Avatar Discussion

[DC 536]

Wasnt Titanic a relative flop initially, and then it boomed around Valentine's Day or something?

Not quite; all the critics predicted the movie would flop ("We know the ending, the ship sinks, so why would we want to watch it?"), but the film did good business from its opening day, going straight in at #1 and taking $29million over its opening weekend. Word of mouth cascaded into greater numbers and on Valentine's Day 1998, it took a mammoth $13million, six weeks after it originally came out.

 

Despite losing the record to Avatar, Titanic still holds the record for most consecutive weeks at #1, staying on top for fifteen weeks after its release in December 1997 and was in cinemas for a total of ten months (December 1997 - October 1998). Avatar has been in cinemas since December 18th, which was six-and-a-half weeks ago, meaning it made more in six-odd weeks than Titanic did in ten months.

[Guest The Beltster]

So its obviously on course to break 2 billion....with a good run still left in the cinema and DVD rentals later, you have to wonder how high this thing can go. Is 3 billion completely out of the realms of possibility?

[Guest ShaneMcCutcheon]

I got around to watching it last night.

 

I didn't like it much at all. I thought it was pretty and well made, but didn't find the plot, characters, or major storylines compelling at all.

 

disappointing but not entirely unexpected.

[DC 536]

So its obviously on course to break 2 billion....with a good run still left in the cinema and DVD rentals later, you have to wonder how high this thing can go. Is 3 billion completely out of the realms of possibility?

$2billion is pretty much a certainty, $3billion is possible, but unlikely. If it gets a long run in cinemas like Titanic did, then there's a good chance of reaching that target. It all depends on whether the studio are happy to do that or cash in on the expected DVD/Blu-Ray sales.

 

Oh, just as a side note, the figures used are box-office takings only and don't take into account DVD sales/rentals.

Edited January 28, 2010 by DC

[Guest Dante Spears]

Just saw Avatar and know how crazy I feel saying these words but Christ I can;t think of any criticism.

[DC 536]

The film has now passed the $1.9billion mark.

[Guest Nemesis Enforcer]

I was in town on Thursday and the line of people waiting to get into the cinema to see Avatar was still amazingly high to say its been in the cinema here for a while now.

[Guest JC]

Only actually got to see the film yesterday finally.

 

From the off I have to lend my support to Cameron for certainly inspiring some of the most incredible visuals I've ever seen in movie cinema.

 

I think it's a very good movie overall and certainly deserves a few awards.

 

The 3-D was perfect for the type of movie it was and really did make me feel like I was watching a benchmark film.

 

The story was fairly predictable but at the same time enjoyable which is down to good to great acting and great direction from Cameron.

 

I do however wonder if there will be a point in buying Avatar on DVD/Blu-Ray. As for me, unless people have a huge HD tele and good surround sound (kind of like Cloverfield's problem) I can't see you enjoying it, anywhere near as much.

 

Although then again, people probably thought the same about the Original Star Wars when it came out.

 

As for 3-D itself. I don't think this movie proves that 3-D is the future for films, but more it's the future for action or fantasy films.

 

And finally I would thoroughly entertain the thought of a sequel as for me it's got a lot of potential.

[DC 536]

As for 3-D itself. I don't think this movie proves that 3-D is the future for films, but more it's the future for action or fantasy films.

Where I think it advanced 3D in movies is that the effect wasn't used to simply have things coming at you, it wasn't a gimmick like in the earlier days of the technology (or in horror) where things are thrown at you or sticks/knives/whatever come out of the screen simply to have something come out of the screen.

 

In Avatar, the 3D was used to immerse you in the world of Pandora and create a fully-realised world. It's that mindset that could and should make all the difference in future.

 

I can't wait to see Star Wars in 3D, mainly for the beginning with the Destroyer.

[Guest JC]

Yeah. Action/Fantasy..like Star Wars :D Pretty much what I said.

