the amusingly named elements in that game flooding back?

Also, why didn't they just simply the Slanted Mining Co (or whatever it was called) that Mr Burns used to steal the elementary schools oil in Who Shot Mr Burns? :D


RE: pointless comparison
By StraightCashHomey on 1/25/2010 12:22:24 PM , Rating: 2
It's kind of like wins and losses for MLB pitchers. The numbers do suggest success or failure, but it is not a precise measurement on how good the pitcher really is.

Ticket sales would be a better indication of a movie's popularity I think, however, there are other factors that influence that as well such as the state of the economy and the price of the tickets. I, for one, hate going to a theatre because I cannot justify spending $8 to $12 on a frickin' movie that I'm not going to own afterwards.

On the other hand, you have to consider inflation between 1997 and 2009. $1.8B buys less today than it did in 1997.


RE: pointless comparison
By porkpie on 1/25/2010 1:14:03 PM , Rating: 4
BoxofficeMojo and other statistic-collecting agencies do adjust for inflation...but those figures get less attention, because the unadjusted figures always favor new movies, which makes it "news".

Adjusted for inflation, I believe "Gone With the Wind" is still #1, followed by Titanic.


RE: pointless comparison
By Skott on 1/25/2010 12:41:19 PM , Rating: 2
Although it is true ticket prices have risen some and the IMAX 3D does cost more than a regular movie what you fail to acknowledge is that more people did go see Avatar thus propelling the movie to its #1 slot. You hated it. We get that. Still it doesn't change the fact that it was the #1 movie in 2009 in ticket sales and soon to be the #1 of all time.


RE: pointless comparison
By jmke on 1/25/2010 1:24:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It would be better if they compared actual quantity of ticket sales

yes, because over time the population on earth doesn't increase at all!


RE: pointless comparison
By porkpie on 1/25/2010 1:28:14 PM , Rating: 2
Well you could adjust total sales not only for inflation, but also for population growth as well. But then to be fair, you'd really need to adjust for the much larger number of movies being made per year nowadays -- after all, is it really fair to compare sales between a film released in a year in which it had to compete with 30 other MMPs, vs one in a year in which 60 MMPs were made?

But by this point, you've pretty much figured out that an exact apples-to-apples comparison of sales between films made more than 10 years apart is pretty much impossible...so you just keep your mouth shut.


RE: pointless comparison
By Oregonian2 on 1/25/2010 6:00:19 PM , Rating: 2
One would also need to accommodate the financial status of each country over time as well as whether there is a recession (more impressive in a recession than in booming times). Also if a country is at war and needs something to rally around, that film should be discounted because it's being favored by influences outside of the film's quality. Perhaps also there should be corrections for other films running at the same time. Ones with weak competition are 'cheating'. Etc.


RE: pointless comparison
By bravacentauri83 on 1/25/2010 1:25:03 PM , Rating: 2
What are the current totals for ticket sales for Avatar vs Titanic?


RE: pointless comparison
By monomer on 1/25/2010 5:02:42 PM , Rating: 2
Avatar vs. Titanic sounds like a fricken awesome idea for a movie.


RE: pointless comparison
By MonkeyPaw on 1/25/2010 2:41:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
With movie ticket prices ever increasing, plus the additional hike for 3d viewing, comparing money earned is useless. It would be better if they compared actual quantity of ticket sales, not a summation of ticket prices.


Yeah, it's like when they throw out the cost of natural disasters as a measure of its significance. It says little of the intensity of the disaster and more about what it hit. An F5 tornado in an open field is far more powerful than an F2 that hits a suburb, but which one do you think will be more expensive and more reported on the news?


RE: pointless comparison
By callmeroy on 1/25/2010 2:44:13 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think your point is completely invalid -- naturally as time goes on certain movies will appear to sell more because the price of the tickets go up.

On the other hand unless people stop having kids, population increases over time as well -- so, one might argue (at least over time) number of ticket sales isn't completely accurate either.

Finally --- the success of this movie , has nothing to do with anything except for the visuals. Why folks are shocked at this is mind boggling to me...we live in the age of the almighty electronic gadget and "our" kids are raised on video games....so why are we shocked that a movie that looks like a video game, more or less, strikes a popular chord with audiences.


3D...stil not ready for primetime.
By kyleb2112 on 1/25/10, Rating: -1
RE: 3D...stil not ready for primetime.
By The0ne on 1/25/2010 1:39:13 PM , Rating: 1
Wow, your post got rated down quick! You're not going to convince others of the 3D stuff, especially using a "cartoon" :) Most are convinced Avatar has brought 3D to us all!

I agree with you completely on Coraline 3D. Watch how my post plummeted for that too :D


By Oregonian2 on 1/25/2010 5:38:34 PM , Rating: 2
As reported in 3D photography mailing lists, Avatar actually did have a half dozen scenes that were 2D because the interocular was too wide and rather than redo it, they slipped in 2D shots. I have no idea how long the snippets were and I'll have to admit that I didn't notice them, but apparently they're in there somewhere. :-)


RE: 3D...stil not ready for primetime.
By Spivonious on 1/25/2010 2:35:58 PM , Rating: 2
Coraline had great visuals. I only wish they had used polarized glasses instead of red/blue. Red/blue messes with the colors too much.


RE: 3D...stil not ready for primetime.
By Oregonian2 on 1/25/2010 5:35:22 PM , Rating: 2
Coraline was with polarized glasses, at least here. Saw it in a RealD theater.
Didn't even know they made an anaglyph version of it (generic description of the red/blue method).


RE: 3D...stil not ready for primetime.
By Spivonious on 1/26/2010 9:13:36 AM , Rating: 2
Yep, here it was red/blue in the theater and I got a BD copy that is also red/blue.


By Oregonian2 on 1/26/2010 8:21:43 PM , Rating: 2
I hope they burn the anaglyph version's distribution film. Ick. 3D movies can be very good, but not possible in anaglyph (IMO). Gives 3D a bad name.


RE: 3D...stil not ready for primetime.
By Soodey on 1/25/2010 3:53:13 PM , Rating: 2
I agree 100% and am still blown away by how many people found the 3D version to be the greatest thing ever. I saw it once, in IMAX 3D and I wish I had seen it in a standard theater. Cardboard cutouts slightly emerging from the background is not what I call revolutionary 3D tech. More often than not it ruined the intense action sequences because everything was far too blurry. Maybe something was off with my IMAX, but I just don't understand all the praise.

That said I loved the movie and seriously wanted to see it again, just never got around to it.


By Oregonian2 on 1/25/2010 5:42:55 PM , Rating: 2
Offhand I suspect your IMAX glasses may have needed new batteries. At least the RealD version had relatively little noticeable "cardboarding" (what 3D'ers call it). Not saying "none", but not enough to be a problem IMO.


"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." -- Isaac Asimov














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki