James Cameron's Avatar Sci Fi Flick

As meesha would say, "pretty pictures alone do not make for a good movie" (and no, I still haven't seen it, but this is true for any film ;))

I would have to disagree with this. The visuals in Avatar were just that amazing.

Since lc hasn't seen the movie (as far as one can tell), he isn't much in a position to comment, actually.

Of course, in my opinion, just a few quick points:

Story - The story is simple and possibly clichéd[/b] - but it is in no way [i]bad. It is very general, broadly appealing and epic in every way - bad? In order for a story to be bad, it has to have plot holes, weak climaxes, poor messages. This story had none of those - sure it may have been obvious to some what was going to happen, but that was because it was clichéd, not bad.

And the difference between a clichéd story and a bad one is that the clichéd one was once considered a masterpiece of story telling; the bad one was always bad.

World - What really makes this movie though is of course Pandora. And not just the visuals of Pandora, but the entire concept. It is one of the most detailed worlds ever conceived, and for many, a Utopian vision of earth.

Emotion - Is incredible, and may be a bit over the top for some, but whatever. For instance, the utter joy expressed when Neytiri follows Jake when he flies his banshee for the first time - several of the flying scenes in fact - is indescribable.

Acting - It is beyond me how someone could consider the performances in general bad, but I guess each to his/her own. Stephen Lang and Sigourney Weaver were very good, and Academy biases aside, I think Zoe is even Oscar-worthy.

Overall - For me, at worst the movie is one giant exposition in terms of characters and world creation to be used for later sequels. At best...well, it's an awesome experience, end of story.

-----

By the way, the movie pulled in another $21m OS on Monday, more than 4 times the amount domestically. Having much better legs than in the US, which are already great - though that's rather expected.

I don't think it's sad that people don't like the movie. And I think its acceptable that people do like it. It's your choice to like it or dislike it. I hated American Beauty, but everyone I know loved it.

The acting and plot line were pretty average in Avatar, though I would say that Zoe Saldana's performance was top notch. She managed to emote when emotions was needed.

However, I'm a highly visual person, so the visuals of gliding through Pandora do override a lot of the story for me. I honestly see the plot as a simple device to explore Pandora. Though, I'm also one who would like a National Geographic movie of Pandora, without needing a story.

But seriously...it's ok if people don't like the movie. If you could see it through my eyes, you might like it, but if I saw it through your eyes, I might like it less. I'm happy with enjoying it, no matter how pedestrian the plot, and with the sometimes wooden acting. While in general special effects don't alone a good movie make, in this particular circumstance I have to disagree. But, like I said...I'm highly visual and it's a feast for my eyes...it's like 3D on steroids.

Yep, I love American Beauty too :lol: Don't get me wrong though, I watch more than just critically acclaimed films. For the most part I watch movies simply as a form of entertainment and I've seen more than my fair share of "drek" as midnightsfire would call 'em, much of which I've really enjoyed. Hell, many would probably have similar remarks about the comedies I like. Ok, here's the thing- it isn't necessarily a bad if a film lacks a good story and/or quality acting...but if it lacks these things then it damn well better be interesting and/or entertaining.

If it is entertaining enough to hold your interest for that long (isn't it close to 3 hrs?) well then fine, but if the visuals are really all it's got going for it I find it hard to believe they are enough to make it worthwhile. And it doesn't have excellent story and acting like say the LotR movies, right? People seem to be fairly agreed on that. I mean when I read comments about how people are likely not going to enjoy this much when viewed on their televisions at home, that is pretty telling. :shrug:

Since lc hasn't seen the movie (as far as one can tell), he isn't much in a position to comment, actually.

So my opinion is less valid than others? People say things about films they haven't seen all the time. Regardless, all I was saying is that IF (big keyword there) what I've read is true, meaning that people are just being mesmerized by the visuals, well that isn't a good thing...and I don't need to see for myself to make this conclusion. :p And if that's the case, watch it again with no sound and then tell me I'm wrong ;)

Oh, but wait to do so until it comes out on DVD so you can watch it at home. That'll be the ultimate test. If you can watch it on a normal screen with the sound turned off (so all you sense is the visuals) and honestly tell me you still think it's a good movie...then I'll concede. :)

Now perhaps it's just me, but I can't recall ever seeing a movie that I enjoyed due to the visuals alone, there's gotta be something more whether it be a good story, terrific acting...or just plain entertaining in that it makes you laugh (ie. American Pie and Animal House for me) or whatever it is that makes a film enjoyable. I've never found moving pictures alone enough to hold my interest for hours, so yeah...

If it is entertaining enough to hold your interest for that long (isn't it close to 3 hrs?) well then fine, but if the visuals are really all it's got going for it I find it hard to believe they are enough to make it worthwhile.
Seeing is believing. ;)

So my opinion is less valid than others?
IMO, yes, because since you haven't seen the movie, so your opinions aren't based off of it - they're based off of assumptions, which are not always right, and which could change easily if you watched the movie. I generally take critiques more seriously from someone who has knowledge about the material they are critiquing.

Regardless, all I was saying is that IF (big keyword there) what I've read is true, meaning that people are just being mesmerized by the visuals, well that isn't a good thing...and I don't need to see for myself to make this conclusion.
Why is being mesmerized by amazing visuals a bad thing?! A movie doesn't have to be amazing in all aspects (eg. acting, plot, characters, visuals, etc) to be entertaining and considered a "good" film.

Now perhaps it's just me, but I can't recall ever seeing a movie that I enjoyed due to the visuals alone, so yeah...
Neither had I. ;)

Seeing is believing. ;)

Perhaps you're right. Well, indeed I will believe it when I see it...if I ever cave :p

Maybe this film is unprecedented in this regard...but up to this point I'd have to say that "eye candy" is a nice bonus but can't carry a film.

Granted I haven't seen that many films compared to some, but it's a pretty firm idea. I'm curious, can anyone name some previous films that need to be seen for the visuals alone? Any other movies you can watch without sound and say WOW, that was a great movie...? :whistle:

Note that I'm not looking for "silent films". I mean something where you don't need to follow the story at all, you just take in the sights.

Perhaps this will clarify-

I thought HBP had gorgeous cinematography (one of the most beautiful films I've seen...though unfortunately Avatar might've stolen the Oscar from Delbonnel :grumble:) but the visuals alone aren't enough to make it a good movie. I'd surely be bored watching HBP without sound :lol:

Perhaps you're right. Well, I will believe it when I see it...if I ever cave :p
If you ever do - I hope you don't regret it! :)

Maybe this film is unprecedented in this regard...but up to this point I'd have to say that "eye candy" is a nice bonus but can't carry a film.
It wouldn't have made so much money if there wasn't something groundbreaking about it imo.

Why is being mesmerized by amazing visuals a bad thing?! A movie doesn't have to be amazing in all aspects (eg. acting, plot, characters, visuals, etc) to be entertaining and considered a "good" film.

Sorry, forgot this part. :p

Well, it's not I guess...but then why have actors and a script at all? ;)

How bout the filmmakers just go out with their cameras and shoot a bunch of pretty scenery and/or create CGI images and run this footage for say 2 hours? Let's throw the characters and dialogue by the wayside, shall we? Dunno about you, but doesn't sound entertaining to me :shrug:

Of course I'm being hyperbolic, but I hope to God this isn't the way of the future for movies :scared: IMO, it'd be more like a giant step back...

I'm old-fashioned enough to believe that in any narrative art, story is paramount. And to contradict an earlier post, a cliched script is a bad script.

For disclosure I was probably never going to see Avatar anyway as I find Jim Cameron's last few films bombastic and humourless and having heard that he was going to be making political points decided that I had better things to do than be bludgeoned.

How bout the filmmakers just go out with their cameras and shoot a bunch of pretty scenery and/or create CGI images and run this footage for say 2 hours? Let's just throw the characters and dialogue by the wayside, shall we? Dunno about you, but that doesn't sound entertaining to me. :shrug:
It's all opinion really. But you can cut out David Attenborough's voice from the Planet Earth series and I'd still love it to death just for the amazing visuals.

To each his own. :)

Sorry, forgot this part. :p

Well, it's not I guess...but then why have actors and a script at all? ;)

How bout the filmmakers just go out with their cameras and shoot a bunch of pretty scenery and/or create CGI images and run this footage for say 2 hours? Let's throw the characters and dialogue by the wayside, shall we? Dunno about you, but doesn't sound entertaining to me :shrug:

Of course I'm being hyperbolic, but I hope to God this isn't the way of the future for movies :scared: IMO, it'd be more like a giant step back...

You see, I thought the characters were great. Not forgotten at all. I don't think there's a problem with not seeing the film if you don't think it sounds like your thing - but constantly criticizing the script and characters when you haven't seen it isn't really that good.

Many movies have made plenty of money even though they were considered bad, but how many movies based on visuals alone have so consistently made their money? Word of mouth is clearly astounding, and movies that are considered all flash, no substance simply do not have legs like this.

And I can't agree that a cliché script is bad. How can something that would have been considered incredible writing 100 years ago simply change in quality when it is moved forward in time?

And I can't agree that a cliché script is bad. How can something that would have been considered incredible writing 100 years ago simply change in quality when it is moved forward in time?

Because 100 years ago it was fresh and original. Now, it's tired and hackneyed.

I'm old-fashioned enough to believe that in any narrative art, story is paramount. And to contradict an earlier post, a cliched script is a bad script.To further your point, without story, how can a narrative even be art? This post is a narrative, but it tells no story and is in no way art. It is an opinion piece! Art always comes from some "meaning" that rises above the sum of the parts, be they a collection of sounds, images or pieces of plot.

Avatar is not hurting for story in the slightest. In truth, it is a relatively new story: the first time I can recall this story being told is in 1950 (Delmer Daves' Broken Arrow, which starred Jimmy Stewart). We've gotten it more recently with Dances with Wolves and Pocahontas, as well as any number of limited distribution films that made 15 critics and the directors' grandmothers cry. This is not the sort of story that could be told until fairly recently: if you think about it, then it was not until Nuremberg that some people began to say: "hey, maybe it is not right to be blindly loyal to your tribe of birth."

Now, is the script cliched? I don't recall it being particularly so: indeed, they certainly skipped a lot of opportunities for some classic Hollywoodisms.

Is the film cinematically spectacular? That is is, as well. Three of the four Beatles were considered to be very good looking men by the vast majority of women: that takes nothing away from the musicianship of their recordings. It's the same principle here: good storytelling enhances a good story. However, it is not making a silk purse from a sow's ear in this case.


At any rate, the film is very popular with audiences and it is very popular with critics. So, if you take a populist definition of good, i.e., well-liked by the masses, then the film is good. If you take a "literati" definition of good, i.e., given high grades by people who study the medium," then Avatar is good. If you take the Wall Street definition of good, i.e., it's letting the shareholder's bathe in dollar bills, then it is good. I'm not sure what other criteria are out there....

Because 100 years ago it was fresh and original. Now, it's tired and hackneyed.

I'll explain my position with a little thought experiment:

There are two movies. One of them was made in 1900, the other in 2000. The first, in its time, was a marvel. The story was so fresh and so well-written that it became instantly acclaimed. The second, however, was just a retelling of the story that had been told so many times since that first movie - presented at a slightly different angle.

Now, two people come across these two movies in two different video stores. They have never heard of either movie, and have no idea when either was written, but find both intriguing, and so each rent them both.

The first person watches the first movie first, and the second movie second. The first person found the first movie to be just as good as the critical reception promised. The second movie, on the other hand, the first person found to be near-plagiarism of the first. Very disappointed, the first person returns the second movie - but keeps the first one.

On the other hand, the second person watches the first movie second, and the second movie first. As the second person had not yet experienced the story, he found the second movie to be fantastic. Like nothing seen before. And yet when the second person watched the first movie, he was as disappointed with it as the first person was with the second movie. And so the first movie was returned, and the second movie bought.

The two people meet. They shared opinions, and were surprised at each other's choice. They had a discussion solely on the merits of the screenplay of each movie, to decide once and for all which movie indeed had the better story.

What was the conclusion of these two people? Which screenplay was better?

Personally, though the main villians were certainly pretty typecast, I thought they worked. Zoe Saldana, Michelle Rodriguez, and Sigourney Weaver all played their parts quite well, and though it was a rather "simple" story it worked. The visuals were stunning - the "wow" factor was better than the Matrix first time through - and much of the acting was good.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't care that it isn't a perfect movie. I don't really care that there were political undercurrents, or that the substance they were after was called "unobtanium". In the end, it all worked, in part because the visuals were just that stunning to me, and the story / acting were good enough to not drag it back down.

It's also not an especially easy movie to judge without going to. I knew all the various issues people are debating now when I went in, but when I walked back out, I came out thinking that almost everyone had it all wrong. In a way I'm glad I didn't prejudge it more, otherwise I would have spent more time in my seat watching for all the problems people had with it instead of just enjoying the movie.

What was the conclusion of these two people? Which screenplay was better?I understand your thought experiment. However, the analysis of all art must be placed in a historical context. Art reflects the philosophies, politics, moralities, etc., of its times: or, more to the point, the "truths" that the artists hold.

Along these lines, creativity is critical to evaluating art and historical context is critical to evaluating creativity. Last year's innovation is, after all, next year's living fossil. I mentioned the Beatles above. Their early hits do not sound like anything special if you hear them today. You have to understand that the Beatles basically invented this sound to appreciate that "Love Me Do" and "Please Please Me" are important pieces of art. Ditto this for Mozart's middle operas: compared to his later operas, and certainly compared to 19th century Romantic compositions, they seem trite. Compared to what else was happening at the time, they are landmark pieces.

Now, does this make, say, Oasis less enjoyable to hear just because they are so derivative of the Beatles? No: but nobody would claim that they are as important when looking at the evolution of popular music as an artform.

To this end, we have to ask how creative Avatar really is. They story has been done, but we cannot really hold that against it: I have not seen a movie in ages that told a story that was any newer than that. It is a reasonably fresh take on one of the youngest stories out there, however, and it is timely given current sociopolitical issues. Ultimately, that is how history will judge the piece.

No, I agree. :)

As meesha would say, "pretty pictures alone do not make for a good movie" (and no, I still haven't seen it, but this is true for any film ;))

Story/acting are the backbone and IF what you say is true, indeed it is a bad movie. Apparently for some the visuals are enough though :shrug:Oh but cinema is a visual medium of expression, storytelling and emotion. What exactly makes the film look so bad? Repeating a pocahontas story that is timelessly relevant, even today? I'm in the same place as you, having not seen the film (yet), but the blind hatred is getting excessive. I'm not even praising it, I just know what to expect, which what I'm expecting, isn't inherently bad. So elaborate, please. :relax:

Oh but cinema is a visual medium of expression, storytelling and emotion. What exactly makes the film look so bad? Repeating a pocahontas story that is timelessly relevant, even today? I'm in the same place as you, having not seen the film (yet), but the blind hatred is getting excessive. I'm not even praising it, I just know what to expect, which what I'm expecting, isn't inherently bad. So elaborate, please. :relax:

I'm not sure what you mean but if you read my subsequent posts you'll see that I have elaborated quite a bit. ;)

And for the record it's not "hatred" (that's such a strong word afterall) but a pre-disposed dislike (ie. it's sci-fi) if you will :p

I'm not sure what you mean but if you read my subsequent posts you'll see that I have elaborated quite a bit.Style over substance? What if the substance is the style? Plenty of filmmakers use visuals as a way of telling the story, or expressing a mood. The best kind of filmmakers, IMO. And for the record it's not "hatred" (that's such a strong word afterall) but a pre-disposed dislike (ie. it's sci-fi) I suppose you could say :pSci-fi gets a bad rep because of so many terrible films coming out of it (but then again, don't most genre's have heaps of terrible films come out of it?), but there are plenty of excellent sci-fi films out there. 2001 A Space Odyssey, Blade Runner (the Final Cut), Alien, Aliens (Cameron film), the first two Terminator's, The Abyss, etc. When it comes to pure pulp fun, you have Star Wars, which Avatar seems to be generating a similiar amount of excitement from. Star Wars was hardly original, what made it good was it's priorities: entertainment. If you call Avatar style over substance, the same could be labeled at Star Wars, it just happened to have memorable characters and jaw dropping visual effects that made it an incredible experience. I certainly wouldn't have watched it on a small tv screen then instead of the theater screen how it was meant to be viewed, like I'm sure Avatar is. 3D being a necessity doesn't make it an inferior film, the 3D is the overall experience as it was meant to be.

Who wants to watch Star Wars without it's visual effects? :relax:

Cinema is about pushing forward, Avatar has pushed visual effects forward, and not just that, but it's changed the landscape of viewing films.

I understand your thought experiment. However, the analysis of all art must be placed in a historical context. Art reflects the philosophies, politics, moralities, etc., of its times: or, more to the point, the "truths" that the artists hold.

Along these lines, creativity is critical to evaluating art and historical context is critical to evaluating creativity. Last year's innovation is, after all, next year's living fossil. I mentioned the Beatles above. Their early hits do not sound like anything special if you hear them today. You have to understand that the Beatles basically invented this sound to appreciate that "Love Me Do" and "Please Please Me" are important pieces of art. Ditto this for Mozart's middle operas: compared to his later operas, and certainly compared to 19th century Romantic compositions, they seem trite. Compared to what else was happening at the time, they are landmark pieces.

Now, does this make, say, Oasis less enjoyable to hear just because they are so derivative of the Beatles? No: but nobody would claim that they are as important when looking at the evolution of popular music as an artform.

To this end, we have to ask how creative Avatar really is. They story has been done, but we cannot really hold that against it: I have not seen a movie in ages that told a story that was any newer than that. It is a reasonably fresh take on one of the youngest stories out there, however, and it is timely given current sociopolitical issues. Ultimately, that is how history will judge the piece.

Oh, I'm not arguing which one is more important in historical context. I completely agree that a film further back in time would be more revolutionary, and more important. My point is solely to counter the idea that a script that is derivative of other sources is necessarily worse than its predecessors.

Personally, though the main villians were certainly pretty typecast, I thought they worked. Zoe Saldana, Michelle Rodriguez, and Sigourney Weaver all played their parts quite well, and though it was a rather "simple" story it worked. The visuals were stunning - the "wow" factor was better than the Matrix first time through - and much of the acting was good.

I have to wonder if a complicated story would've detracted from the underlying story of movie. The Na'Vi, beauty of Pandora, and the characters and their personal journeys.

After watching it again this week, I'm drawn into the character's stories, and the main plot fades into the background. Each one of the main characters has their assumptions challenged.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't care that it isn't a perfect movie. I don't really care that there were political undercurrents, or that the substance they were after was called "unobtanium". In the end, it all worked, in part because the visuals were just that stunning to me, and the story / acting were good enough to not drag it back down.

I agree.

And from Wikipedia, here's a description of Unobtainium': In engineering, fiction, or thought experiments, unobtainium is a humorous concept for any extremely rare, costly, or physically impossible material needed to fulfill a given design for a given application

It's also not an especially easy movie to judge without going to. I knew all the various issues people are debating now when I went in, but when I walked back out, I came out thinking that almost everyone had it all wrong. In a way I'm glad I didn't prejudge it more, otherwise I would have spent more time in my seat watching for all the problems people had with it instead of just enjoying the movie.

I agree with this. I've seen numerous people harshly judging the movie without even seeing what it's all about.

One particular fun part of the movie that I didn't see until my latest viewing was this....
At the end of the movie, when the humans are being marched out the complex, you can see the banshees flying all around in the air, and landing and crawling all over the towers. Lol! That was funny.

And also in the beginning of the movie when Grace and Norm are taking samples, she says (in the background) that, "Norm, you just contaminated the sample with your saliva."

And then this too:
I was really happy that they addressed Jake and Neytiri's love for each by pushing them into a situation where she sees him in human form. Had the writers not done this, I think it would have cheapened their relationship. But she truly saw him. Very nicely played.

And then this too:
I was really happy that they addressed Jake and Neytiri's love for each by pushing them into a situation where she sees him in human form. Had the writers not done this, I think it would have cheapened their relationship. But she truly saw him. Very nicely played.

I would have to say this is probably my favorite part of the movie. This is really the pay-off or pinnacle of their relationship in the film. Her saying "oh my Jake" and the "I see you's" and the proverbial tear to follow was a nice touch I thought. Has this been done? Yes. Did I enjoy the heck out of it anyway? Heck yes!

-JR

Style over substance? What if the substance is the style? Plenty of filmmakers use visuals as a way of telling the story, or expressing a mood.

Subsequent would mean the ones that came after the post you quoted, not before...and I don't believe I've used the phrase "style over substance" in any of those. That's an interesting concept however, but surely you can't tell a story effectively purely through visuals, can you? :hmm:

Sci-fi gets a bad rep because of so many terrible films coming out of it (but then again, don't most genre's have heaps of terrible films come out of it?), but there are plenty of excellent sci-fi films out there. 2001 A Space Odyssey, Blade Runner (the Final Cut), Alien, Aliens (Cameron film), the first two Terminator's, The Abyss, etc. When it comes to pure pulp fun, you have Star Wars, which Avatar seems to be generating a similiar amount of excitement from. Star Wars was hardly original, what made it good was it's priorities: entertainment. If you call Avatar style over substance, the same could be labeled at Star Wars, it just happened to have memorable characters and jaw dropping visual effects that made it an incredible experience. I certainly wouldn't have watched it on a small tv screen then instead of the theater screen how it was meant to be viewed, like I'm sure Avatar is. 3D being a necessity doesn't make it an inferior film, the 3D is the overall experience as it was meant to be.

Who wants to watch Star Wars without it's visual effects? :relax:

Heh, well I haven't seen any of those films you listed so perhaps I've just seen the wrong ones. However, to be honest I don't exactly love the Star Wars movies either...they're not bad, but they are by no means favorites. :shrug:

I do like some sci-fi but it depends. For instance, I have a particular dislike for movies with aliens (I will likely NEVER watch any of the Alien trilogy for instance) for some unexplainable reason. Because they are scary perhaps? Or because they often look repulsive? I suppose that's a couple reasons. It's not just that this is an alien sci-fi movie though, because well for one the aliens in this don't look all that threatening or repulsive. There are a variety of reasons I don't have much desire to see Avatar but what it ultimately comes down to is it simply doesn't look appealing to me...not even the visuals. I doubt it is a movie that I would enjoy, let alone one that'd hold my interest for nearly 3 hrs.

That's the bottomline :shrug:

The problem I have with Avatar's story is that it feels poorly executed to me. It does not grip me, the predictability bothers me immensely, and I don't care about a single character. If I compare those thoughts with the last film I saw that has a very, very similar storyline (The Last Samurai) my opinions are the opposite: I care a great deal about numerous characters in that film and it affects me emotionally every time I watch it. Hell, even District 9 has a similar story as Avatar's, yet I think it is executed quite better and I like it more for the exact reasons I mentioned for The Last Samurai.

To me the visual effects in Avatar overshadow the story, and I think that is bad. I kept marveling at the effects and on the car ride home I realized that I wasn't invested in story or the characters.

I finally saw Avatar today.

While I can see the flaws that a lot of people have pointed out, none of it mattered while I was watching it.

It did not seem long to me; I was totally engrossed. The visuals of course blew me away - I saw it in 3-D, which enhanced the experience yet was not overly distracting.

I laughed, I cried, I clutched my chair arms a few times. I'm sure my mouth was hanging open for most of the movie.

I do see why some have called it "liberal propaganda," but overall I thought the political themes (although heavy handed at times) were relevant and worth exploring.

For example, I think this film is an excellent discussion-starter to explain to my 12-year-old and 14-year-old why I think Blackwater-style privatized war is a really, really bad idea.

Sure, the "white guy gone native" and "noble savage" stories have been done before, as has the "military guys gone bad" story and the "greedy evil corporate bad guys" story, but really, there are only so many stories under the sun; a good storyteller can make the old chestnuts seem new again and re-tell them for a new generation.

I thought the main character's acting was excellent. The way he felt trapped in his injured body and longed to run was very poignant. Sigorney Weaver's performance was also very good. The woman who played the pilot who rebels also did a great job.

Flaws: First, I think "Unobtainuim" is without doubt the stupidest name they could have come up with. It's like something the post-1990 George Lucas would come up with.

Some of the overt political allegory got a bit out of hand, even for a tree-hugging liberal like myself. Exploring important themes (environmentalism, anti-imperialism, profit-motivated invasion and genocide) is one thing, but tossing out terms like "shock and awe," "fighting terror with terror," and "pre-emptive attack," is tantamount to clubbing the audience over the head with your message.

The main military bad guy was a scenery-chewing, one-note stereotyped cliched character straight from Central Casting. It was a bit much. And he kept coming back, and coming back, like Jason in Friday the 13th. Enough already!

And, I hate to say, the final battle reminded me a bit too much of the Ewoks versus the Empire in Return of the Jedi. Which is Not A Good Thing.

Overall, though, I truly enjoyed the film and want to see it again in the theater.

Kind of off-topic to the conversation of this film's enjoyment factor, but I found a cool article detailing what will probably be a lot of the deleted scenes on the DVD since the full script was released for your reading pleasure (http://www.foxscreenings.com/media/pdf/JamesCameronAVATAR.pdf).

Here (http://io9.com/5446538/everything-that-was-cut-from-avatar-sex-drugs-and-suicide) is the link to the break-down.

-JR

I would have to say this is probably my favorite part of the movie. This is really the pay-off or pinnacle of their relationship in the film. Her saying "oh my Jake" and the "I see you's" and the proverbial tear to follow was a nice touch I thought. Has this been done? Yes. Did I enjoy the heck out of it anyway? Heck yes!

-JR

Yeah...

As she is cradling the crippled human and they seem to both have this realization...and you can paint that in every way. She saw an alien...who wasn't, she saw a crippple...who wasn't...

Gah! Sappy stuff that worked for me.

That part in the movie when they first arrived at the "shack" and Jake was doing a voiceover. One scene he is looking at the photos stuck on the small refrigerator and in one photo we see Avatar/Grace with her arms around a Navi child or two...did anyone catch that standing next to her was Neyteri? And I think another photo had Tsutey.

:tu:

Another question: Can anyone tell me how the Floating Mountains stay up? Inquring minds want to know.

Another question: Can anyone tell me how the Floating Mountains stay up? Inquring minds want to know.

I was intrigued by this, too, and I have read an exlanation somewhere. I am sure others can give you more detailed information.

There was one scene where someone pointed out a kind of petri dish with a piece of mineral (the unfortunatley named 'unobtainium, I think). It wasfloating above the petri dish.

Aparently this mineral has some sort of properties where it floats - think of it like some reaction with the planet's gravity field or something. A bit like magnetism, perhaps - just a lot stronger.

Anyway - that, I take it, keeps the mountains up. They have a high content of that mineral, and there are some conditions in the ground that actually keep them up. Of course, the smaller gravity field of the planet will also help.

I like that they actually thought about that. Floating mountains are a pretty crazy idea, if you think about it - but it's fun under the circumstances.


BTW - I also like the way they accounted for the lower gravity. Of cours,e the Na'vi and other life forms are more elongated, which makes sense under the circumstances, and falls are less serious than they would be on earth. It's also easier for plant life and animals to float and generally stay up and get taller than on earth. It's fun to see that.

Another question: Can anyone tell me how the Floating Mountains stay up? Inquring minds want to know.
Through movie magic. :)

Just a repost...


James Cameron gets Graded on the Science of Avatar (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/43440)

Fortunately, James Cameron has a knack for science that rivals his moviemaking skills.

-------------------

The author of the article posts a correction on the bottom:

"Wow, it appears that many of my nitpicks about the science were actually taken into account by the filmmakers and there are answers.

I'm impressed! Hats off to Cameron and company for getting all this right. I can't wait to use this film in my introductory astronomy classes."

There is less oxygen...and a lot more carbon dioxide.(18%) Also a good deal of the noble gas "xenon." The exopack they use is a glorified filtration device.

:relax:

Another question: Can anyone tell me how the Floating Mountains stay up? Inquring minds want to know.

Here (http://james-camerons-avatar.wikia.com/wiki/Hallelujah_Mountains) is the link to the Wikia page that goes into some detail about the Hallelujah Mountains aka the floating mountains.

-JR

Why should I consider things that aren't the film as canon?

Well, seeing that this extra information seems to be put out by the film makers (partly, to be sure, to satisfy interests by fans, start discussions and start a fan phenomenon), I think there is a pretty obvious answer to that question.

What I am wondering is whether there has ever been such a carefully engineered way of starting a new fan phenomenon?

They've got everything ready....
I bet Star Wars fans had to wait a long time to get more information about Lucas's universe - but the Avatar people are ready to give instant gratification, and give a lot of it, too.

It's impressive, but somehow also quite scary. Fan phenomena usually exist in some kind symbiosis with the woners of their franchise, but I always liked to stick with the romantic idea of the fans who somehow come rom nothing and take a liking to something, then work hard to find out about their particular fandom.

This looks a lot less spontaneous.

Ah well....

Seems this is going to pass the $1b overseas mark on Thursday, or possibly Friday at the latest. Standing at $974,182,673 from BOM (which has always been a few million short of the actual total) after $63m Monday-Wednesday.

I would now consider it locked to beat Titanic overseas and worldwide. Domestically is now the only question.

It's an astonishing run.

Watching this movie raking in the money is almost as astonishing as watching the film itself. :lol:
This might be weird, but I like watching a film breaking box office records. :)

I finally saw Avatar today.

While I can see the flaws that a lot of people have pointed out, none of it mattered while I was watching it.

It did not seem long to me; I was totally engrossed. The visuals of course blew me away - I saw it in 3-D, which enhanced the experience yet was not overly distracting.

I laughed, I cried, I clutched my chair arms a few times. I'm sure my mouth was hanging open for most of the movie.

I do see why some have called it "liberal propaganda," but overall I thought the political themes (although heavy handed at times) were relevant and worth exploring.

For example, I think this film is an excellent discussion-starter to explain to my 12-year-old and 14-year-old why I think Blackwater-style privatized war is a really, really bad idea.

Sure, the "white guy gone native" and "noble savage" stories have been done before, as has the "military guys gone bad" story and the "greedy evil corporate bad guys" story, but really, there are only so many stories under the sun; a good storyteller can make the old chestnuts seem new again and re-tell them for a new generation.

I thought the main character's acting was excellent. The way he felt trapped in his injured body and longed to run was very poignant. Sigorney Weaver's performance was also very good. The woman who played the pilot who rebels also did a great job.

Flaws: First, I think "Unobtainuim" is without doubt the stupidest name they could have come up with. It's like something the post-1990 George Lucas would come up with.

Some of the overt political allegory got a bit out of hand, even for a tree-hugging liberal like myself. Exploring important themes (environmentalism, anti-imperialism, profit-motivated invasion and genocide) is one thing, but tossing out terms like "shock and awe," "fighting terror with terror," and "pre-emptive attack," is tantamount to clubbing the audience over the head with your message.

The main military bad guy was a scenery-chewing, one-note stereotyped cliched character straight from Central Casting. It was a bit much. And he kept coming back, and coming back, like Jason in Friday the 13th. Enough already!

And, I hate to say, the final battle reminded me a bit too much of the Ewoks versus the Empire in Return of the Jedi. Which is Not A Good Thing.

Overall, though, I truly enjoyed the film and want to see it again in the theater.

I pretty much agree with you and what most people posted here. I thought the visuals were amazing, probably the best I have seen and I have no doubt that the promise of a visual spectacle is what keeps drawing in the crowds.

As for the plot, I was already told it was predictable and I have to agree that it was. The trailers actually made the movie plot seem more creative than it really was. Overall the main plot has been used numerous times. Still, the acting was solid and the CGI did a great job of really bringing the Navi and Pandora to life.

The one aspect that was most annoying for me was what others have posted here as well- the blatant political messages. I go to the movies for escapism and normally I don't mind if there are some political undercurrents, but it was a bit much with all the "fighting terror with terror", etc.

Still it was an entertaining movie, and again the visuals were really what made the movie for me.

Seems this is going to pass the $1b overseas mark on Thursday, or possibly Friday at the latest. Standing at $974,182,673 from BOM (which has always been a few million short of the actual total) after $63m Monday-Wednesday.

I would now consider it locked to beat Titanic overseas and worldwide. Domestically is now the only question.

Yes- I never thought anything could beat Titanic, but leave it to James Cameron to surpass his own record. It really is amazing. Even now 4 weeks out, this movie is constantly sold out at my local IMAX 3D where each ticket is $16.50. I really loved titanic, but I guess records are made to be broken and with its universal demographic and the marketing that emphasizes how important it is to see this movie in 3D, I think it will surpass titanic after all. It really still shocks me!

France* (already done)
China*
Russia
Japan
UK
Germany
Australia (could happen in AUD, probably not in USD)
Spain
South Korea

I'd say it will break $100m in 5 or 6 of these countries - probably the top 6.

Thanks for posting these. I have a hard time keeping track of overseas box office, and it's interesting to see these breakdowns. Are there any countries where Avatar is not posting incredible numbers?

I think Avatar will beat Titanic in North America, but I'm wondering by how much. Avatar will probably hit 500M sometime next week. That would be 500M in approximately one month :wow: compared to Dark Knight which took 45 days to reach that number. So now it needs 100M and it still has Oscar bumps, media buzz, and IMAX to keep up the momentum. It will possibly (I say say likely) pass 600M before it loses 3d screens to Alice in Wonderland in early March. Could it mimic Titanic with a limited run stretching into August? It seems that the demand might be there, as this is a movie to revisit at the theater rather than on DVD.

Thanks for posting these. I have a hard time keeping track of overseas box office, and it's interesting to see these breakdowns. Are there any countries where Avatar is not posting incredible numbers?

I think Avatar will beat Titanic in North America, but I'm wondering by how much. Avatar will probably hit 500M sometime next week. That would be 500M in approximately one month :wow: compared to Dark Knight which took 45 days to reach that number. So now it needs 100M and it still has Oscar bumps, media buzz, and IMAX to keep up the momentum. It will possibly (I say say likely) pass 600M before it loses 3d screens to Alice in Wonderland in early March. Could it mimic Titanic with a limited run stretching into August? It seems that the demand might be there, as this is a movie to revisit at the theater rather than on DVD.

There aren't really any countries that I know of that are doing poorly. They tend to range from 'very good' to '#1 all-time'.

It will probably pass $500m on Monday, possibly Tuesday. TDK the following weekend. $600m mid to late February.

I'm sure if Alice wasn't taking 3D screens early on in March, then it would have a much better chance at having a mini-Titanic extended run through to the middle of the year. But it is definitely losing IMAX, and I don't know how many 3D screens it will lose...it could almost be cut off entirely right there, as it won't have many 2D screens left by then either.

Could it mimic Titanic with a limited run stretching into August? It seems that the demand might be there, as this is a movie to revisit at the theater rather than on DVD.Probably not. Box office economics have changed considerably since then, and the distributor will be taking in very little of the money that Avatar makes at that point. Fox will be much more interested in stocking the the theaters with the films for which they receive all of the ticket sales $$$$, at least in the US.

Avatar made another $4.7M on Thursday. It has been years since a film was selling anywhere near this many tickets on such a humdrum date. Gran Torino was selling about 60% of the tickets last year, but that is the only one since 2005 that was selling half this many tickets.


Avatar will probably not quite reach $500M this weekend. The BOMers are predicting $45M for the 4-day weekend, although that might be a bit optimistic as the BOMers are (in general) a little geeked on the film. The Numbers is predicting $40+M, too. (Remember, Monday will be like a bad Sunday, and Sunday like a Saturday, so this will boost things beyond the usual; also, the decay rate has been really low here in general due to the good w-o-m and all of the publicity around the film.)

That being said, it is highly probable that Avatar will have a 5th straight weekend at #1. I do not think that any film has done that since Titanic, although I might be wrong. (Titanic did something ridiculous like 16 weekends at #1: I don't see this happening with modern theater distribution patterns!) So, that will be the record for films released in the aughts.

Klio: yes, we had to wait a bit longer to get the canon details (or, as
parents put it, mindless trivia) about Star Wars. Indeed, the initial stuff we got ended up being "false": Lucas' novelization (ghost written, but based entirely on Lucas' notes) included a few things about which George later changed his mind. (Or, as he insisted, he later changed his mind back to what he originally planned: whatever, George... :cool:)

But, just like Avatar, the real success of Star Wars was not the (then) amazing graphics or the hardcore fans craving all of the trivia, but the general appeal of the story. Had it been done? Sure: lots of times. But, man, had it ever been done like that?

(That is a rhetorical question, by the way; and if you cannot think of any off-hand, then see: Rings, The Lord of the.....)

As I noted above, I can think of very few stories that are really all that original. At this point in history, it is the telling that is original or not.

The last time a movie was #1 5 times in a row was The Sixth Sense in 1999.

By the way, the BOM derby has been generally under-predicting Avatar, with the exception of its opening weekend, I guess because people are still getting surprised by how well it drops each weekend.

My personal prediction this weekend is $40m/$48m 3-day/4-day, and I've been under-predicting it as well...that would put it just short of $500m on Monday, which it would pass on Tuesday.

The last time a movie was #1 5 times in a row was The Sixth Sense in 1999.

By the way, the BOM derby has been generally under-predicting Avatar, with the exception of its opening weekend, I guess because people are still getting surprised by how well it drops each weekend.

My personal prediction this weekend is $40m/$48m 3-day/4-day, and I've been under-predicting it as well...that would put it just short of $500m on Monday, which it would pass on Tuesday.


Well, I just went to my local theatre to try and see it on IMAX 3D- and once again, all of this evening's shows are sold out. It's really ridiculous and unbelievable. The movie has been out for 1 month and it is still selling out. What I wonder is, are the sell outs repeat business or first time viewers? I'd love to take a poll.

Probably not. Box office economics have changed considerably since then, and the distributor will be taking in very little of the money that Avatar makes at that point. Fox will be much more interested in stocking the the theaters with the films for which they receive all of the ticket sales $$$$, at least in the US.

Avatar made another $4.7M on Thursday. It has been years since a film was selling anywhere near this many tickets on such a humdrum date. Gran Torino was selling about 60% of the tickets last year, but that is the only one since 2005 that was selling half this many tickets.


Avatar will probably not quite reach $500M this weekend. The BOMers are predicting $45M for the 4-day weekend, although that might be a bit optimistic as the BOMers are (in general) a little geeked on the film. The Numbers is predicting $40+M, too. (Remember, Monday will be like a bad Sunday, and Sunday like a Saturday, so this will boost things beyond the usual; also, the decay rate has been really low here in general due to the good w-o-m and all of the publicity around the film.)

That being said, it is highly probable that Avatar will have a 5th straight weekend at #1. I do not think that any film has done that since Titanic, although I might be wrong. (Titanic did something ridiculous like 16 weekends at #1: I don't see this happening with modern theater distribution patterns!) So, that will be the record for films released in the aughts.

Klio: yes, we had to wait a bit longer to get the canon details (or, as
parents put it, mindless trivia) about Star Wars. Indeed, the initial stuff we got ended up being "false": Lucas' novelization (ghost written, but based entirely on Lucas' notes) included a few things about which George later changed his mind. (Or, as he insisted, he later changed his mind back to what he originally planned: whatever, George... :cool:)

But, just like Avatar, the real success of Star Wars was not the (then) amazing graphics or the hardcore fans craving all of the trivia, but the general appeal of the story. Had it been done? Sure: lots of times. But, man, had it ever been done like that?

(That is a rhetorical question, by the way; and if you cannot think of any off-hand, then see: Rings, The Lord of the.....)

As I noted above, I can think of very few stories that are really all that original. At this point in history, it is the telling that is original or not.


Wimsey, any idea on how avatar ranks in terms of # tickets sold compared to the other chart toppers? I know titanic is the #1 box office champ of all time before inflation adjustments, but was it also #1 in terms of ticket sales? Sometimes I think that is a much more accurate number than the box office numbers due to inflation, etc.

BOM has a top tickets of all-time list here:

http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm?adjust_yr=1&p=.htm

Gone With the Wind is top counting all releases, but Sound of Music is top for a single release. Titanic is third for a single release.

There is a problem with that list though...Avatar is listed at #50 with 62.2m tickets. Doesn't take into account 3D prices though. Once you do, it would drop to about #90.

It'll end up in the top 20 (and top of the decade) on that list without 3D adjustments, but really, it needs about $700m to top TDK, the biggest ticket seller of the last decade. It'll probably end at about #35 or #40 with 3D adjustments.

Well, I just saw this movie today, and absolutely loved it! The cinematography was fantastic. Actually made me want to be a part of Pandora. Pandora itself was so beautiful.

Sam Worthington and Zoe Saldana are awesome, as is the supporting cast. Steven Lang as the Colonel was great as a menacing character.

I will mention that I have noticed the storyline may be borrowed a bit. Throughout the movie, I was reminded of "Ferngully: The Last Rainforest". The storylines were kind of the same: Character is brought into a new society in which he is outcasted at first and falls in love with the world he is in, while the invaders come in and try to take the resources from the planet.

But I will say that the while the storyline isn't 100% original, there are few movies that really are original. What is added onto the movie is what makes it great, and the cinematography, characters, Pandora itself, action and everything makes Avatar a wonderful film.

I give it a 9/10 and definitely worth more viewings.

Am I the only one who, given the box office and so forth, thinks that the title of this thread, which dismissively calls this a 'sci-fi flick', is decidedly odd?

Am I the only one who, given the box office and so forth, thinks that the title of this thread, which dismissively calls this a 'sci-fi flick', is decidedly odd?

No, I also thought it was kind of odd, but I think it was originally done so, so as not to confuse the movie Avatar with "Avatar: The Last Airbender".

IB: thanks for the homework on 6th Sense!

And now color me surprised! Initial estimates for Friday put Book of Eli ahead of Avatar for Friday, $11.7M to $10.4M. I had not expected much from Eli given the "eh" reviews and the fact that this is the umpteenth post-apocalypse film in the last couple of years.
Wimsey, any idea on how avatar ranks in terms of # tickets sold compared to the other chart toppers? I know titanic is the #1 box office champ of all time before inflation adjustments, but was it also #1 in terms of ticket sales? Sometimes I think that is a much more accurate number than the box office numbers due to inflation, etc.InnyBinny handled the estimated ticket sales. IB also touches on why these are not strictly comparable. Gone With The Wind had numerous theatrical runs over 30+ years. The Sound of Music might be listed as having one run, but it had at least two: I saw it as a kid in theaters, and I'm not quite old enough for that to have been during the first run! Even Star Wars, ET, etc., had multiple runs.

That began to change due to rentals and cable TV: they could get more $$$ faster by putting the films out that way. This is one reason why there are so many more releases each year than there used to be, too.

One additional factor favoring modern films over older ones is that the population is larger than it used to be. It was estimated 30 years ago that over one third of the people in the US saw Star Wars in the theater. You would have to sell tickets to less than 25% of the US population to sell that many tickets now.


Regarding the adjustment for 3D sales, we have to remember that there are two 3D prices. IMAX prices typically are assumed to be about $2.50-$3.00 more per ticket than regular theater tickets. Yes, you pay more: but remember this is what the studio sees.

However, those are a minority of the 3D sales. Most of them are for "normal" theaters that are charging a buck or two more per showing for the 3D glasses. (My theater actually did not charge any extra, I don't think.) However, that might not be part of the reported price if the theaters are deducting that from what they give to Fox. After all, the glasses have to be acquired, cleaned after each usage, etc., and this is done by theater employees rather than Fox employees. This might be like the part of your ticket that goes to subsidized parking, etc.: you pay for it, but that dollar is not reported in the ticket sales. I simply do not know for certain how this is working.

One additional factor favoring modern films over older ones is that the population is larger than it used to be. It was estimated 30 years ago that over one third of the people in the US saw Star Wars in the theater. You would have to sell tickets to less than 25% of the US population to sell that many tickets now.

That is a big factor, and there's one other, that probably stemmed from the home entertainment you mentioned - per capita admissions. This hasn't really changed over the past 40 or 50 years, but before the 1960s, people went to the cinema WAY more often, and so movies could sell more tickets then. A graph is here:

http://img709.imageshack.us/img709/2509/percapitadatagraph.jpg

This site here adjusts for inflation, population, and how often people saw movies in general:

http://www.waynesthisandthat.com/mostpopularmovies.html

Sound of Music is again #1, and GWTW falls down to #23 for a single run! People saw movies 30 times a year then, compared to the 5 times a year now. In fact, TDK would push GWTW down to #24 if the list had been updated.

About Sound of Music single run...I checked the-numbers.com, and they have a slightly higher total of $163,214,286 versus BOM's $158,671,368. That could be the source of the extra run(s), I don't know.

Oh, and Avatar definitely should be #1 for both the 3-day and the 4-day based on those numbers. And unless (god forbid) the Tooth Fairy breaks out, then we should see 6 weekends on top, which is probably the first time since Titanic.

This hasn't really changed over the past 40 or 50 years, but before the 1960s, people went to the cinema WAY more often, and so movies could sell more tickets then. A graph is here:Yes, that, too, is huge, and it is good of you to remind us. Cable TV and home rental did not just change the theater run durations, but also introduced new competition with theaters. Remember, there used to be only 3 channels on the telly in the US: and they deliberately showed "lesser" programs on weekends because they figured that they were playing only to "trapped" audiences! (Some of those shows, such as Dallas, grew into huge hits: but that caught the networks by surprise initially: but I digress.)

The Internet and computer gaming have offered additional competition. Why watch an action/adventure film when you can blow up things yourself? Why watch a chick-flick when you can blog about your feelings and torment 1000's of men at once instead of just your current boyfriend?
About Sound of Music single run...I checked the-numbers.com, and they have a slightly higher total of $163,214,286 versus BOM's $158,671,368. That could be the source of the extra run(s), I don't know.Possibly. However, I was much too young to be taken to a theater during it's initial run, and my memory is of seeing it in the early-mid 70's, well after it's release.
Oh, and Avatar definitely should be #1 for both the 3-day and the 4-day based on those numbers. And unless (god forbid) the Tooth Fairy breaks out, then we should see 6 weekends on top, which is probably the first time since Titanic.BOM and others estimate a $40M 3-day total, which means that it is a shoe-in to break $500M on MLK day.

That is only a 20% drop, but even if you factor out the inflated Sunday box office, you still are looking at only a 25% drop. For a film selling this many tickets after this long, that is impressive.

And the 5th straight weekend at #1 is truly remarkable, regardless of the when or the how-much.


At this point, I have to think that $600M is entirely possible.

I'm pretty sure it will hit $600m now, but it's not locked up yet.

Another $125m overseas weekend with early estimates, due to opening in Italy, its last market, which will account for about $15m of the weekend gross. So that would be between 25% and 30% drop for non-opening markets.

Currently standing at $1.11b overseas, and just over $1.6b worldwide. Will pass Titanic overseas next weekend, Titanic worldwide early next week.

I'm pretty sure it will hit $600m now, but it's not locked up yet.

Another $125m overseas weekend with early estimates, due to opening in Italy, its last market, which will account for about $15m of the weekend gross. So that would be between 25% and 30% drop for non-opening markets.

Currently standing at $1.11b overseas, and just over $1.6b worldwide. Will pass Titanic overseas next weekend, Titanic worldwide early next week.

Yes, I agree with you. I never thought it would ever challenge titanic, but with such a low attrition rate from week to week it is clear that it will definitely surpass it to gain the #1 spot. It's really unbelievable. Technologically I think it deserves all the accolades it is getting, but honestly storywise I thought it was just mediocre. Still the marketing has been very effective in convincing everyone that this is a must see film in the theatres, particularly in 3D. It should reach 500million by tomorrow, surpass the dark knight by next weekend, and in 2-3 wks surpass titanic.

Currently standing at $1.11b overseas, and just over $1.6b worldwide. Will pass Titanic overseas next weekend, Titanic worldwide early next week.


Truly remarkable.

Technologically I think it deserves all the accolades it is getting, but honestly storywise I thought it was just mediocre.

The same was said about Titanic, from what I recall. In fact, the critical reviews for Avatar are much stronger than Titanic's: 94% vs 72% from the top critics at Rotten Tomatoes.

Early estimates are for $11.8M on MLK day. Given MLK's occasional nod for Native American rights (although he obviously had equally big fish to fry closer to home, one might say) and his stance on the Vietnam War, this somehow feels "right." :cool:

That leaves it at an estimate $505M in N. America. Avatar will not get this boost in other countries, but as we've noted, it is past $1.6B worldwide.
I'm pretty sure it will hit $600m now, but it's not locked up yet.Indeed, Yogi Berra had something to say on this score!

However, given how slowly it is dropping each weekend (20% drops on Friday & Saturday: Sunday's drop cannot be compared because of the holiday on Monday), we can expect it to be banging on the door of $550M by the end of next weekend. I'm not sure if the Golden Globes will give it any sort of "boost" - there never has been a real tangible effect in other years - but GG success is one of the better harbingers of Oscar success, and that would make it highly improbable that it will fail to get another $95M.


Hereafter, "color me impressed" means "hue me blue." :p (Sorry, I know that is improper English, but I could not resist...)

Now I really like James Cameron.

-He knows how to make movies, he can make long movies better than any other like Spielberg and Peter Jackson (King Kong and Shindler´s List. Unnecessary long. The Lord of the Rings comes from the books, the lenght of the movies are justified enough, so they are not boring) but having the same substance.

-James Cameron knows how to add emotions and drama to his films. Good that I was watching "Avatar" with glasses XD
Unfortunately I was not wearing glasses when I saw "Titanic" XD

-His female characters are strong, very great (especially for "Avatar", OK, we have a lead sexy beutiful female character but it is strong character at the same time. And no sex or nude scenes) "Titanic" have great female characters too, as old Rose. And the lead role is actually a couple, he have balance in his characters. That´s great.

-His movies are entertainment and joyful to watch.
I am very much in disagree with Oscar policy of having boring and
unknown movies only a group of critics like.
To me he should win best director with "Avatar" the Oscar too.

I know the other director´s talent, but a movie like "Avatar" has so much more than the other movies.

The same was said about Titanic, from what I recall. In fact, the critical reviews for Avatar are much stronger than Titanic's: 94% vs 72% from the top critics at Rotten Tomatoes.

Really? Maybe you're right. I just thought titanic did such a good job of depicting a historical event, and the acting of the leads (kate and leo) were truly amazing and made the story so personal for the viewer. In the case of avatar, it's really all cgi. I know the "blue" characters are based on the actors the way gollum was with andy serkis, but I wonder how the actors in general feel about this genre since their real facial expressions, etc aren't seen. I noticed leo wasn't exactly clapping for james cameron at the golden globes last night. Notice how none of the actors from avatar got nominated for awards. Even when I was watching avatar, I enjoyed the pandora portions much more than the "real life" humans.

Now I really like James Cameron.

-He knows how to make movies, he can make long movies better than any other like Spielberg and Peter Jackson (King Kong and Shindler´s List. Unnecessary long. The Lord of the Rings comes from the books, the lenght of the movies are justified enough, so they are not boring) but having the same substance.

-James Cameron knows how to add emotions and drama to his films. Good that I was watching "Avatar" with glasses XD
Unfortunately I was not wearing glasses when I saw "Titanic" XD

-His female characters are strong, very great (especially for "Avatar", OK, we have a lead sexy beutiful female character but it is strong character at the same time. And no sex or nude scenes) "Titanic" have great female characters too, as old Rose. And the lead role is actually a couple, he have balance in his characters. That´s great.

-His movies are entertainment and joyful to watch.
I am very much in disagree with Oscar policy of having boring and
unknown movies only a group of critics like.
To me he should win best director with "Avatar" the Oscar too.

I know the other director´s talent, but a movie like "Avatar" has so much more than the other movies.

Yes, I agree. James Cameron really is talented. I've always enjoyed his films- terminators 1 and 2, aliens, true lies, and of course titanic. Avatar was no exception. I do agree he is probably a shoe in for best director at the oscars. I don't know about best picture because the voting academy seems to go for the smaller, less efx laden movies.

The CGI will count against the actors as there is a question as to how much is acting and how much is technology.

I actually didn't even take Neytiri as being that sexy. I think that just speaks more to her character being in the movie.

The CGI will count against the actors as there is a question as to how much is acting and how much is technology.

Yes, that's what I mean. It kind of diminished the actor's role in a way and puts more emphasis on the technology regardless of how amazing their performance might have been. The most we really get are their voices. So I wonder how the acting community must feel about this genre in general, particularly since the success of avatar will undoubtedly result in a lot more 3D films and knockoffs.

-His female characters are strong, very great (especially for "Avatar", OK, we have a lead sexy beutiful female character but it is strong character at the same time. And no sex or nude scenes) "Titanic" have great female characters too, as old Rose. And the lead role is actually a couple, he have balance in his characters. That´s great.


The WAS a sex scene but it was cut to keep the PG-13 rating. Cameron has been quoted as saying that it will be on the DVD. Not sure if it will be a deleted scene or they will do like LotR and make an extended edition.

-JR

Yes, that's what I mean. It kind of diminished the actor's role in a way and puts more emphasis on the technology regardless of how amazing their performance might have been. The most we really get are their voices. So I wonder how the acting community must feel about this genre in general, particularly since the success of avatar will undoubtedly result in a lot more 3D films and knockoffs.

I disagree with this. Because the actors controlled their CGI characters through sensors all over their bodies, the CGI characters reflect even subtle actions of the actors. This is why I think Zoe Saldana should be highly recognized for her performance. She did such a phenomenal job in bringing life to her CGI character. Even the facial expressions were take directly from the readouts of the actor's faces. So what we see in the CGI characters are the motions/emotions of the actors themselves. I think it's awesome!

The thing that I love about this new technology is that people who do not have the Hollywood beauty would be able to get into acting and do well. It helps to level the playing field a bit. People won't have to compete with people like Angelina Jolie and Tom Cruise.

[QUOTE=Katze;5484692] Because the actors controlled their CGI characters through sensors all over their bodies, the CGI characters pick up the nuances of the actors. This is why I think Zoe Saldana should be highly recognized for her performance. She did such a phenomenal job in bringing life to the CGI characters. Even the facial expressions were take directly from the readouts of the actor's faces. So what we see in the CGI characters are the motions/emotions of the actors themselves. I think it's awesome!
QUOTE]
Yes, that's true. I am sure the cgi picked up the nuances of the actors like what they did with gollum and andy serkis. It's just that I don't think the actors will get as much recognition as when they are their "real" selves. Notice how no one really talks very much about the actors and their performances in the film very much. All the praise has really been about the technology and how visually stunning the movie is. In some ways, I wonder if the actors feel somewhat overshadowed by all the cgi.

The thing that I love about this new technology is that people who do not have the Hollywood beauty would be able to get into acting and do well.

Because it is time-consuming, expensive and really only suited to certain roles, it won't be commonly used.

Because it is time-consuming, expensive and really only suited to certain roles, it won't be commonly used.

As technology gets faster, the cost will go down. And we can already see a merge going on between live-action and digital. I thnk 98% of the new Star Wars movies were done in front of blue-screens because it's cheaper than going on location and building sets (and all the waste). In time I think we may see alot more of this. If only all those comic-book movie makers had waited. :lol:

As technology gets faster, the cost will go down. And we can already see a merge going on between live-action and digital. I thnk 98% of the new Star Wars movies were done in front of blue-screens because it's cheaper than going on location and building sets (and all the waste). In time I think we may see alot more of this. If only all those comic-book movie makers had waited. :lol:

I agree. I doubt the actors in Avatar will be recognized award-wise for their acting because the technology is new and no one is really used to rating actors based on this very-inclusive CGI acting but I do think they have opened the door for future actors to be recognized for this type of acting in the future.

-JR

As technology gets faster, the cost will go down.

Having an actor overlaid by CGI features will never be cheaper than just having an actor.

I agree. I doubt the actors in Avatar will be recognized award-wise for their acting because the technology is new and no one is really used to rating actors based on this very-inclusive CGI acting but I do think they have opened the door for future actors to be recognized for this type of acting in the future.

-JR

Well, that discussion has been going on very publicly ever since Andy Serkis wowed people as Gollum. People wondered whether he might be nominated for some acting awards (I can't remember whether he was in any minor competition). There was also talk whether there should be awards for characters created by actors with the help of motion capture and CGI (I think there should be, it's an exciting technique!). And I am not talking about discussion on LotR fanboards, but on film forums, even in print media at the time.

In that respect Avatar is probably another step on the road, but it isn't new any more.... In any case, I think this will remain an issue, and I hope that performances achieved in this way will be recognised in future.

There ought to be a new Oscar category for "Best Motion-Captured Performance," with statues going to both the actor and the computer animators in charge of that character.

Well, that discussion has been going on very publicly ever since Andy Serkis wowed people as Gollum. People wondered whether he might be nominated for some acting awards (I can't remember whether he was in any minor competition). There was also talk whether there should be awards for characters created by actors with the help of motion capture and CGI (I think there should be, it's an exciting technique!). And I am not talking about discussion on LotR fanboards, but on film forums, even in print media at the time.

In that respect Avatar is probably another step on the road, but it isn't new any more.... In any case, I think this will remain an issue, and I hope that performances achieved in this way will be recognised in future.

While I love and respect Serkis' performance in LotR, I think the performances in Avatar were more actor then CGI. I think with Avatar, we have crossed that threshold and the actors should be recognized like other non-CGI performances.

EDIT: In reading my post, I think I need to elaborate. I think the difference between Serkis' performance and the actors in Avatar is that while they are the same in that body movements were captured perfectly, the facial capture in Avatar is far superior to LotR and that is what has put us over the threshold IMHO.

-JR

Maybe this should go in the Oscars thread, but since it's being discussed here... (hard to keep track of all the Avatar threads :hmm:)

James Cameron Announces Stealth Oscar Campaign for Zoe Saldana
http://www.movieline.com/2009/12/james-cameron-advances-stealth-avatar-oscar-campaign-for-zoe-saldana.php

She's already received much praise for her performance, and it looks like Cameron and Fox are going to make a serious push for a nomination. But Avatar missed the first wave of award screenings in early December, including Screen Actors Guild Nominations, so that'll make it difficult.

I don't know if motion capture should be a separate category; that might somehow diminish the quality of work involved. From what I hear, it's more like theater than screen acting, with all physical movement and expression highly exaggerated. I personally felt Andy Serkis deserved the nom for Gollum, but there was still a lot skepticism about the process back then. To me, as long as I feel some connection or emotional investment with the character, it doesn't matter what kind of technology it takes to flesh it out onscreen. I haven't seen most of the other female performances this year, but Neytiri felt fully realized to me, as much as Cameron's other female characters (though Ripley is still my favorite :))

I think the difference between Serkis' performance and the actors in Avatar is that while they are the same in that body movements were captured perfectly, the facial capture in Avatar is far superior to LotR and that is what has put us over the threshold IMHO.Having just seen Avatar yesterday, I'd have to agree with this. Serkis's Gollum was done when this sort of technology was relatively new. So I think it's been perfected since then to have better facial capture.

Maybe this should go in the Oscars thread, but since it's being discussed here... (hard to keep track of all the Avatar threads :hmm:)

James Cameron Announces Stealth Oscar Campaign for Zoe Saldana
http://www.movieline.com/2009/12/james-cameron-advances-stealth-avatar-oscar-campaign-for-zoe-saldana.php

She's already received much praise for her performance, and it looks like Cameron and Fox are going to make a serious push for a nomination. But Avatar missed the first wave of award screenings in early December, including Screen Actors Guild Nominations, so that'll make it difficult.

I don't know if motion capture should be a separate category; that might somehow diminish the quality of work involved. From what I hear, it's more like theater than screen acting, with all physical movement and expression highly exaggerated. I personally felt Andy Serkis deserved the nom for Gollum, but there was still a lot skepticism about the process back then. To me, as long as I feel some connection or emotional investment with the character, it doesn't matter what kind of technology it takes to flesh it out onscreen. I haven't seen most of the other female performances this year, but Neytiri felt fully realized to me, as much as Cameron's other female characters (though Ripley is still my favorite :))

I am glad to hear this. She is a great actress and did an amazing job in Avatar CGI or not...it will be an uphill battle, but a Nomination would be awsome!

-JR

Here's a particularly awesome and enlightening feature on the motion capture:

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/More-Performance-Capture-Behind-The-Scenes-From-Avatar-16623.html

Clearly, the performances were as much acting as any other live action film. I really do think Saldana is Oscar worthy, but I sincerely doubt she gets a nomination.

Also, it appears much of the film was actually shot with a camera in a sense - the technology was developed so that the guy with the camera could actually use it as though he was on Pandora shooting!

There ought to be a new Oscar category for "Best Motion-Captured Performance," with statues going to both the actor and the computer animators in charge of that character.

Really disagree. It would significantly diminish the accomplishments of the actors/actresses. Especially now, when there's essentially no competition.

EDIT: Had a $17m overseas Monday by the way, about a 20% drop from last Monday.