 

What I was more getting at was films like Changeling or The Godfather or whatever aren't going to be any more enjoyable in 3-D.

 

And if the future of cinema has to be in 3-D all the time I'd be pretty worried about the art-form of story telling.

[DC 536]

And if the future of cinema has to be in 3-D all the time I'd be pretty worried about the art-form of story telling.

It's an evolution, though, which happens all the time in pretty much every art form. With film, there were doomsayers (not, um, saying that you're one) who argued that sound would ruin the art of telling a story, that colour would do likewise (from a technical POV, at least, most effects are also easier to render in black-and-white) and so on.

 

In a way, if you're looking at it from an "art of storytelling" situation, you could argue that movies themselves are an evolution from stories being told using the written word. This was also originally met with scorn in certain circles, fearing that the experience would be muted and that the art of storytelling would be lost.

[Guest JC]

Yeah but there is still a lot of Silent and Black & White movies which still hold up today. Maybe not in gross popularity but certainly on merit and that's my point. It's not I don't think 3-D will become more and more selected, I just don't think it will improve movies that revolve around 'normal' settings.

 

It would be nice I grant you, to feel completely emersed in every movie you watch.

 

But that's the issue, if a movie is good enough and on merit has you hooked; you don't need 3-D.

 

With Avatar, 3-D wasn't necessary but given the world that Jim created, it certainly added a further layer of beauty to the movie.

[DC 536]

But that's the issue, if a movie is good enough and on merit has you hooked; you don't need 3-D.

I completely agree, however, if the 3D is used as an enhancement to the story rather than the sole reason to view the movie (Avatar's pre-release hype centred around the 3D technology, but the film itself didn't rely on it, instead merely using it to enhance the environment to an unprecedented degree).

 

In a way, it's like IMAX. Movies don't need IMAX, but the films can be a damn sight more impressive on the larger screen. Same with 3D, the films don't need it, but if it makes them even more impressive, even more of an enjoyable experience, then I'm all for it.

 

Where the problem comes in is when every film is in 3D simply so the studios can say it's in 3D. If it's used as a gimmick rather than an extension of the medium, then that's where problems can begin. Sure, with cheap slasher flicks, half the fun is cheap gimmicks, but they're the exception to conventional rules.

[Guest JasonB]

I saw this the sunday after the friday it came out here in December and it was worth every penny, such a superb film.

[Guest Phil]

saw it this evening. Was in no way deserving of the hype. if it had been released 4/5 years ago when Cameron started filming it then it would have been something special but aside from the graphics, which were really good, it's all been done before. CGI has become so accepted now it just felt like another action blockbuster. Good, but nothing new, and nothing special.

[Guest Jayfunk]

the irony of this film being the highest grossing film was that it was an average film which had been done before (story) the CGI sold the film.

 

HOWEVER if it ended like this it would have been epic

 

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

[Guest JC]

the irony of this film being the highest grossing film was that it was an average film which had been done before (story) the CGI sold the film.

 

 

When has there been a movie about humans invading another planet to aquire a particular substance, upon which a soldier is psychologically transferred to another body, upon which he mingles among the natives, upon which he falls in love with a female native?

 

Parts of it seem familiar but it is a new story.

 

If you're leeching onto quotes in the press like 'Pocahontas in space' etc..they're exaggerating.

[DC 536]

Just because the basics of a story has been done before, Jay, that doesn't mean it's a bad thing.

[Guest MastersGonads]

Saw it for the 3rd time today...Had seen the previous two in VUE's and today in Cineworld...and for some reason the 3D seemed better in Cineworld...

[Guest Jayfunk]

Just because the basics of a story has been done before, Jay, that doesn't mean it's a bad thing.

 

No your right but if i wanted to see dancing with wolves i would, it was as a story underwelming IMHO visual which was it's selling point was amazing, but i guess if you look at the next highest film titanic the best thing about that film was the fact that we knew there wouldn't be a sequal.