I can't wait until this comes out on DVD. There are so many details to look for.

At the end of the movie...
When Jake is at the base of the tree of souls, the seeds of the tree are floating all around him like they were when Neytiri first realized he was special. When Jake leaves his human body and transitions to his Avatar body, the seeds move over to the Avatar body. At first I thought this was specific to the transfer (since it takes place through Eywa), but it is only specific to Jake. When grace started her journey through Eywa, the seeds were only floating in the air, but were not landing on her.

Here's a particularly awesome and enlightening feature on the motion capture:

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/More-Performance-Capture-Behind-The-Scenes-From-Avatar-16623.html

Clearly, the performances were as much acting as any other live action film. I really do think Saldana is Oscar worthy, but I sincerely doubt she gets a nomination.

I agree she is Oscar worthy but don't count her out yet! I would expect that Fox and Cameron are putting the pressure on behind the scenes...I doubt they would pass up an opportunity to get Saldana and Avatar's name out there that much more.

-JR

I agree she is Oscar worthy but don't count her out yet! I would expect that Fox and Cameron are putting the pressure on behind the scenes...I doubt they would pass up an opportunity to get Saldana and Avatar's name out there that much more.

-JR

I don't want to count her out, but I can't really see her getting a nomination in any situation.

That feature that I linked to was only a shortened version...here's the full 24 minute version in all its goodness:

http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1809804784/video/17711648

By the way, it gained another $21m OS on Tuesday, which is flat from last week! I wonder if the uproar in China about the banning of all the 2D screens is causing the gross to spike there...

EDIT: Oh, and the current cumes...

Overseas: $1,153,370,200 - $88,721,567 from Titanic, will pass on Saturday
Worldwide: $1,662,429,598 - $180,450,357 from Titanic, will pass on Tuesday latest, Sunday earliest

I don't want to count her out, but I can't really see her getting a nomination in any situation.

That feature that I linked to was only a shortened version...here's the full 24 minute version in all its goodness:

http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1809804784/video/17711648

By the way, it gained another $21m OS on Tuesday, which is flat from last week! I wonder if the uproar in China about the banning of all the 2D screens is causing the gross to spike there...

EDIT: Oh, and the current cumes...

Overseas: $1,153,370,200 - $88,721,567 from Titanic, will pass on Saturday
Worldwide: $1,662,429,598 - $180,450,357 from Titanic, will pass on Tuesday latest, Sunday earliest

Man great video...thanks for that link! I look forward to more of that when the DVD hits. I want to see whole scenes done by the actors all dotted up and in headgear instead of just small parts though...

-JR

Worldwide: $1,662,429,598 - $180,450,357 from Titanic, will pass on Tuesday latest, Sunday earliest
It's been said many times that for Avatar to pass Titanic it would have to gross $2.4 billion. That means it still has to gross over $700 million.

It's been said many times that for Avatar to pass Titanic it would have to gross $2.4 billion. That means it still has to gross over $700 million.

It will pass $2.4b.

And I assume you're talking ticket sales? Well...if 3D prices were reduced to 2D prices, then Avatar would need to make about $2.2b-$2.4b to be on the same playing field as other movies in 2009, yes.

EDIT: $19.4m Wednesday OS down about 8%! Now at $1,153,370,200.

omg! i saw that movie! it was so awesome! the graphics were really good! i can't wait until it comes out on dvd!

Well, that discussion has been going on very publicly ever since Andy Serkis wowed people as Gollum. People wondered whether he might be nominated for some acting awards (I can't remember whether he was in any minor competition). The claim from Academy insiders was that too many people in the Academy thought that Serkis simply provided the voice. People probably have wised up to the fact that actors are much more heavily involved: but Wab is probably correct that too many Academy members will think that CGI is a sort of "performance enhancing" cheat.


Wednesday was another good day, at $3.8M in N. America. Again, that is just a 20% drop from the prior week. Avatar probably will not quite do 80% of last weekend, however, as the normal Monday will mean a normal Sunday at the box office. However, Avatar probably will slip past Dark Knight for unadjusted dollars this weekend.


Internationally, Avatar now is the #1 2009 film in several EU countries. It has just caught HBP in the UK, and Avatar should leave HBP well behind over the next week as Avatare showed a very low weekly decrease. (The Numbers put it at 0%, actually!)

And I assume you're talking ticket sales? Well...if 3D prices were reduced to 2D prices, then Avatar would need to make about $2.2b-$2.4b to be on the same playing field as other movies in 2009, yes.Adjusting for inflation internationally is one tough trick! There really is not much of a rule of thumb there: you really have to go country-by-country. As there are a few countries where Avatar has wide distribution and Titanic did not, estimating global numbers will be really tough.

Also, the 3D price might not be that relevant. Yes, that is what the theater is charging: but they are charging an extra service fee for the 3D glasses that probably is not part of Fox's totals. It's an odd situation that we've rarely faced: as Alice in Wonderland will be doing the same thing, and as that promises to be a big hit (albeit not this big!), we might read more on how it works as the year progresses.

Adjusting for inflation is nigh impossible for worldwide box office, but I wasn't really adjusting for inflation, just 3D prices, and the bump should be relatively uniform for most major countries.

And 3D prices most definitely add to the total, and there are a couple of bits of proof I can think of off the top of my head:

1) BOM and other various box office sites often post breakdowns for 3D and 2D portions of grosses and/or tickets
2) At my own cinema, you have to pay for the glasses...but you can then keep them, and get a partial discount next time - that is, you pay $15 for the movie, $3 for the 3D experience, and $1 for the glasses. The former two obviously go toward box office takings
3) Countries such as France and Germany report ticket sales and grosses. With these two bits of data, you can calculate ticket price average. Avatar's ticket price is significantly higher than other movies

But I'm the last one to put down Avatar's performance, because even if it had normal prices, it would still beat Titanic. Amazing.

2) At my own cinema, you have to pay for the glasses...but you can then keep them, and get a partial discount next time - that is, you pay $15 for the movie, $3 for the 3D experience, and $1 for the glasses. You paid $18? My theater charged (at most) $1 more, as we paid $8.00.

We were expected to return the glasses, however: they had a couple of guys asking people to put them in the "recycling" bin, where a sign very emphatically noted that they would be sanitized. (They did not want you thinking that you had been wearing unsanitized glasses, after all.)

However, I saw it in a normal theater, not an IMAX.


As for reported ticket sales, I am embarrassed to admit that I never had seen those from France & Germany. I had seen a couple of places that did report the ticket prices with the sales, which made it easy to figure out, but never the actual numbers. Live and learn!

That would be in NZD. :p

If you want to see some ticket information, you can go here...it's hard to navigate, but it's just an example:

http://insidekino.de/BO.htm

Generally most of the European countries listed there report in tickets rather than euros.

Probably want to stick it through a german translator as well...

Ah, well, there is a difference between Kiwi dollars and US dollars! (I was thinking that you should have gotten a complimentary massage while watching the film for a moment....)

Also, it turns out that I paid $9.00 for mine.


And thanks for the link: that is awesome.

But I'm the last one to put down Avatar's performance, because even if it had normal prices, it would still beat Titanic. Amazing.

Really? How so? :hmm:

At normal prices it might barely have $400M domestically and still be at least $500M off worldwide.

And in terms of actual tickets sold there are still 29 films ahead of it, according to Box Office Mojo...

Really? How so? :hmm:

At normal prices it might barely have $400M domestically and still be at least $500M off worldwide.

And in terms of actual tickets sold there are still 29 films ahead of it, according to Box Office Mojo...

It would be about $400m domestic and $500m off Titanic NOW, but it is going to break $2.3b worldwide, which would be about the number it would need when figuring in 3D prices.

It would probably end second, or possibly even third, when looking only at domestic numbers. But domestic is only part of the entire world...

Essentially, this is currently where I estimate it to end up:

$680m domestic
$2.5b worldwide

Take out the 3D surplus...

$520m domestic
$1.9b worldwide

Now if you adjust for inflation as well as the 3D surplus...then Titanic wins. Easily. But there was never a possibility that Avatar would sell more tickets. Nor any other film, for that matter. Avatar would need to make about $1.2b domestically to sell as many tickets. An ordinary 2D film would have to make well over $900m. It just isn't happening.

EDIT: Early estimates have Avatar making $9.1m Friday, a mere 12% drop from last. Estimated $35m weekend, an 18% drop. Titanic had a 16% drop. Yes, this weekend it looks like it is dropping the same as Titanic.

http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/avatar-holds-on-and-on-only-12-legion-2-and-tooth-fairy-4-les-moonves-foray-into-film-flops/

EDIT: Early estimates have Avatar making $9.1m Friday, a mere 12% drop from last. Estimated $35m weekend, an 18% drop. Titanic had a 16% drop. Yes, this weekend it looks like it is dropping the same as Titanic.This is, in some ways, more impressive for Avatar, as it already has had far more showings simply given the greater number of theaters on which it began. Titanic was, after all, one of the last big movies before modern "saturation" distribution.

What is more relevant is the number of tickets already sold. Titanic would have made about $410M at this point given current ticket prices. (Again, this is for North America: we are not the world, but we like to pretend that we are.) Avatar probably has sold about the same number or more: if the average ticket price for Avatar is $2 more than for the standard film, then Titanic & Avatar are in a dead heat in the customer's served category.

At any rate, a 90% hold from the prior weekend is really remarkable given how many tickets were sold the prior week: usually when blockbuster's are getting 10% drops, the overall ticket values are so low that we pretty much know the final box office.


On a related note, Avatar placed well ahead of the #2 film (Legion), and it is almost certainly on its way to week #6 at number 1. So, the film of the aughts with the longest run at #1 did it after the aughts! That is mildly ironic....


EDIT: Have there been any estimates of repeat ticket sales for Avatar? Titanic supposedly had a ton, although I forget if I ever read the estimated numbers. The last estimates I remember being publicized for major repeaters were for Return of the King and Lion, Witch & Wardrobe: we have not had a really big "I gotta see that again!" film in a while. (I do not remember Dark Knight being like that: but summer 2008 is a bit of a blur to me now!)

I haven't seen any numbers for repeat viewings, but I suspect Avatar would be right up there.

Avatar probably would have sold the same amount of tickets as Titanic up to this point I guess.

EDIT: $20m or so Thursday OS, cume now at $1,193,042,686.

It's going to be very close as to whether it beats Titanic worldwide on Sunday or not.

I finally saw this and I loved it.

I was determined to hate it, too :lol: I couldn't get into the hype when it first came out and there was a little part of me that was mad because James Cameron got the rights to use "Avatar." (I love Avatar the Last Airbender).

Anyway, I usually hate movies that are all about the CGI and fighting and explosions etc. Even though the basic story was simple, it drew me in and was done well.
I also usually hate movies were I figure out the ending. I did figure Avatar's ending out well before, but it didn't bother me. I was interested in seeing how they would get to the end.

It's going to be very close as to whether it beats Titanic worldwide on Sunday or not.The fact that it is a "when" rather than an "if" is the remarkable thing, even considering inflation. As Avatar is plowing along at a great rate in most of the major countries, it almost certainly will leave some impressive records in its wake. It could be another 10 years before we see this again.

Initial estimates give Avatar an easy #1 weekend in N. America, making it 6 straight. What is really impressive is how small the box office drop was when you take into account that last weekend was a holiday weekend: the drops were 13% on Friday, 5% on Saturday, and 10% between last Monday and this Sunday.

The estimated $36M is well past Titanic's $25M, which was the previous record for a 6th weekend. Obviously the difference in ticket sales is critical here. However, the 3rd best 6th weekend was 6th Sense's $16.5M, so Avatar's ticket sales obviously are right up there. Given that modern films usually exhaust their ticket sales in a hurry (even the non-sequels), the fact that Avatar would do so well in estimated ticket sales is pretty remarkable. (Most of the films in the top 20 6th weekends are from the 1990's, which makes sense as this was right before "saturation" distributions and thus had the highest ticket prices with "steam building" distributions.)

Avatar is up to $552 - 553M. That means that it probably will not quite reach $600M after next weekend because this Monday is a normal Monday. So, it probably will take in "only" another $12M between now and Friday, and that would mean repeating this weekend to get to $600M. However, it almost certainly will get past $600M by the following weekend.


Anyway, I usually hate movies that are all about the CGI and fighting and explosions etc. Even though the basic story was simple, it drew me in and was done well. Given that you are not alone in this, this strongly suggests that the movie really was about a story and just used CGI to good effect!
I also usually hate movies were I figure out the ending. I did figure Avatar's ending out well before, but it didn't bother me. I was interested in seeing how they would get to the end.Well, many people would argue that if a storyteller is telling his/her story well, then you really know what the story is about fairly early and thus have a general idea about how it will end. However, they also will do what you state: make you wonder exactly how the narrative and plot(s) are going to get you there!

Again, this story goes back to at least Broken Arrow. (It might be older, but I have a hard time envisioning this story being told prior to WWII, at least among westerners.) That being said, I'll wager that you can find pre-1950 tellings of almost every other story in the theaters this last decade!

Bar a twist ending, almost all movies have a general ending that you can guess. This is because almost all movies are 'happy' at the end. Epic movies especially - Lord of the Rings is the obvious one. It is all about how you get there.

-----

And...

AVATAR PASSES TITANIC OVERSEAS!

$1,283.3m VERSUS $1,242.1m

And it is so, so close to doing it worldwide!

$1,836.1m VERSUS $1,842.9m

It could go over with actuals, as Avatar is always underestimated overseas.

It had a $107m weekend, down 17% from $129m.

Epic movies especially - Lord of the Rings is the obvious one. It is all about how you get there.Well, the same is just as true for character-driven stories as for epics. Really, we all knew that Jake Sully would side with the natives in the end: the question was, exactly how would his "conversion" take place, how smooth would it be, etc. (We all knew that Harry would win the Triwizard Tournament through some act of valor, too: that did not mean that we necessarily knew exactly how Harry would do it, or what the exact consequences of that victory would be.)

What Avatar did was not incredibly innovative, but it works well enough, especially given the topics of our time. Still, think of how Broken Arrow must have seemed to audiences in 1950: the good guy realizing that his side was wrong?!?!? Heresy! Still, a joke told before can still be funny if spun properly, and so can a story. It's all in the delivery.... :cool:
It had a $107m weekend, down 17% from $129m.These are the numbers that really impress me: such a small drop while still making so much money. Obviously, we are a bit too used to looking at sequels here (this is, after all, a Harry Potter chat group!) and that sort of affects what we are used to discussing. But these numbers are truly impressive in just "hey, let's talk about any old film's box office" contexts.

Again, this story goes back to at least Broken Arrow. (It might be older, but I have a hard time envisioning this story being told prior to WWII, at least among westerners.) That being said, I'll wager that you can find pre-1950 tellings of almost every other story in the theaters this last decade!


I have been thinking about this.

The Old Testament has at least two appropriate stories I can think of.
A particularly striking example is, of course, the story of Joseph in Egypt - that's the Jew going native in Egypt and getting into the highest ranks of government, even ('white messiah'-like) saving the Egyptians from catastrophe. He really does embrace his Egyptian identity (even marrying an Egyptian woman). Moses, brought up as an Egyptian prince, then goes the other way and takes to the nomadic lifestyle, becoming a leader of the Jews against his 'adoptive people' (of course, the fact that he turns out to be a descendant of a Jewish family changes the thing a bit, but the story is essentially there).


My earliest example where a white westerner tries to go native and learns to dispise his own race is fictional and satirical - Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels, and Gulliver's 'conversion' after living with the Houyhnhnms (civilised horses). In this case, the story isn't combined with the 'white messiah' theme, but the rest of the story is there, and Gulliver never quite recovers when he is finally expelled and sent back to his fellow-humans.

Anyway - I am pretty sure that there must be even better early examples of this. This story is not an invention of the 20th century.

hehe...Actually there are plenty of historical parallels to draw from.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/65/Henry_Bouquet_at_Muskingum.png
After Col. Henry Bouquet defeated the Ohio Indians at Bushy Run in 1763, he demanded the release of all white captives. Most of them, especially the children, had to be "bound hand and foot" and forcibly returned to white society.
Meanwhile the Native prisoners "went back to their defeated relations with great signs of joy," in the words of the anthropologist Frederick Turner (in Beyond Geography, 245) Turner rightly calls these scenes "infamous and embarrassing."
From Lies My Teacher Told Me (http://www.amazon.com/Lies-My-Teacher-Told-Everything/dp/0684818868) by James Loewen

And there are plenty of stories that were the inspiration for Dances with Wolves.

Well, but those are different, aren't they? These may have been white people, but culturally they were American native, since they grew up that way. Their skin colour and genetic heritage surely don't play much of a role (although then, of course, people thought it ought to be the main decisive factor).

The Avatar story has a white westerner, someone who doesn't just have white skin, but is also culturally "Western" trying to learn about that 'noble savage' culture and deciding to go native.

That story needs a few preconditions - e.g. a people has to tell the story about outsiders whose culture they regard as superior, or at least potentially superior - the whole thing gets more poignancy if that culture is at the same time considered as on a more 'primitive' level - i.e. the 'noble savage' type.

I think the 'civilised person goes native amongst noble savages' story (as in Avatar) is only possible in a highly urbanised culture with some nostalgia for the 'more simple times' of the past when many of the 'evils' of civilisation haven't yet been a problem (this 'good old times' myth is age-old and of course unrealistically idealised). A bit of colonial guilt helps, too.

We have seen a lot of this kind of atitude in this very thread, which explains why Avatar appeals to so many people.


There aren't that many times when this was possible in the past.... I can think of a few adventure stories of the 19th century (the German author Karl May comes to mind) where American natives appear as the 'noble savages', but I would guess in the US this would not have sold quite as well as it did in Germany.

I think in history, racism may often have been a bar to 'noble savage' ideas - which, I think, is the reason why in C19th Germany at least, American natives were seen as ideal 'noble savages' (also, even in research, used as a model to describe the lives of ancient Germans), while Africans weren't.

Anyway - I think tnhat's why the ancient parallels look different - e.g. I'd guess that Egypt was quite naturally seen as a sophisticated wealthy culture among Jews when the story of Joseph was written down, so there, the process of 'going native' is not described in quite the same way....

Well, it's done it. It's surpassed Titanic for worldwide, unfortunately :shrug: It's still a ways off for domestic though, which is kinda funny...

The split is more skewed than any others I've noticed- 29.9% domestic/70.1% foreign

Titanic = 32.6% domestic and by comparison nearly all the other Top Box Office movies took at least 1/3 their revenue from the US. Hell, The Dark Knight was 53.2% from the US alone! :wow: I guess Batman isn't as popular overseas :hmm: Potter movies do great worldwide though


Oh, and I was just reading the latest article on Boxofficemojo which at least notes the advantages Avatar has had over movies of the past

On Saturday, its 37th day, Avatar surpassed The Dark Knight's $533.3 million total to become the second highest-grossing movie of all time, though, in terms of attendance, it likely hasn't yet cracked the Top 50. At its current trajectory, Avatar will exceed Titanic's $600.8 million total within two weeks. In 38 days, Avatar's tally stands at $551.7 million, 80 percent of which from 3D presentations (including 16 percent from IMAX venues alone).

That's ridiculous. I surely hope they plan to affix an asterick to the record... :relax: Then again, with the recent announcement that DH is going to be in 3D now too...that will inhibit any chance it has for obtaining the record fair and square. I guess this will become the norm.

It is going to make so much worldwide that an asterisk will not be needed. This has already been said...

It will pass Titanic domestically easily within two weeks, and could do in one week (by Monday/Tuesday) if lucky.

A greater OS : DOM ratio means that the movie has greater worldwide appeal than a movie like Dark Knight. This makes it particularly impressive. There is not a single country in the world where Avatar has done poorly.

If you want examples of even more skewed grosses, look no further than 2012 (78.5:21.5) and Ice Age 3 (77.8:22.2) from last year.

By the way, this thing had an almost $17m OS Monday, which is flat from last Monday.

So it'll have sold more tickets than Titanic when all is said and done? :huh: Err yeah, I'll believe it when I see it... :p

No...it will have made enough money as to still beat Titanic when it is placed at a level playing field among other 2009 movies - that is, when the 3D surplus is taken away.

What we have left is just normal ticket price inflation, which ALL movies get, and so Avatar needs no asterisk.

It'll be interesting to see where it shakes out in terms of ticket numbers / estimated ticket numbers, etc.

I can't judge the two movies against each other merit-wise since I never saw Titanic (I have a hard time judging things that I haven't seen...lack of knowledge of what's actually in there, etc). Considering the type of movies I enjoy, I think I'd prefer Avatar to Titanic anyways, but I think they're two very different movies that end up being similar in being cultural phenomena.

So it'll have sold more tickets than Titanic when all is said and done? :huh: Err yeah, I'll believe it when I see it... :p

Can I ask you this man. Why do you have a personal vendetta against a movie you haven't seen?

It's still a ways off for domestic though, which is kinda funny...It's only 46 million off, which it'll accomplish by this time next week.

It'll be interesting to see where it shakes out in terms of ticket numbers / estimated ticket numbers, etc.

I can't judge the two movies against each other merit-wise since I never saw Titanic (I have a hard time judging things that I haven't seen...lack of knowledge of what's actually in there, etc). Considering the type of movies I enjoy, I think I'd prefer Avatar to Titanic anyways, but I think they're two very different movies that end up being similar in being cultural phenomena.

It is an interesting question. Unfortunately we will never know, but we can make a few guesses.

Currently, Avatar is #26 (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm?adjust_yr=1&p=.htm) in terms of ticket sales - but unfortunately that chart does not take into account the 3D surplus. We can make quick estimates based on these numbers:

- Current gross split: 16/64/20 IMAX/3D/2D, straight from BOM
- 3D surplus: $2-$3 according to a couple of sources, will use $2.50
- IMAX avg. price: $15 according to many sources, though this is only an estimate
- Avg. price for 2009: $7.35. This includes all prices, so when we factor in that 3D made almost 10% of the year's gross, the 2D average is around $7.14, and so 3D is $9.64

The gross currently stands at $555m. Using the splits, we get:

IMAX: 555*0.16 / 15 = 5.92m
3D: 555*0.64 / 9.64 = 36.85m
2D: 555*0.2 / 7.14 = 15.55m

Total: 58.32m tickets

This would put it at #60 on the list. Now, my current estimate for where it will end up is $700m. Here's how many tickets it would sell if it made this much:

$600m: 63.04m (#5 decade, #49 all-time)
$650m: 68.29m (#4 decade, #37 all-time)
$700m: 73.55m (#2 decade, #30 all-time)
$750m: 78.80m (#1 decade, #24 all-time)
$800m: 84.05m (#1 decade, #20 all-time)

Obviously, it's not going to make its way to the top. But there is something wrong with this all-time admissions list.

Several films on there - many in fact - have required re-releases to get where they are. Gone With the Wind is the obvious one. Ticket prices then were around $0.28 (let's ignore the fact that ticket prices reportedly had a heavy surplus for GWTW - similar to Avatar in fact!), and so it needed to make $40m in its first release to trump Sound of Music. According to this (http://waynesthisandthat.com/mostpopularmovies.html), it made $32m. That's enough for 114m tickets...still more than Avatar will likely ever get.

Star Wars is next, but this time we have accurate figures for its original release. It made $307.3m, enough for 137.8m tickets.

Another example - Snow White (according to the source linked above) made only $8m in its original release! That kicks it off the list entirely.

We can continue going through like this, and end up with a top 50 like this:

1. The Sound of Music: 142.4m
2. Star Wars: 137.8m
3. The Ten Commandments: 131.0m
4. Titanic: 128.4m
5. Jaws: 128.1m
6. ET: 122.2m
7. Doctor Zhivago : 124.1m
8. Gone With the Wind: 114.3m
9. Exorcist: 109.0m
10. Ben-Hur: 98.0m
11. The Sting: 89.1m
12. Graduate: 86.4m
13. Jurassic Park: 86.2m
14. Phantom Menace: 84.8m
15. Empire Strikes Back: 80.5m
16. Return of the Jedi: 80.2m
17. Godfather: 78.6m
18. Forrest Gump: 78.5m
19. Lion King: 76.7m
20. Radiers of the Lost Ark: 75.4m
21. Thunderball: 74.8m
22. Dark Knight: 74.3m
23. Shrek 2: 71.1m
24. Butch Cassidy: 70.6m
25. Love Story: 70.0m
26. Spider-man: 69.5m
27. Independence Day: 69.3m
28. Grease: 68.4m
29. Ghostbusters: 68.2m
30. Home Alone: 67.7m
31. Cleopatra: 67.2m
32. Beverly Hills Cop: 67.2m
33. Goldfinger: 66.3m
34. Airport: 66.1m
35. American Graffiti: 65.7m
36. The Rope: 65.5m
37. Pirates of the Caribbean 1: 64.6m
38. Around the World in 80 Days: 64.6m
39. Blazing Saddles: 63.2m
40. Batman: 63.0m
41. Bells of St. Mary's: 62.7m
42. Return of the King: 61.5m
43. Towering Inferno: 61.4m
44. Jungle Book: 60.9m
45. Sleeping Beauty: 60.8m
46. Spider-man 2: 60.2m
47. My Fair Lady: 60.0m
48. Greatest Show On Earth: 60.0m
49. Passion of the Christ: 59.6m
50. Revenge of the Sith: 59.3m

Pinocchio, Fantasia, Bambi and Snow White are not included on the list because they are the Disney originals, have had an insane amount of re-releases, and would likely not make an adjusted list.

When we redo our rankings for Avatar, we get this:

$600m: 63.04m (#5 decade, #49 all-time) (#5 decade, #40 all-time)
$650m: 68.29m (#4 decade, #37 all-time) (#4 decade, #29 all-time)
$700m: 73.55m (#2 decade, #30 all-time) (#2 decade, #23 all-time)
$750m: 78.80m (#1 decade, #24 all-time) (#1 decade, #17 all-time)
$800m: 84.05m (#1 decade, #20 all-time) (#1 decade, #15 all-time)

Of course, when it comes to worldwide ticket sales, Avatar will be ranked much higher. It's near impossible to accurately estimate ticket sales for foreign markets, but we can say this for sure: It won't sell as many as Titanic, but it will sell more tickets than almost anything else. Top 5 placing, definitely.

How many in the "adjusted for inflation" Top 25 have had re-releases?

How many in the "adjusted for inflation" Top 25 have had re-releases?

In this (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm) list, 15 - 60%. That's why I recalculated the ticket sales for single runs only above.

In this (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm) list, 15 - 60%. That's why I recalculated the ticket sales for single runs only above.

Ah, I see. Good work. :tu:

This chart shows a comparison of Avatar's run to Titanic and TDK, http://www.the-numbers.com/interactive/comp-Avatar.php

This is what I find most impressive-- that blue line is not leveling off. And keep in mind it took six months for Titanic to reach its max, where Avatar will be forced out of theaters in less than three months, regardless of its continued take.

Wonder what James Cameron thinks of the debate? :lol:

The one thing I still haven't grasped is where the extra audiences came from.

I remember having the discussion about Titanic ages ago - e.g. when ROtK had its pretty impressive run and still ended up so far behind Titanic.
Our assumption then was that Titanic had simply opened up demographics which otherwise don't go the the cinema.

I remember stories of old people's homes organising unique outings to the cinema, for example!
It seemed to appeal to people of all ages, and simply accounted for the only cinema visit of many in years - or that's what the conclusion was then, among other things.Titanic had action, but not the usual shhot-them-up action, and it also boasted beuatiful historical sets and cosutmes, which is also attractive for demograqphics that don'tgo to see the usual teenage-boys'-shoot-them-up fest.


Where does the extra demograhic for Avatar come from? It doesn't strike me as the sort of film that will appeal especially to the older generations who might have gone to see Titanic as a 'historical epic' - although, of course, by now people who grew up with Star Wars are well into middle age and may well (on average) watch most films on DVD, while being willing to go out to a theatre for that special cinema experience?

Anyway - who went to theatres this time who wouldn't do so otherwise? We are talking about quite large numbers, even if we take into account 3D prices and repeat views.


Anyway - it's impressive. Titanic has been up there for so long, and it's fun to see such an amazing box office run for a change.


I am also very impressed with the US vs. rest of the world ratio. :) There are so many films (usually especially the kind that plays best to the usual 15-25 male demographic in the US) which don't do so well outside the US - especially if they are culturally to US-centric (e.g. superhero films). It's nice to see that this is different. :)

Where does the extra demograhic for Avatar come from? It doesn't strike me as the sort of film that will appeal especially to the older generations who might have gone to see Titanic as a 'historical epic' - although, of course, by now people who grew up with Star Wars are well into middle age and may well (on average) watch most films on DVD, while being willing to go out to a theatre for that special cinema experience?


Originally I would have agreed with you, but my mother-in-law informed me that her friends thoroughly enjoyed it. They are screaming at her to go see it and to take her husband along. One of her friends said she went kicking and screaming, but when she came out of the theater she was happy that she went.

So..apparently there is something in this movie for everyone. Perhaps part of its success is that this movie is getting talked about ALOT. Even if the story itself is pretty simple, the underlying themes are stirring up the masses and people are going to see what it's all about.

Oh, I am sure that the old people of today are not quite the same as those of 1996 - the baby boomers are moving into pension age, after all! Everybody under 60 now was pretty much in the target demographic when Star wars came out in 1977.

I think this does make a difference, to be sure.

I just remember that the 'Titanic is for all ages' sort of idea was pretty much widely discussed in the media back in 1997 - in the UK and in Austria. I don't quite see the same thing happening now.

But the pensioners of today don't necessarily have to be told anymore that it's for them, too....

I always realise what a huge cultural difference there is between my parents (now 68 and 70, had kids before 1968, and no TV until about 1976) and their younger siblings who were still young enough to cathc a bit of the spirit of 1968. I really think it's a huge cultural shift.

For my parents, it's somehow unthinkable that they could possibly enjoy something like Avatar. They look at a poster with blue CGI creatures and see 'not for me' (incidentally, posters of pointy-eared elves and hobbits had exactly the same effect, in spite of my very best efforts). To them it says 'youth culture - another generation', and Titanic didn't have that air about it. But obviously, there are even people of their age who weren't quite as cut off from the early 70s as they were.... the cut-of line might be earlier in many cases, but my point is that there has been a cultural shift which gives Avatar a better chance with a wider demographic.

My 66-year-old mother called Avatar the best movie she has EVER seen in her LIFE. Something about Avatar is appealing to the over-60 demographic, apparently.

Cross-demographics are essential for a movie to surpass Titanic which itself appealed to men (for the SFX) and women (for Leo and Kate....aww!!!)

My 66-year-old mother called Avatar the best movie she has EVER seen in her LIFE. Something about Avatar is appealing to the over-60 demographic, apparently.

:agree: My aunt and uncle are both retired and saw the movie twice.



Personally, Titanic was a bit too "love story" for me and my husband. Sure it was about a historical event, but I didn't like the characters and the story surrounding that event wasn't too great, imo.

Avatar seems to be more appealing to different people because of the mix of elements in it. There's the CGI, the battles, the love story, the struggle between scientists and the military, the potential destruction of a people and culture etc.

Just my two cents. :)

Wonder what James Cameron thinks of the debate? :lol:

money money money...MONEY! :whistle:

Avatar has now passed Titanic. Freakin amazing.

EDIT: Here (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/movies/awardsseason/27record.html) is the New York Times link.

-JR

My 66-year-old mother called Avatar the best movie she has EVER seen in her LIFE. Something about Avatar is appealing to the over-60 demographic, apparently.

I'm going to guess it's the visual effects. I mean, I grew up in an age where there was color television in every household and things like 3D glasses really aren't a big deal and even I thought the special effects were great.

Besides, the storyline was something that really wasn't targetting a specific age group or gender or group of people

Let's tell no lies - the initial attraction to the movie was entirely due to the effects. The first couple of weekends was all about these supposedly revolutionary visuals, and so people wanted to see what all this hype was about.

But it is still going. A movie can't have this kind of WOM without something else. If Avatar was only about the visuals, then it would have had a solid, but certainly not out-of-the-ordinary run. It would have dropped harder after the holidays. The buzz would have died down. It would have been time for the next movie.

That did not happen.

So, what about Avatar is attracting audiences so much? Well, the first thing we can say for sure is that it is not going to be as big as Titanic...at least, that's very unlikely. But it is going to be the biggest thing since Titanic, and that's certainly something.

I don't know what it is. But if I were to take a guess, aside from the obvious visuals/action/romance combo, then I would say this: its story is simple and broadly appealing enough to the degree that you can draw conclusions from it in almost any way. Anybody who has a particular passion on something can probably find inspiration from Avatar, whether it be about energy and climate change, or urbanisation, or astronomy, or biology, or just old-fashioned do good for others. Avatar has broad implications. It reaches many areas in ways that movies don't do.

And of course, a movie with such broad themes will also attract negative response from many different places. Christians at odds with the Gaia hypothesis. Right-wingers who dislike strong liberal themes. Some who find it racist, sexist and pretty much every -ist conceivable.

So we find Avatar getting positive reaction and negative reaction from all walks of life, and most importantly, this inspires debate everywhere. It's the hot topic in the media, not just because of the qualities of the movie, but because of hundreds of discussions on different things the movie could mean. Avatar is a talking point all around the world.

So that I think is a contributing factor to its success.

Now, the reason why it is a global success is a bit easier to discern. It is not just international - it is interplanetary. Devoid of all cultural baggage. And while sci-fi may have a bit of a stigma in many places, I'd suggest that Avatar is playing much more like a fantasy movie.

The one thing I still haven't grasped is where the extra audiences came from.

Post-Deng China.

Now, the reason why it is a global success is a bit easier to discern. It is not just international - it is interplanetary.

As far as I know this is the only planet it's being shown on.

As far as I know this is the only planet it's being shown on.

Well, that's not really what I was getting at...yeah. But sure, you can have that if you want. :lol:

So, what about Avatar is attracting audiences so much? Well, the first thing we can say for sure is that it is not going to be as big as Titanic...at least, that's very unlikely. But it is going to be the biggest thing since Titanic, and that's certainly something.

Do you mean in cultural impact or by monetary gross? Either way, in my opinion, Avatar has surpassed both. Titanic was a good movie, but I think Avatar will culturally be remembered far longer if for nothing else but the debate it has inspired alone. As for gross money, Avatar passed Titanic world-wide today as I posted above and quoted here:

Through Monday its ticket sales around the world reached $1.86 billion, edging past the $1.84 billion in sales posted by “Titanic,” which came out in December 1997, according to figures released Tuesday by 20th Century Fox.

-JR

I was talking about the amount of people who saw the film. If Avatar hits $3b, then we can start debating whether or not Avatar has more viewers.

Avatar will clearly have more cultural impact. Titanic is a romance film. You can't really get a lasting fanbase on that, because there is no universe to discover outside the film. Avatar is sci-fi. It has a world, like Star Wars and Harry Potter, that fans can sink their teeth into.

Avatar will also have sequels. That kind of helps.

Avatar will also have sequels. That kind of helps.

LOL Good point...Titanic 2: Reserection!

-JR

I'm not sure its the message that causes fans to keep watching it. Yes, that causes the cultural impact but when you're watching a movie, most people I know go for the short term effects and emotions, humor, anger, excitement, etc. Thinking tends to come a bit later. Its utilizing these emotions to create thebest movie experience that allows Avatar to get audiences to come back. The visual effects attract them, the experience makes them come back, and the message causes the lasting impression

I was daydreaming the other day and I thought I would put this out to the forums...Do you think Avatar would be as successful if it had never been in 3D? I'm not speaking so much to the money generated but more to the number of people in seats.

-JR

I was daydreaming the other day and I thought I would put this out to the forums...Do you think Avatar would be as successful if it had never been in 3D? I'm not speaking so much to the money generated but more to the number of people in seats.

-JR

Maybe...but only if the 80% that opted for 3D would still have seen it in 2D if 3D wasn't available. There's no way of knowing, but I'm sure a significant portion would have skipped it...especially if the only thing that was convincing them to part with their money was the visuals...

Maybe...but only if the 80% that opted for 3D would still have seen it in 2D if 3D wasn't available. There's no way of knowing, but I'm sure a significant portion would have skipped it...especially if the only thing that was convincing them to part with their money was the visuals...

No way of knowing...but you're sure... :lol:

Ah...hubris.


So, what about Avatar is attracting audiences so much?

There is something that is resonating with most of the audience.

I'm running behind schedule, so I'll post a more thoughtful response later. But whatever "it" is, is likely striking a chord in more ways than one with the audience.
:relax:

Now, sleep is Eywa. I have to go worship... http://www.kurts-smilies.de/sleeping.gif

Maybe...but only if the 80% that opted for 3D would still have seen it in 2D if 3D wasn't available. There's no way of knowing, but I'm sure a significant portion would have skipped it...especially if the only thing that was convincing them to part with their money was the visuals...

There's also an issue that some people didn't have a choce. My cinema has only shown it in 3D.

I'm not sure its the message that causes fans to keep watching it. Yes, that causes the cultural impact but when you're watching a movie, most people I know go for the short term effects and emotions, humor, anger, excitement, etc. Thinking tends to come a bit later. Its utilizing these emotions to create thebest movie experience that allows Avatar to get audiences to come back. The visual effects attract them, the experience makes them come back, and the message causes the lasting impression

Well, that's not exactly what I was getting at...what I was more pushing at was that there is far more coverage that is inspired by the debate, and more coverage from all different angles means more people interested in seeing it.

-----

Would Avatar had been successful had it not been in 3D? I say yes. And that is because the pattern it is making its success - if it had dropped off after the holidays, then that would have been clear evidence it was only the visuals. But it has not, and so people are attracted for other reasons, which means that it still would have made plenty of money. Not as much, obviously...but still enough to get close to Titanic, I think.

-----

By the way, the people over at Avatar forums (http://www.avatar-forums.com/index.php) sure seem, um, 'enchanted' by Neytiri. Take a look at the characters (http://www.avatar-forums.com/characters/) sub-forum. :err:

I have been thinking about why, beyond the special effects, that this movie has such broad appeal.

Maybe it's the idea of escape to "the other world," a beautiful, color-saturated world in which you are free of the injuries and illnesses and pain that trouble you in the "real" world, and in which you have an amazing, strong new body and cool creatures to play with, and you can fly! And you can fall in love! And learn a new culture! And simplify your life and get away from all the constraints of "technology" such as disillusionment, death, pollution, budgets, corporate greed, lack of resources for health care, etc.

It's pure escapism.

It reminds me of a quote in the introduction to J.R.R. Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" --

"The impulse is being called reactionary now, but lovers of Middle-earth want to go there. I would myself, like a shot. For in the end it is Middle-earth and its dwellers that we love, not Tolkien’s considerable gifts in showing it to us. I said once that the world he charts was there long before him, and I still believe it. He is a great enough magician to tap our most common nightmares, daydreams and twilight fancies, but he never invented them either: he found them a place to live, a green alternative to each day’s madness here in a poisoned world. We are raised to honor all the wrong explorers and discoverers—thieves planting flags, murderers carrying crosses. Let us at last praise the colonizers of dreams."
— Peter S. Beagle (The Tolkien Reader)

I am not saying that Avatar is as visionary and unique as Lord of the Rings, but only that Avatar attempts (and in large part succeeds) in tapping into the same universal yearning for "a green alternative to each day's madness here in a poisoned world."

The world that has been created is completely unique, and bursting with creativity, no matter what shortcomings someone might argue the script has. And to be honest, I think it succeeds moreso than Middle-earth with escapism, not necessarily because Pandora has been envisioned better, but simply because it is fully detached from earth.

LOL Good point...Titanic 2: Reserection!

-JR

Titanic 2 trailer. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nK_Jv4RIzpU)


The world that has been created is completely unique, and bursting with creativity, no matter what shortcomings someone might argue the script has. And to be honest, I think it succeeds moreso than Middle-earth with escapism, not necessarily because Pandora has been envisioned better, but simply because it is fully detached from earth.

Completely unique? Nah, not so... I've seen the floating mountains in paintings and video games, the giant trees in certain books, the society of people connected to the life around them in movies and books - and the Na'vi culture isn't anything new. It's not at all completely unique, but that's not surprising because art inspires art inspires art ... etc.

Heh, well when I say completely unique, it obviously has to be derivative of something. That's kind of implied. Let's just say as unique as any other world created, such as Middle-earth, etc. Because it is.

EDIT: Forgot to add, it had $16m on each Tuesday and Wednesday. Now just a couple million short of $1.9b worldwide, should be well over $2b by the end of the weekend.

The movie works on various levels.

A world that was only imagined by sci-fi authors and artists for decades.

The "Green is good" argument/debate that is prevalent the world over.

The "science" is based upon existing technology and science.

Despite the dystopic allusion to what Earth has become, there is a future that is quite a marvel.

As much as the good guys have some kicking moments, the bad guys in the movie have their share as well.

We have the crippled marine...(his emaciated legs say it all) who walks and runs the first chance he gets, as well as digs his toes in the dirt. How many people in wheelchairs dream of doing the same things? (Of course the first thing he looks at when he returns to his human body is his legs)

And this point is most telling of all I think. Everytime he returns, he wonders if the "real world" is the one where he can run and grow strong. Why come back to a sterile environment where the real world just sucks for him? In the "other world" he has a healthy body in an environment that is incredible once he learns how to live in it. This is indeed escapism, where we can finally get away and truly live...and watch a once crippled marine not only walk and run, but even learn to fly.

A story about how one who was borne human and likely will become a legend far away...

And lastly...Human culture is insane. :p

Well, at long last I got to see it!

I enjoyed it. :)

Because I like Aliens, and T2, and I even like Titanic, despite the awful script. Avatar's script is not worse than Titanic's, which admittedly is not saying much. :lol: But, you know, it's a James Cameron film. Which means that it's a very elegant action film, like Aliens and T2. :)

The visuals are absolutely gorgeous. What a world of marvels Pandora is! -- exquisite, luxuriant and spiritual. And the Na'vi are just lovely.

Another thing I like about Cameron: he always has strong female roles in his films. Ripley. Sarah Connor. Rose (the best character in Titanic.) And now Neytiri, who teaches the hero how to be one of her people.

I don't think it should win Best Picture. :D But, yes, it's a good night out. :)

Titanic 2 trailer. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nK_Jv4RIzpU)


I was thinking more water-logged zombies but hey, that was pretty funny :p

-JR

$30m weekend domestic (-14%), $95m weekend overseas (-12%), well over $2b worldwide.

Yeah, this is hitting $2b overseas. No, screw it, this is hitting $2.25b overseas, for $3b worldwide.

Well, at long last I got to see it!

I enjoyed it. :)

Because I like Aliens, and T2, and I even like Titanic, despite the awful script. Avatar's script is not worse than Titanic's, which admittedly is not saying much. :lol: But, you know, it's a James Cameron film. Which means that it's a very elegant action film, like Aliens and T2. :)

The visuals are absolutely gorgeous. What a world of marvels Pandora is! -- exquisite, luxuriant and spiritual. And the Na'vi are just lovely.

Another thing I like about Cameron: he always has strong female roles in his films. Ripley. Sarah Connor. Rose (the best character in Titanic.) And now Neytiri, who teaches the hero how to be one of her people.

I don't think it should win Best Picture. :D But, yes, it's a good night out. :)


Yes, I was thinking about the reasons why this film has done so well and I came across an article in EW where James Cameron talks about how important it is to him to make movies with broad appeal. So, that was partly why he created such strong female characters in his action film who were all tough survivors i.e. sarah, ripley, rose, and now neytiri. I think with avatar, like titanic, has something for everone. You have the groundbreaking visuals, th action, the green/political subtext, a strong female lead, a love story, etc. I think the 3D factor played a big role in its success as well.

$30m weekend domestic (-14%), $95m weekend overseas (-12%), well over $2b worldwide.

Yeah, this is hitting $2b overseas. No, screw it, this is hitting $2.25b overseas, for $3b worldwide.


It's reaaly amazing. Not since titanic have I seen a movie have such staying power at the box office. It's reaaly unbelievable. Now it's a sure thin it will pass titanic domestically, I just wonder how high it will go. 700 million is probably attainable at this rate.

I was talking about the amount of people who saw the film. If Avatar hits $3b, then we can start debating whether or not Avatar has more viewers.

Avatar will clearly have more cultural impact. Titanic is a romance film. You can't really get a lasting fanbase on that, because there is no universe to discover outside the film. Avatar is sci-fi. It has a world, like Star Wars and Harry Potter, that fans can sink their teeth into.

Avatar will also have sequels. That kind of helps.

I'm not disputing the undoubted impact of Avatar -- in technological terms, perhaps, rather than cultural ones, because from a cultural POV I really don't think Avatar is all that groundbreaking. It's basically Dances with Wolves in space. :)

I like Dances with Wolves, btw. :lol:

However, I just wanted to say that Titanic is more than a romance film. :cool: Just as well, because Jack/Rose are not my favourite couple in the history of cinema. (Rose is OK, Jack is ... meh.) The tragedy of the Titanic moves and fascinates people the world over, and the 100th anniversary of the disaster is fast approaching. Cameron sold his movie as 'Romeo and Juliet on board the Titanic' -- a winning formula, to be sure! But I went to see the film because I wanted to see the big ship go down and I was moved by Cameron's loving recreation of it and the terrible plight of the doomed passengers.

In storytelling terms, Avatar is very average, IMO. We've all seen this kind of story hundreds of times before. What makes it an enjoyable and immersive experience is all the elements that Cameron deliberately taps into, as Midnightsfire outlined above. :tu: Pandora is just gorgeous, and the characters engaging. :)

Yes, I was thinking about the reasons why this film has done so well and I came across an article in EW where James Cameron talks about how important it is to him to make movies with broad appeal. So, that was partly why he created such strong female characters in his action film who were all tough survivors i.e. sarah, ripley, rose, and now neytiri. I think with avatar, like titanic, has something for everone. You have the groundbreaking visuals, th action, the green/political subtext, a strong female lead, a love story, etc. I think the 3D factor played a big role in its success as well.

I have to hand it to Cameron -- he's a guy who really knows what he's doing. :lol: :)

The mere existence of Avatar sequels means it will have more impact than Titanic. It's no contest. And it doesn't say anything about the quality of one or the other - it's just the genre of Avatar is much more suited to pop culture longevity.

Whether it will have any significant impact or not is a question though. Is it Jurassic Park, or is it Star Wars? I think it will land somewhere in between...

Judging box office performance on how much money it has earned is deceptive, because the values are not adjusted for inflation. So, given that movie tickets these days are more expensive than they were even just a few years ago, more money does not mean more people are seeing it.

If you look at box office performance with regards to the number of tickets sold, then the most popular movie is still "Gone with the Wind."

There are many questions floating around about Gone With the Wind. Some digging around at the Box Office Mojo forums revealed several articles back in GWTW's time. The number of admissions has been cited several times at 52m by 1941 (end of first run) - still amazing, and still likely the record back then, but certainly not enough to record the most admissions of all-time.

This is because a) GWTW had numerous re-releases (movies don't get them today with home entertainment around) and b) Avatar's price hike looks terrible feeble in comparison to the surplus demanded by theatres for GWTW...the average could be well over 3 times as much as the average for other movies!

Here's the thread by the way...

http://boxofficemojo.com/forums/viewtopic.htm?t=82668&start=0

The same holds true for many other old movies. There's been quite a lot of activity at BOM over the last few days due to this. In fact, Star Wars would probably be at the top for a single run (not including its massive re-release), and even then there's hints that had a couple of smaller undocumented releases. 1977 was still before proper box office tracking took off. You never know, Titanic could actually have the highest admissions in a single run!

All this is to point out that newer films aren't as poor in admissions as one might think initially. Avatar won't get to the top, definitely not, but it may be higher than first suspected, even after taking 3D prices into account.

Geeking out for a second...

According to the Avatar wiki, Pandora is a moon that orbits a Gas Giant, Polyphemus, which orbits Alpha Centauri B. Though, none of our astronomers have discovered any solar systems yet in the Alpha Centauri system to date.

However, according to an article on Space.com (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/alpha-centauri-earth-like-planets-100201.html) released yesterday, "Alpha Centauri B in particular is thought to be a prime candidate for hosting an Earth-like planet in or near its habitable zone."

Cool eh?

I've got the guide book for the movie, describing the p;lace as though it is real. It's pretty cool.

InnyBinny: In a very real sense, it is not even apples and oranges to compare films today with films of yesteryear: it's apples and small cardboard boxes! As you note, there is the issue of multiple releases and competition between theaters and outside-theater viewing (cable, home-rental, etc.). Finally, there is competition with non-movies: regular TV, computer games, etc.

To that end, Avatar looks really impressive in a number of ways when you look at films from the last 10 years. I include one other film here, Titanic, as that is getting all of the comparisons. However, after a very strong $31M weekend, I wondered how this compared with other recent action/adventure blockbusters. It actually is quite astonishing. In weekend 7 (Wk7), Avatar made 40.6% of the sales that it did on its first weekend (Wk1). The next best of the august is Shrek, which did less than half as well. Here is the list:
Wk7/Wk1 Film . . . . . . . .
0.90464 Titanic
0.40610 Avatar
0.18200 Shrek
0.15602 Curse of the Black Pearl
0.14741 Fellowship of the Ring
0.14718 Phantom Menace
0.12159 Philosopher/Sorcerers Stone
0.09513 Lion, Witch & Wardrobe
0.06545 Spider-Man
0.05699 Iron Man
0.05443 Dark Knight
0.02763 TransformersNow, Titanic stands out as doing even better: but, again, this was right before the switch to "saturation" releases. Titanic actually was in more theaters in week 7 than in week 1; Avatar's distribution already is being reduced.

Now, add to this the probable Oscar "bump" (which, in this case, will mean a lower decay than otherwise expected), and it is really tough to guess where this is going to stop.

I am pleased for James Cameron.

The doom-mongerings in the trade rags seem to actively want him to crash and burn

I remember the predictions of disaster that came before Titanic was released and Cameron proved them all wrong, and now, he's done it again!

Geeking out for a second...

According to the Avatar wiki, Pandora is a moon that orbits a Gas Giant, Polyphemus, which orbits Alpha Centauri B. Though, none of our astronomers have discovered any solar systems yet in the Alpha Centauri system to date.

However, according to an article on Space.com (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/alpha-centauri-earth-like-planets-100201.html) released yesterday, "Alpha Centauri B in particular is thought to be a prime candidate for hosting an Earth-like planet in or near its habitable zone."

Cool eh?

Keep it comming! No offense guys, but I prefer this over box office stuff...interesting but I prefer to delve deep into a movie's story and lore :)

Anywho, I would seriously consider Cameron to have been abducted by the Na'vi in his sleep if an Earth-like planet was found near Alpha Centauri...I love how James' world seems to be based, yes loosly in some places, but none the less based in science and it's not all just made up like other sci-fi adventures.

-JR

Keep it comming! No offense guys, but I prefer this over box office stuff...interesting but I prefer to delve deep into a movie's story and lore :)Hmmm, well, the fact that Avatar overtook Titanic in the unadjusted box office should merit some additional interest! Yes, inflation is a huge factor here, and I seriously doubt that Avatar will catch Titanic in ticket sales, never mind Star Wars or Gone With the Wind. (Still, it would be nice to get a solid take on the average ticket price for Avatar....)

Obviously, records are made to be broken, and it was a matter of "when" not "if," if only because of ticket inflation. Still, I would not have expected it to happen quite so quickly. If we assume $9.50 per ticket, then Avatar is at a very impressive 63M tickets, which still would be $460M for a normal film. Given that the ticket sales are declining so slowly and that the Oscars will slow this decline, we are easily looking at only the 2nd 70M ticket film of the aughts, and there is a decent chance it will be the first 80M ticket film since Phantom Menace.


As for the story, well, what more is there to write?


EDIT: The Numbers suggests that Avatar would have to make $1B to catch Titanic in ticket sales (http://www.the-numbers.com/interactive/newsStory.php?newsID=4814) given ticket inflation and 3D ticket prices. That is a surprisingly low estimate, as that means that they are putting in only a 5% boost in average ticket price for Avatar.

So looks like Avatar grabbed 9 Oscar nominations...not too shabby! Cameron was the only individual to get nominated as the rest are best sound, visual effects, etc. Maybe Zoe can get a nod in Avatar 2! :D

-JR

Geeking out for a second...

According to the Avatar wiki, Pandora is a moon that orbits a Gas Giant, Polyphemus, which orbits Alpha Centauri B. Though, none of our astronomers have discovered any solar systems yet in the Alpha Centauri system to date.

However, according to an article on Space.com (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/alpha-centauri-earth-like-planets-100201.html) released yesterday, "Alpha Centauri B in particular is thought to be a prime candidate for hosting an Earth-like planet in or near its habitable zone."

Cool eh?

I am slightly annoyed with Cameron, though...if he chose another star, any other star, then we could actually hope that there would be a moon orbiting around a gas giant just as Pandora does! But as he chose Alpha Centauri B, part of a binary system, a planet the size of Jupiter would in most situations cause fatal gravitational instability. And we've also looked there and found nothing that size. So no Pandora for Alpha Centauri!

:(

The possibility of an earth-sized planet still exists in the system though. And that would still be amazing. Our closest neighbour, harbouring the potential for life. See, this is why I like astronomy so much!

And evidence so far suggests that there are planets everywhere - possibly enough for more than one per star. I can't see why life would be anything less than ubiquitous. Just waiting for our first discovery of an earth-like planet (should be within 2 or 3 years with Kepler), then the first detection of life-like atmospheric signatures, then the first detection of life itself...

:D

InnyBinny: In a very real sense, it is not even apples and oranges to compare films today with films of yesteryear: it's apples and small cardboard boxes! As you note, there is the issue of multiple releases and competition between theaters and outside-theater viewing (cable, home-rental, etc.). Finally, there is competition with non-movies: regular TV, computer games, etc.

...


I think if we could get hard data on:

- admissions in first run
- population in the US, and
- per capita admissions rate (which takes into effects of piracy/tv/etc, people went to movies more often then),

then we could make some much better apples-to-apples, or box-to-box comparisons. But that data, in particular the first piece, is nigh on impossible to find.

I am slightly annoyed with Cameron, though...if he chose another star, any other star, then we could actually hope that there would be a moon orbiting around a gas giant just as Pandora does! But as he chose Alpha Centauri B, part of a binary system, a planet the size of Jupiter would in most situations cause fatal gravitational instability. And we've also looked there and found nothing that size. So no Pandora for Alpha Centauri!

:(

The possibility of an earth-sized planet still exists in the system though. And that would still be amazing. Our closest neighbour, harbouring the potential for life. See, this is why I like astronomy so much!

And evidence so far suggests that there are planets everywhere - possibly enough for more than one per star. I can't see why life would be anything less than ubiquitous. Just waiting for our first discovery of an earth-like planet (should be within 2 or 3 years with Kepler), then the first detection of life-like atmospheric signatures, then the first detection of life itself...

:D



I think if we could get hard data on admissions in first run, population in the US at the time and annual per capita admissions rate, then we could make some much better apples-to-apples, or box-to-box comparisons. But that data, in particular the first piece, is nigh on impossible to find.

I know what you mean...I can't wait until life is discovered...with the most recent studies done indicating that there are tons and tons of planets out there we couldn't detect before is so cool. However, whenver science finds "life" on another planet, it's like bacteria or something...I want something I can see/interact with! Bring on Pandora!

-JR

then we could make some much better apples-to-apples, or box-to-box comparisons. But that data, in particular the first piece, is nigh on impossible to find.Well, ultimately, what we really want to know is, how many people saw a film? Of those, how many went out of their way to see it? You could survey populations to get an idea of how many people have seen recent films. However, given that so many of the people who saw GWTW and even Star Wars now are dead, this would be really tough to do for older films. More over, human memories are not that good: remember, surveys in 1980 indicated that there were more US citizens who remembered voting for JFK 20 years before than actually voted for JFK in 1960. (Of course, who wouldn't revise their memory to "forget" voting for Nixon? :cool:)

This article by Box Office Mojo (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?ref=rss&id=2667) puts an estimate (with some justification) of an average of $10 a ticket. That is considerably more than The Numbers used, and suggests that Avatar needs to hit $1.3B to catch Titanic in ticket sales. The words "Not," "Gonna" and "Happen" all come to mind here.

However, the article also notes that Avatar has sold as many tickets as (or more tickets than) Return of the King, Spider-Man 2, Revenge of the Sith, etc. As ticket sales are declining so slowly, Avatar still has a great shot at 70M estimated tickets sold.


Regarding the nominations, I will bet that once again the Academy held the CGI against the actors. I'm not sure if I can argue with that, in some ways: one could argue that the CGI means a different playing field for the actors.


However, whenver science finds "life" on another planet, it's like bacteria or something...I want something I can see/interact with!I've had plenty of interactions with bacteria, thank you very much! :p And I've got more than a couple of ex-girlfriends who have compared interacting with me to even worse than that.... :cool:


PS: what is up with BOM's estimates of 2009 ticket prices? They took forever to post $7.35, then the boosted it to $7.46, and now it is at $7.50.....

60m tickets is a bit on the low side, because the $7.50 includes 3D prices as well...2D would be closer to $7.00, I'd guess. Maybe 62-63m tickets. But it's much better than the 70m estimate by the-numbers.

Anyway, I'm thinking $750m final total, which would be 77m tickets.

Regarding the nominations, I will bet that once again the Academy held the CGI against the actors. I'm not sure if I can argue with that, in some ways: one could argue that the CGI means a different playing field for the actors.

Well, the similarities between the acting and the result are striking - looks like there's pretty much no intervention past animating the ears and tails. Obviously the Academy aren't ready yet...or who knows, maybe they are and they didn't think Zoe was quality enough? In any case, there wasn't any chance of an acting nomination, so this is pretty expected.

PS: what is up with BOM's estimates of 2009 ticket prices? They took forever to post $7.35, then the boosted it to $7.46, and now it is at $7.50.....

Hope it stays there, otherwise HBP will fall below 40m tickets on BOM's adjusted chart!

I really loved this... I don't think it's quite what everyone was hoping for, I think those who went into it too excited ended up a bit disappointed. But me, who went in with no expectations came out a fan. I've seen it four times now, and each time it's just as watchable... despite it's insanely long length.

Not my next fangirl craze, but it's certainly worth seeing -- and definitely in 3D. I think it'd lose a lot of it's appeal in 2D. But the world creation is sheer beauty, the complexity of the world is astounding and definitely a lot of fun to watch. I spent one of my viewings just goggling at the scenery. XD

I really loved this... I don't think it's quite what everyone was hoping for, I think those who went into it too excited ended up a bit disappointed. But me, who went in with no expectations came out a fan. I've seen it four times now, and each time it's just as watchable... despite it's insanely long length.

Not my next fangirl craze, but it's certainly worth seeing -- and definitely in 3D. I think it'd lose a lot of it's appeal in 2D. But the world creation is sheer beauty, the complexity of the world is astounding and definitely a lot of fun to watch. I spent one of my viewings just goggling at the scenery. XD

There is so much detail in this movie, it's incredible. I know I'm going to watch this over and over again to keep on watch on all the little things.

The last time I saw it, one of the things I paid attention to was how Jake's Avatar body grew and morphed as he immersed himself in his training. In the beginning he was just toned, but by the end, he was thick and built. The creators gave Jake's Avatar body more muscle mass than his 100% Na'Vi counterparts.

There is so much detail in this movie, it's incredible. I know I'm going to watch this over and over again to keep on watch on all the little things.

The last time I saw it, one of the things I paid attention to was how Jake's Avatar body grew and morphed as he immersed himself in his training. In the beginning he was just toned, but by the end, he was thick and built. The creators gave Jake's Avatar body more muscle mass than his 100% Na'Vi counterparts.

I agree there are so many little details that you pick up with every viewing! First time I was so blown away, I hardly noticed any of the small stuff, but the second time around I noticed how Jake and the other Avatars had eyebrows and 5 fingers as the Na'vi had no eyebrows and 4 fingers. Cool little things like that are what makes movies like this so interesting...so much little detail most people would never notice but is included anyway.

-JR

Yippee - I will (finally) get to see it next Friday, being back home now.

The big question still remains - 3D or no 3D? Which should I choose?

3D.

And it is looking likely that Dear John will beat out Avatar this weekend. It is certainly going to smash it on Friday. We'll see.

The doom-mongerings in the trade rags seem to actively want him to crash and burn

That's just the nature of the beast. After the massive success of Jaws and Close Encounters the critics were waiting for Spielberg to stumble. He promptly obliged with 1941.

Yippee - I will (finally) get to see it next Friday, being back home now.

The big question still remains - 3D or no 3D? Which should I choose?

Definitely 3D.

3D.

And it is looking likely that Dear John will beat out Avatar this weekend. It is certainly going to smash it on Friday. We'll see.

No. Good god, I had to look "Dear John" up to see what that was... :lol:

Crazy Heart over Dear John...And Avatar over all of them... :p

Dear John will win this weekend, I'm sure of it. Nikke is tracking '$15m+' for Friday alone at the moment:

http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/

EDIT: Well, Friday estimates are in and Dear John sits at $13.8m and Avatar a $6.2m (-17%). There's a bit of a nasty snowstorm going through at the moment, but that doesn't change relative numbers, only absolute ones. Because of the combined snow/Superbowl effect, Avatar could see its worst drop so far, and miss out on the eighth weekend record ($23.03m) as well.

It's not going to get #1 this weekend anyway, bar some Twilight-esque frontloading from Dear John (considering it's a popular romance novel) combined with abnormally good Saturday/Sunday % changes for Avatar.

I suspect that the weather in the east (man, we got a lot of snow!) and the Super Bowl will depress the overall box office. Still, despite losing a few major markets on Friday, Avatar's estimated take is only 17% down from last Friday. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out to be an overestimate because of the weather, however.

(Yes, Dear John is going to beat it: but really all Avatar could do was have a small drop; if another film appeared with Dear John's sales, then the streak was going to end.)

Sunday traditionally is a lost day for the theateres. Just to give you non-Yanks what the Super Bowl is like here, around half again as many people will watch the Super Bowl as have watched Avatar! That is stiff competition.....

Dear John smashed Avatar.

1. Dear John: $32.4m
2. Avatar: $23.6m

Estimate seems too high for Avatar as well...down only 48% on a Superbowl Sunday? Don't know about that...it's going to be very tight as to whether it gets the 8th weekend record of $23.03m or not.

It seems every big movie run gets trashed by a trashy movie...

*sigh*
.

It seems every big movie run gets trashed by a trashy movie...

*sigh*
.Well, Avatar hardly got trashed. It showed only 18% and 17% drops on Friday and Saturday, despite losing a few major markets to a major blizzard. The 40% drop on Sunday basically is a 15-20% drop compounded by the Super Bowl. So, it is not as if Dear John was stealing audience from Avatar: Avatar actually did extremely well for the 8th week of a blockbuster. (Most major blockbusters are not even in the top 10 at this point, after all.)

Dear John was driven almost entirely by young adult women: about 75% of the audience was female and under 21. Now, Avatar almost certainly has sold a lot of tickets to that demographic (it has sold a lot of tickets to every demographic), but this is the sort of "target audience" success that can do really well on Super Bowl weekend.

There's no way of knowing, but I'm sure a significant portion would have skipped it...especially if the only thing that was convincing them to part with their money was the visuals...

As a viewer who went for the visuals...I would have also gone to see it in 2D if 3D were not available, and would recommend it in 2D to people who dislike 3D (the glasses are a drawback for at least a couple of people I know). The world of Pandora, with its fascinating animals, phosphorescent plants, floating mountains, flying reptiles, enormous inhabited trees, etc. is amazing enough without the 3D effect. I am certainly recommending the movie in either 2 or 3 D to my circle of friends. :)

Dear John smashed Avatar.

1. Dear John: $32.4m
2. Avatar: $23.6m

Yeah, just noticed on IMDB. :)

Whohoo...it finally got beat! Dear John is a movie I actually wanna see too, hopefully as good as The Notebook and A Walk to Remember :tu:

So that's only half of Titanic's record right? You know I was starting to think it wouldn't be 'til Shutter Island weekend that it would lose #1...

Rotten Tomatoes...
82% Avatar positive reviews...
30% Dear John

Metacritic...

Avatar 84, Dear John 43...today. Dear John's score will likely change.
.

Rotten Tomatoes...
82% Avatar positive reviews...
30% Dear John

Metacritic...

Avatar 84, Dear John 43...today. Dear John's score will likely change.
.There is a strong correlation between critical reception and per-theater success for non-sequels. That suggests that Dear John is not a great candidate for catching Avatar in the long haul, which most of us guessed before we even heard of the film…. :p

What is even more important is audience reactions: the correlation between that and per-theater success is even stronger than that between critical scores and per-theater success. (Critical reaction and audience reaction themselves are pretty closely correlated, obviously).

Avatar continues to do exceedingly well there. It still has 49% 10 out of 10 on IMDB, and over 60% 9+ of 10. It's average is still at 8.6. At BOM, it is doing 84% A's and 93% A or B. That's even better than Return of the King.

Now, one might say "it's early," but by this time, films usually have "fallen" to something close to their final value. Remember, films typically attract the people most apt to like them right away. Also, a blockbusters usually is ancient history at this point: everybody who is going to see it has seen it.


This pretty much falsifies the "people like it just for the visuals" claim: films with nothing but visuals (e.g., Transformers 2) get eviscerated by audiences in the long-haul, or even in the short-haul. Great visuals open doors, but they don't get you invited to dinner.

The Super Bowl had record viewers this year, at around 106million. It makes me wonder if the SB had not been on, if Avatar would have come in first an 8th time. It really wasn't that far behind 'Dear John' at the box office.

Avatar is still selling out in my town. Well at least last weekend it was. I still haven't seen it. And won't see it this weekend. Have to see 'Wolfman' and 'Percy Jackson' this weekend :). But we plan on seeing it in theaters.

As a viewer who went for the visuals...I would have also gone to see it in 2D if 3D were not available, and would recommend it in 2D to people who dislike 3D (the glasses are a drawback for at least a couple of people I know). I just came back from seeing it in 3D (and first time seeing it at all). I still have a bit of a headache from the 3D - I'm not sure that is for me really. And I will say that by the end of the movie I stopped noticing the 3D effect altogether, so I'm not sure it was worth the extra $4.

The world of Pandora, with its fascinating animals, phosphorescent plants, floating mountains, flying reptiles, enormous inhabited trees, etc. is amazing enough without the 3D effect.Agreed. Very creative, stunning visuals with a tried and true storyline - what's not to like? I think that is the one thing I would like to give James Cameron credit for - including a good story in this eye candy movie.

Funny enough I recently saw The New World (2005) - with the story of John Smith and Pocahontas. Watching Avatar was like watching a sci-fi version of the beginning of this movie.

In the beginning of the Seventeenth Century, along the English colonization of North America, Captain John Smith leaves the Jamestown fort to explore another area and trade with the Indians, but he is captured. The princess Pocahontas asks her father to spare Captain Smith's life and they fall in love for each other. When he returns to the colony, he becomes the president of Jamestown and finds people starving, but Pocahontas brings supplies, saves them and falls in disgrace with her people. When the Indians realize that the English will not leave their country, they attack and after a bloody battle, the English trade Pocahontas and lodge her in the fort to protect their families, and Captain Smith loses his position because he does not agree with the arrangement.

@ midnightsfire and Wimsey

Uh, first of all I could care less what the bigheads think and second I wasn't suggesting Dear John was going to beat Avatar in the long haul...where the hell did you get that notion? :lol: All I was saying is I'm glad Avatar didn't come in #1 for another weekend and that Dear John looks more appealing to me, despite being aimed at young women. :p The 2 prior Sparks adaptations I've seen were great, so...

P.S. Just out of curiosity, what movie ended Titanic's remarkable 16 week run of #1 at the box office? I can't remember :hmm:


EDIT: Thought I'd post this here too. Looking at history, Avatar's chances at Best Picture are very slim (watch the vid to find out why) :p

http://oscar-watch.ew.com/2010/02/04/oscarwatch-tv-avatar-hurt-locker-sandra-bullock/?iid=rr_fv

Funny enough I recently saw The New World (2005) - with the story of John Smith and Pocahontas. Watching Avatar was like watching a sci-fi version of the beginning of this movie.Broken Arrow from 1950 features Jimmy Stewart in the same sort of role as conqueror-turned-sympathetic activist. Both the story and the anti-nationalist theme are very similar to Avatar. Both are good tellings of this story, which is why both got the acclaim that they did.

P.S. Just out of curiosity, what movie ended Titanic's remarkable 16 week run of #1 at the box office? I can't remember :hmm:
Someone posted it...Lost in Space, which was equally as wretched as Dear John in terms of critical review. (It made money however; almost 140 million so it was a "success" of a sort.)

EDIT: Thought I'd post this here too. Looking at history, Avatar's chances at Best Picture are very slim (watch the vid to find out why) :p

No big deal. I was of a mind that it was between Hurt Locker and Avatar anyway. Hurt Locker will likely take it. But Cameron will be crying all the way to the bank.
:cool:

P.S. Just out of curiosity, what movie ended Titanic's remarkable 16 week run of #1 at the box office? I can't remember :hmm:

Lost in Space.

http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=12528

The Super Bowl had record viewers this year, at around 106million. It makes me wonder if the SB had not been on, if Avatar would have come in first an 8th time. It really wasn't that far behind 'Dear John' at the box office.

Avatar is still selling out in my town. Well at least last weekend it was. I still haven't seen it. And won't see it this weekend. Have to see 'Wolfman' and 'Percy Jackson' this weekend :). But we plan on seeing it in theaters.

No...Dear John was a country mile ahead of Avatar. Besides, it appears Dear John was affected by the Superbowl more than Avatar, which is odd, so it would have only put DJ ahead even more...

Avatar will be ahead of DJ next weekend though. I think Avatar could see an increase over the 3-day, and definitely a very large one over the 4-day...this is because a) its 8th weekend was deflated due to Superbowl and snowstorms, and b) its 9th weekend will be inflated due to Valentines Day. Last time Valentines fell on a Sunday, film pretty much stayed flat, i.e. a weekend with two Saturdays.

DJ will also have a massive VD, but the other two days should see some pretty big drops.

The 3 movies opening all make a good case for being ahead of Avatar though. Especially the movie called 'Valentines Day'! Percy Jackson and Wolfman won't only be making pennies, either.

No...Dear John was a country mile ahead of Avatar. Besides, it appears Dear John was affected by the Superbowl more than Avatar, which is odd, so it would have only put DJ ahead even more...Actually, given that Dear John's audience was supposedly 75% females under the age of 21, and given that this is not a relatively large demographic for Super Bowl, it seems more probable that Dear John already had tapped out much of its audience by Sunday. When films have limited demographics, this is not uncommon.

(Yes, a ton of young women watch the Super Bowl, but they represent a smaller fraction of the Super Bowl audience than they do of the general public; thus, a movie attracting this demographic should have suffered less than, say, a movie attracting primarily middle-aged men!)
DJ will also have a massive VD, but the other two days should see some pretty big drops.Perhaps not! Dear John's early audience response is pretty bad, and it did not get good reviews. This one might have burned out already.
The 3 movies opening all make a good case for being ahead of Avatar though. Especially the movie called 'Valentines Day'! Percy Jackson and Wolfman won't only be making pennies, either.Yes, some of these might well make more than Avatar. However, the thing to watch is Avatar's drops: they were (again) relatively small on Friday and Saturday. (Sunday obviously was a bowling ball to the prior Sunday's apple due to the Super Bowl.) Again, another weekend of dropping only 15-20% might easily happen: and given that this Sunday will be "normal," that will be the same than last Sunday. (In fact, it might be bigger due to the Valentine's Day effect, as you noted.)

Upshot? $20M is not out of the question again. Never mind what any other film does: that would be outstanding for a 9th weekend.

Finally, what was impressive about last weekend is that Avatar's 8th weekend made over 30% of what its opening weekend made. The best 7th weekend this decade (Shrek) made only 18% of the opening weekend. Avatar is not falling in the box office so much as gracefully floating downwards!

Dear John received a Cinemascore of B+. Cinemascore is an exit poll that measures word-of-mouth directly, and I think it is one of the best measures available. With Cinemascore, if it gets anything at a B- or worse, the film is an utter failure, as the mainstream audience tends to be pretty kind with their ratings. B+ is far from amazing, but it's also not bad...it is simply 'good'.

Now, Dear John might be more impervious to WOM than other non-sequels because it is based on a popular novel, which is why it will be relatively frontloaded anyway. But VD should still be a big day for it...it is a romance movie after all.

This is what I think is the optimistic potential for Avatar this weekend, that I posted at BOM:

Avatar dropped about 15% week-to-week on Thursday. So I'll say it will do the same this time.

Thursday: $2.3m

Now, normally Avatar's Friday increase has been bigger every weekend. However, last weekend this did not happen, most likely due to the snowstorm. Its Friday increases post-holidays:

Jan 8: 117.9%
Jan 15: 121.2%
Jan 22: 128.8%
Jan 29: 135.8%
Feb 5: 127.8%

It should have instead increased 140% to $6.5m, but didn't because of the snowstorm (theatres were shutting down very early). This weekend will see no change in the trend, so a 145% increase.

Friday: $5.64m (+145%, -8.4%)

Saturday increases have also been going up. This didn't change last weekend as Saturday was just as deflated as Friday, and so the relative difference was the same. Last week saw an increase of 87%, so this week, 90%:

Saturday: $10.72m (+90%, -7.1%)

Looking at the last time Valentine's Day fell on a Sunday:

http://www.the-numbers.com/charts/daily/1999/19990214.php

Average drop seems to be around 10%. Considering Avatar's Sunday holds, I think it will stay flat:

Sunday: $10.72m (+0%, +108.2%)

Then I'll estimate a 50% drop on President's Day:

Monday: $5.36m (-50%, +?%)

So, this gives:

Friday: $5.64m (+145%, -8.4%)
Saturday: $10.72m (+90%, -7.1%)
Sunday: $10.72m (+0%, +108.2%)

3-day: $27.08m (+18.5%)

Monday: $5.36m (-50%, +?%)

4-day: $32.44m (+42.0%)

That's probably close to an upper bound, but it looks good to me.

Dear John received a Cinemascore of B+. Cinemascore is an exit poll that measures word-of-mouth directly, and I think it is one of the best measures available. With Cinemascore, if it gets anything at a B- or worse, the film is an utter failure, as the mainstream audience tends to be pretty kind with their ratings. B+ is far from amazing, but it's also not bad...it is simply 'good'.This is true: for the most part, the people who rush out to see a film are the ones who are most apt to like it. If they give it a B+, then things are looking bad.

Indeed, I made an unforgivable sin here: I forgot to sample standardize! DJ is getting a miserable 5.7 at IMDB. However, over half of the votes are by males, when Cinemascore's data showed that 75% of the audience was <21 females. Men give it a 5.3; women give it a 7.2. Women 18 and under give it a 7.8.

This is consistent with IMDB's 1-10 scale: a "B+" film probably is one getting a 7 or 8, and it seems like that is what the primary attendee was giving it.
Now, Dear John might be more impervious to WOM than other non-sequels because it is based on a popular novel, which is why it will be relatively frontloaded anyway.Well, keep in mind that book readers are a small portion of the audience even for Harry Potter: for Dear John, they will be a much smaller portion of the possible market.

Still, a pre-existing audience does explains why DJ sold more tickets on Friday than on Saturday: you expect Saturday to sell about 80-90% more tickets. The weather does not explain this: places were more paralyzed on Friday than on Saturday. DJ made less than 1M more than Avatar on Saturday, and less than did Avatar on Sunday. Now, the Sunday absolutes obviously
But VD should still be a big day for it...it is a romance movie after all.Actually, romance films do not do particularly well on VD weekend. If you look at the last few years, it has been horror and action/adventure flicks that have done best, whereas the romance flicks (even the new releases) do less well. Wolfman should benefit from this.

Moreover, Valentine's Day comes out this weekend. If people are choosing a film purely because it is a romance film, then this one will win because it has a bigger name cast, less negative WOM (by virtue of nobody having seen it yet!) and equally "good" (:whistle:) reviews.

Percy Jackson is the wildcard here. At only 5 reviews, we cannot yet say how it is being received, but 4 of the 5 are positive. (Beth Cooper and Rent were already 0-5 at this point!). As this sort of film can appeal across demographics, it might do pretty well in the end.


Of course, that gets away from the real topic: Avatar. I think that your projections are sound enough. If we assume a 20% decrease from last weekend, and assume that Sunday behaves like the last holiday Sunday (i.e., 88% of Saturday), then we will get something like: Fri $5.0M
Sat $9.2M
Sun $8.1MThose are pretty similar to your predictions. So, yet another weekend of $20+M seems very possible. In raw terms, this means another weekend of over one million tickets sold: and I do not think that any film has done that since Phantom Menace.

So I had a quick Avatar lore question as kinda a break from the box office talk. I was curious if anyone knows or cares to speculate on the range of your Avatar. Once you transfer to the Avatar, it is like a glorified remote controled car. So I was curious if they had a range. For example, could I jump in my Avatar and then take a trip to Earth?

-JR

So I had a quick Avatar lore question as kinda a break from the box office talk. I was curious if anyone knows or cares to speculate on the range of your Avatar. Once you transfer to the Avatar, it is like a glorified remote controled car. So I was curious if they had a range. For example, could I jump in my Avatar and then take a trip to Earth?

-JR

I doubt you'd be able to go nearly as far as Earth. Considering all the technology in Avatar is reasonable to an extent, I'd imagine that there must be some sort of wireless link that would lose power over distance due to obstruction, wave interference etc. just like any other data transmission. As the link is quite a large one - a transference of consciousness would be quite a bit bigger than standard data - I'd think you'd be hard pressed to go much outside the Polyphemus system, and even other moons would be pushing it. Best to stay on Pandora.

Of course, more needs to be known about the specific technology they're using to transmit the consciousness.

-----

It appears there is some turbulence in the weekday numbers for all films, due to snowstorms again. I don't know anything about this as I don't live in the US but the people at BOM seem to think there's some pretty crazy weather happening out there.

So I had a quick Avatar lore question as kinda a break from the box office talk. I was curious if anyone knows or cares to speculate on the range of your Avatar. Once you transfer to the Avatar, it is like a glorified remote controled car. So I was curious if they had a range. For example, could I jump in my Avatar and then take a trip to Earth?

-JRI think the fact that the Avatar had a bit of your DNA in it meant that you had more than just an electronic connection to it. However, as InnyBinny says, it all depends on what kind of link it is as well as the technology used.

It is interesting that the avatar link can be transferred from the military base to all parts of Pandora when they can't use the military radar on all parts of the planet. I'm guessing it's a different type of signal, but still...

Am I right in saying that the link was broken by falling asleep?

The link did appear to be broken when one fell asleep, yes.

The avatars don't dream. That's for the human mind to do, in the human body.

The one doctor said that breaking a "link in use" (to paraphrase) was dangerous and that a person had to come to on his/her own.
That's why they didn't break Jake off his link when he got lost in the jungle when that thanator chased him. They waited for him to "waken" on his own. ("You were dug in there like a tick.")

I think the fact that the Avatar had a bit of your DNA in it meant that you had more than just an electronic connection to it. However, as InnyBinny says, it all depends on what kind of link it is as well as the technology used.

It is interesting that the avatar link can be transferred from the military base to all parts of Pandora when they can't use the military radar on all parts of the planet. I'm guessing it's a different type of signal, but still...

Am I right in saying that the link was broken by falling asleep?

Yeah good point. Up in those floating mountains, they couldn't use radar or anything else yet the Avatars still worked. Maybe we will find out more in the next film?
I have heard rumors of Pandora's moons being involved but that is probably just people guessing.
-JR

Avatar will be #3 this weekend, behind Valentine's Day and Percy Jackson, but ahead of Wolfman and Dear John. Very early numbers here:

http://www.hsx.com/forum/forum.php?id=3&pid=38167

That's half the theatres' earnings by 5pm. Each film should earn 3.5-4 times as much as that for the full day or so.

Ok, I finally saw Avatar tonight. I just came back. I went to the city to see Percy Jackson but all of the showings were sold out until 10 PM! :wow: I was shocked. So I was there and Avatar was sitll playing in the IMAX 3D theatre so I figured I'd go see what that was all about. I loved Titanic, it's one of my favorite movies, I thought James Cameron is a great directer, there is such a hype about Avatar and it's making so much money so I figured I'd go and see what all the fuss was about myself. Now, I went in with no agenda at all. I was KINDA expecting to be blown away at-least a little (I mean how could you not?), and I knew the theme of the film backwards and forward from lurking on message boards (esp. this thread) and I really liked the theme and thought it was powerful, so I was expecting a pretty good flick. I watched a Charlie Rose interview with James Cameron where he said there was no surprises in the story, that like Titanic, it's not about what happens in the story, it's not about knowledge, it's about the emotion, FEELING the themes we all know so well. This was was genius and absolutely correct.

Now the problem? I didn't feel the 'story'. I was left feeling cold. Wimsey, this is what happens when the theme is the story. There was no story. The characters were thinly developed and flat, the acting was horrible and the script was lacking. We are TOLD everything and are rarely shown. I didn't feel for any character. I don't even remember any of their names except Jake and that's sad. It's inexcusable that we do not see earth. We needed to see what happened to earth, how it was 'dead'. In-fact the movie doesn't even explain where the hell we are and when and all that until near the very end. The entrance to Pandora came too early and had no effect for me because there was no contrast. If we spent some time on the remains of Earth, then we'd be able to feel the arrival at Pandora and see what a stark difference it is. It would also give some much needed motivation to the plot and why the humans are so interested in this world. If I didn't know most of the plot before going to see the movie, I think I'd be a little confused.

Now let me talk about the main character. Jake Sully. That guy had no personality at all. He just droned on with one dazed facial expression. How could I feel this guy's journey into his Avatar when I don't even know him in his human form? This film does something completely unacceptable. THE GUY NARRATES US TO US EVERYTHING HE'S FEELING AND WHAT HAPPENS! What happened to 'show, don't tell'? We are spoon-fed the changes in his character. He's falling in love? He tell us. He's feeling out of sync with the real world? He tells us. We should have gotten to know this guy a little more. We needed to see flashbacks of him fighting in the Marines. He says something about the guilt of having to kill woman and children later in the movie, we should have seen something of that. But we don't. His Avatar is a better actor than him and that's not saying much.

Then we have themes being screamed at us. The leader of the Army says, "We must fight TERROR with TERROR!" way to be subtle, Cameron. :p This is a blanant and obvious criticism of George Bush's policies on the war on terror. The way it's incorporated into the film is just too much. He would never say he's fighting terror with terror. Someone who subscribes to that philosophy would never think, admit or tell his troops that they are committing terror attacks in retaliation. This movie was kinda ant-military. I mean not ONE other officer questioned what they were doing or felt this particular operation was wrong. Every single one of them is cheering and smiling. Jake was the ONLY Marine who had a conscious? And that was only after he lived through his Avatar and fell in love.

Oh, and that's another thing I didn't like. It seems like Jake only turns because he fell in love (a love I felt was forced and slightly cheesy). I was expecting it to be a moral and intellectual decision to switch sides. Heck, it was almost like Twilight, just in reverse! Boring guy with no personality falls in love with other-wordy beautiful chick (who is barely dressed ;)) and eventually forsakes his human life and becomes one of them. I didn't buy it.

Now, of-course some of the scenes were emotional, like the ships chopping down all the trees, but it wasn't emotional because of the movie. Seeing that happen anywhere is heartbreaking. Once again, there was no story, just a theme. The point of a story is to showcase a theme and properly dramatize it. For a story, you need characters the audiences can relate to in some way that allows us to go on the same journey as the characters. Unfortunately we don't get that here.

The visual effects were pretty good on their own. I mean the graphics were beautiful but...it didn't feel real. It was kinda like an updated version of the Roger Rabbit movie where there was the real world and the cartoon world. I never felt a real connection between the human world (which only exists in space and on ships and stations) and Pandora. It felt like two different movies. I wasn't able to feel the 'nature verses technology' aspect because the 'natural' world felt computerized and artificial. I don't think the visual effects were all that revolutionary. The 3D was AWESOME though. They really improved on that. The whole movie was in 3D but after the first hour I even forgot I was wearing the glasses. It was awe-inspiring at first but after a while it does get old though. At-least now I know I won't mind DH in 3D from beginning to end. :tu:

The movie was childish, predictable and silly in places. The excessive use of the word '*****' was stupid and took me out of the movie. Some of the things that happened in the plot were lame. You're telling me James Cameron spent ten years thinking about this concept and the only way he thought of for Jake to be separated from the scientists was for him to wander off and touch giant flowers that shrunk to reveal a creature Jake calls a B word and then another creature comes and chases him away? I could have came up with something better for godsakkes! And the Navai trust Jake far too quickly. If you're not dazzled by the visuals, this movie just feels like another generic action flick. I would have had the marines destroy the avatar machine and have Jake fight the last part of the battle as his human self and die, only to be reborn at the end as a proper Navai that way.

Overall, I was let down and disappointed. I was arguing with myself on the way home that it was better than it was, but no. I thought it was awful and this was a movie I should have loved. The themes are very close to my heart and I can relate to feeling more alive in my 'online avatar' (sometimes I feel more myself as MasterOfDeath ;)) but I just didn't feel it at all. It left me cold and empty. I rate it 4/10.

This movie was kinda ant-military. I mean not ONE other officer questioned what they were doing or felt this particular operation was wrong. Every single one of them is cheering and smiling. Jake was the ONLY Marine who had a conscious? And that was only after he lived through his Avatar and fell in love.

I rate it 4/10.

The military shown in the film are private contractors, like Blackwater. So it isn't a jab against the United States military.

Your review excellent and I like your rating.

I agree with Eight, your review is very detailed in in depth and conveys your opinion of the film well. For what ever reason though, I felt a real connection with this movie that I still have a hard time explaining. While it is very possible I was just so taken away with the amazing scenery and the and the beautiful Neytiri (I'm a very visual person), I still loved this movie. I agree with you, the story was very lacking and the dialog was, well it could be better. I have only seen this movie twice (one in 3D and once in 2D) and the reason I have not gone back is because I don't want to be burdened with the story...I want to see a National Geographic type doc done on Jake and his life with Neytiri post-movie. While I realize this will never be made, I think I would prefer it to a sequel.

-JR

The military shown in the film are private contractors, like Blackwater. So it isn't a jab against the United States military.

Your review excellent and I like your rating.

They were? The only exposition on them I could remember is Jake's line about how on earth they were freedom fighters but here they are mercenaries. I don't think it's mentioned that they are not of the army/marines. I'm a little ignorant but do private contractors wear the uniform of the U.S army/Marines?

Thank you, JR. I don't mean to belittle your enjoyment of the movie. I really wanted to enjoy it just as much but unfortunately I didn't. It's just my opinion though. :)

That's half the theatres' earnings by 5pm. Each film should earn 3.5-4 times as much as that for the full day or so.That puts Avatar on pace for another $20M weekend. That will be 9 weeks of 1+M tickets (indeed, 9 weeks of 2+M tickets), which I do not think has been done since Phantom Menace. Of course, PM was running purely on the immense popularity of the prior series, so that was yet a different beast.

Avatar will be #3 this weekend, behind Valentine's Day and Percy JacksonAll three of the new releases, like Dear John (DJ) last week, are getting nailed with bad reviews. In the case of Wolfie & Valentine's Day (VD), the reviews are awful, whereas for Percy Jackson (PJ), the reviews are just bad. Indeed, the most entertaining aspect of the films might be some of the snarkier reviews! (Harry's review at AICN of PJ is just sad, however: he really was hoping for a good film as he loves the book series.)

VD & PJ at least will outsell Avatar this weekend: more people will see a new bad movie than an old good one. (Remember, most blockbusters are no longer even in the top 10 after 8 weeks these days, although the fact that so many blockbusters are sequels has a role here.)

So, how many of these films will sell more tickets than Avatar from this point onwards? Avatar will probably have sold more tickets than DJ (even after accounting for different ticket prices) since DJ's release after this weekend. Will VD, Wolfie & PJ sell more than Avatar from this point onwards? Avatar has sold 64M tickets already (more than, say, Return of the King and as many as Pirates 2 sold); however, the box office decay each weekend has been remarkably low, and it probably will be selling more tickets than any of this weekends releases in 1-2 weekends.


I didn't feel the 'story'. I was left feeling cold. Wimsey, this is what happens when the theme is the story. There was no story. Theme and story are fundamentally different things. Moreover, I'm not sure how the story could have been much plainer than it was: it was simply about choosing sides based on tradition and choosing sides based on philosophy. The themes also were very plain: anti-mercenary (which is not the same as anti-military), anti-imperialism, anti-shareholding, pro-environmentalism, etc.

Klio compared the story to the Moses story. I can sort of see the similarities, but the inevitable difference between an epic and a "novel" (i.e., a character driven story) surfaces: here, Sully (like Jefford in Broken Arrow) evolves into the person who changes sides, whereas Moses has something of a deus ex machina (:cool:) induced metamorphosis. Thematically, the tales obviously are a bit different: in Avatar, nationalism and self-profit are the same choice, whereas in Moses, self-gain and nationalism are opposite choices: but, again, this in part reflects the basic beasts.


There has been more discussion about whether Avatar's actors got "jobbed" for lack of Oscar nominations despite the acclaim some of the performances (especially Weaver's) got. I've lost the URL, but one article directly brought back the Gollum issue from 7 years ago, where Andy Serkis did not get a nomination because too many Academy members thought that he simply provided the voice OR thought that the CGI was a "performance enhancing" cheat! By now, it is more of the latter: shockingly, actors who have done CGI characters state that this sort of acting is more challenging than normal acting, whereas actors who have not done CGI characters do not share this view. Unsurprisingly, the actors from the other Oscar nominated films are pretty solidly in the latter camp!

Obviously, Avatar will not be the first film to get an Oscar nomination for a CGI'd performance. It will be interesting to see how long it takes before this does happen. Then it will be interesting to see how long it takes for an actor/actress to win one of the four awards for a CGI'd character!

Theme and story are fundamentally different things. Moreover, I'm not sure how the story could have been much plainer than it was: it was simply about choosing sides based on tradition and choosing sides based on philosophy. The themes also were very plain: anti-mercenary (which is not the same as anti-military), anti-imperialism, anti-shareholding, pro-environmentalism, etc.

Klio compared the story to the Moses story. I can sort of see the similarities, but the inevitable difference between an epic and a "novel" (i.e., a character driven story) surfaces: here, Sully (like Jefford in Broken Arrow) evolves into the person who changes sides, whereas Moses has something of a deus ex machina (:cool:) induced metamorphosis. Thematically, the tales obviously are a bit different: in Avatar, nationalism and self-profit are the same choice, whereas in Moses, self-gain and nationalism are opposite choices: but, again, this in part reflects the basic beasts.


There has been more discussion about whether Avatar's actors got "jobbed" for lack of Oscar nominations despite the acclaim some of the performances (especially Weaver's) got. I've lost the URL, but one article directly brought back the Gollum issue from 7 years ago, where Andy Serkis did not get a nomination because too many Academy members thought that he simply provided the voice OR thought that the CGI was a "performance enhancing" cheat! By now, it is more of the latter: shockingly, actors who have done CGI characters state that this sort of acting is more challenging than normal acting, whereas actors who have not done CGI characters do not share this view. Unsurprisingly, the actors from the other Oscar nominated films are pretty solidly in the latter camp!

Obviously, Avatar will not be the first film to get an Oscar nomination for a CGI'd performance. It will be interesting to see how long it takes before this does happen. Then it will be interesting to see how long it takes for an actor/actress to win one of the four awards for a CGI'd character!

You've totally missed my point. Theme and story are different things. Choosing sides and choosing one's own loyalties are THEMES, not story. A story involves a narrative. I didn't feel Avatar had any narrative. I walked out of the movie feeling like I already saw the movie once before. This was because I already knew how the film looked like from trailers and I already knew the theme. There was nothing new. There wasn't a proper narrative or story to showcase the themes. A theme alone cannot carry a movie. Jake felt like Deus Ex Machina. He didn't feel like a character to me at all.

Acting Oscars? Oh my. The acting was terrible in this movie, CGI or not. How could you compare Gollum to this? That's an insult, IMO. The actress who plays Jake's love interest for instance...I thought she hammed it up and her cry sounded like a little baby moaning, unintentionally funny and silly. The other characters were so stiff and wooden, especially the other Navai. I didn't feel like we got to know the Navai tribe. The only good performance in this movie is from Sigourney Weaver. She was pretty good. The actor who played Jake was just droning lines. When he starts calling one of the creatures (which all look like screwed up versions of the dinosaurs from King Kong 05) a B word, I was just taken out of the movie and sat there in shock over how stupid this movie was. I mean come on. I don't see how anyone can take this movie seriously....If this movie came out in the summer, it would have been forgotten by now.

And about the anti-military thing, the movie doesn't do a good job establishing just who these guys are so it doesn't matter. The image is quite clear: military equals evil, mindless, heartless, native murdering, land stealing, tree burning psychos blindly following orders.

I went back to see this after watching the not so...horrible Peter Jackson and the Lightning Thief.

I notice that there were at least ten "beds" for links (likely 12), so that means there are that many avatars minus Norm's.

Things that make you wonder.

Early estimates put Avatar at $4.6M, which is about a 25% drop off from last week. That is still a pretty good: it's been a long time since a film sold half a million tickets on its 9th Friday. Given the holiday Sunday, it still has a good shot at scoring $20M for the weekend. VD scored #1 at $14-15M, which is surprisingly rare: romance films do not do as well as people might expect on Valentine's weekend. Wolfman and PJ both scored about $9.8M. I am not sure what the expectations were for Wolfman, although horror films tend to do well on Valentines Weekend (they are big date movies, weirdly.). So, basically it looks like the BOMers did a good job on calling these.

You've totally missed my point. Theme and story are different things. Choosing sides and choosing one's own loyalties are THEMES, not story. A story involves a narrative. I didn't miss your point at all. True: but just because the narrative did not work for you, it does not follow that it did not work for other people. (Given how strongly some people have reacted to the story, both for positive and for negative, clearly a lot of people picked it up.)

Again, choosing sides is a very general description of story, not of theme: we see the protagonist struggle with it, and the secondary characters either struggle with it (e.g., the pilot who also defects) or make cases why the protagonist should choose a side (the Na'vi, the anthropologists, the mercenaries, etc.).

The "right" and "wrong" of why one chooses sides is (potentially) theme, assuming that (as is the case) there was a consistent basis for "right" and "wrong." Prominent themes here include anti-nationalistism, anti-corporatism and anti-mercenary: people who choose sides for money or for "blood" make the world a worse place. Additional themes include pro-environmentalism and pro "indigenousism" (for lack of a better phrase: but I must be brain cramping and missing it :cool:): people who choose sides for ethical/philosophical reasons make the world a better place.

Again, the narrative might not have worked for you, and that is fine: but it works for an awful lot of people. If you are looking for a narrative that successfully delivers the story to everyone, well, you'll be looking for a long time! There is no such beasty.
Jake felt like Deus Ex Machina. He didn't feel like a character to me at all.The closest thing to deus ex machina here was the larger "entity" responding to Jake's plea for aid. However, it already had been established that the organisms on this world were linked and that there was some gestalt aspect that existed and that could respond to individuals. Indeed, having put that gun on the wall earlier in the film, it would have been bad story-telling to not fire it in some way later in the film.

As for Jake's character, he worked fine for most people. He seemed like a guy caught between tough choices. Sure, a lot of people would insist that there is no real choice involved: but I'm betting that when it is your ability to walk or the welfare of people you know personally, then it becomes a bit more difficult.
The image is quite clear: military equals evil, mindless, heartless, native murdering, land stealing, tree burning psychos blindly following orders.Well, now you are describing theme, and you just nailed one of on the head, with one exception: it is not military but mercenary that equals evil, mindless, etc.. Indeed, many military people would agree with this: people who choose sides for money are not good people, and many military men do not trust mercenaries at all. After all, if they are fighting with you because you are paying them, then what reason do you have to think that they will not fight against you when someone else offers them more? (This has come up in Iraq and Afghanistan quite a bit in recent years.)

At any rate, I am not sure how the film could have made it any more clear that these are Blackwater-style mercenaries who take orders from a corporation. Repeatedly, they show that the guy to whom they answers is not a government official, but somebody who answers to a CEO and to shareholders. Personally, I would have cheered louder if he had been killed than I did when the mercenary leader got killed: but perhaps they are saving one of the bad guys for sequels!

That's an atrocious Friday increase in comparison to other Fridays. Only 113%? I guess the Winter Olympics hurt films in general more than I could have expected. More than 1 in 3 people watched the entire opening ceremony in Canada, and Canada is part of the US gross. Quite a few US people watched it as well, don't know the numbers.

Wolfman had awesome late night showings, so Avatar's not beating that either. #4 this weekend.

-----

MasterOfDeath, great review, no matter how much I disagree with it. I won't respond to it, generally because I can't be bothered. :p

Though, just a quick mention on one thing...

Acting Oscars? Oh my. The acting was terrible in this movie, CGI or not. How could you compare Gollum to this? That's an insult, IMO. The actress who plays Jake's love interest for instance...I thought she hammed it up and her cry sounded like a little baby moaning, unintentionally funny and silly.

Wow. This opinion really surprises me. I'm not quite sure how someone could consider Neytiri to have been badly acted. Easily the best of the lot in the movie, for me, and apparently for many others as well. Better than Gollum, yes, as great as Andy Serkis was.

But, I guess every opinion imaginable is represented by at least a few people. :)

Surely one would not go to see Avatar expecting a detailed intricate plot line, Shakespearean themes or monumental acting. Choose other films for that.

I went to see Avatar because I believed that Cameron could deliver an experience. For the first couple of minutes I found the 3D a little difficult to get used to - never having seen a 3D movie before - but after that I was totally absorbed. I don't care that the characters were a little too black-or-white - good-or-bad. I don't care that the plot lines were thin, the themes a little obvious. It was an awesome experience and I absolutely loved it.

Cameron delivered. Totally.

That's an atrocious Friday increase in comparison to other Fridays. Only 113%? I guess the Winter Olympics hurt films in general more than I could have expected. More than 1 in 3 people watched the entire opening ceremony in Canada, and Canada is part of the US gross. Quite a few US people watched it as well, don't know the numbers.

Wolfman had awesome late night showings, so Avatar's not beating that either. #4 this weekend.

That appears to be validated now, as everything appears to have much better Saturday increases than expected:

http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/valentines-day-16-5m-friday-for-60m-weekend-percey-jackson-10-5m50m-wolfman-4-8m24m-dear-john-4-5m19m/

She estimated Avatar to have a $4.8m Friday, and now a $10.3m Saturday. That's a 115% increase, more than the Friday increase! Friday turned out to be slightly lower, so the actual number should turn out to be $9.8m or so if the increase is correct.

And everything else too. Valentine's Day +18%! It should have dropped. It should also see another increase on Sunday.

If Avatar indeed has a $4.55m Friday and $9.8m Saturday, I'd expect the weekend to go something like this:

Fri - $4.6m
Sat - $9.8m
Sun - $9.8m
Mon - $4.6m

3-day - $24.2m [ +6% ]
4-day - $28.8m [ +26% ]

So there still might be an increase over the weekend (obviously there will be for the 4-day vs 3-day), even if it's not quite as big as I was initially very optimistically predicting. :p

So there still might be an increase over the weekend (obviously there will be for the 4-day vs 3-day), even if it's not quite as big as I was initially very optimistically predicting. :pInitial reports give Avatar $22M. It's hard to compare weekends, of course: last weekend had a depressed box office due to the Super Bowl and a sixth of the US being snowed under. Also, the box office this weekend was great: 80% higher than last! VD did astoundingly well (over $50M) and PJ and Wolfman had decent opening weekends, too, both getting around $31M.

However, Avatar's 2+M tickets sold is the real story: this is the first time in a long time that a film sold 1+M tickets in its 9th weekend, and the first time in even longer that a film sold 2+M tickets in its 9th weekend.

Also, I would not be surprised if Avatar leap frogged all of the top three films next weekend. VD obviously cashed in on the season (and remarkably well: oddly, romance films are not especially big hits on Valentine's weekend), but it's reviews are laughable (seriously: they are hysterical!) and it's getting very poor audience reaction from men and only so-so reaction from women. Wolfie got almost-as-bad reviews (again, some of them are hysterical), and it is getting pretty poor audience response. PJ has only poor reviews and it's getting about the same audience reaction as Wolfie.

So, if the prior decays hold, Avatar might still make $16-17M next week, while the two action-adventure flicks drop 50% or more and VD pretty much vanishes. (Shutter Island probably will debut substantially higher, of course).

Tomorrow will be like an off Sunday, which will further line Avatar's coffer's (now at nearly $660M). Given Avatar's amazingly low decay, $700M is almost assured. It still stands a shot at catching Dark Knight in estimated ticket sales, too. Alice in Wonderland (on March 5th) might mark the onset of steeper decay, as that will supplant Avatar in a lot of the 3D capable theaters. However, there are two more weekends to go before that.

Surely one would not go to see Avatar expecting a detailed intricate plot line, Shakespearean themes or monumental acting. Choose other films for that.
Why not? Would you say the same for Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen?