James Cameron's Avatar Sci Fi Flick

Why not? Would you say the same for Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen?I doubt it! However, if Avatar were anything like T2:ROTFL, then Avatar would not be getting the reviews or audience response that it is getting. Supposedly there actually was a story for T2: but Michael Bay saw no particular reason to include it, as one of the scriptwriters put it.... Fortunately for the investors, audiences ignored the reviews and word-of-mouth because they liked the prior film.

Again, unless one redefines "story" to mean something completely different from "story"(:sigh:), Avatar does a good job of story-telling insofar as most people are concerned. Is it an original story? Hardly: but, then, I challenge anyone to find a truly original story at this point in history! Couple that with an engaging presentation, and most people walk away giving it high marks.


And that is the key at this point. We've gotten so used to sequels and/or adaptations that we've almost forgotten what good word-of-mouth does to a blockbuster's audience when there is nothing else to affect their choice. So, at a point where most recent movies are out of the Top 10, Avatar is still posting 2nd or 3rd weekend ticket sales. What remains to be seen is how much longer this can be maintained: Alice in Wonderland is going to steal a lot of theaters from Avatar in three weeks.

I didn't feel Avatar had any narrative.

Oh, I did. :) It was Dances with Wolves, in space. :D :)

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.

I thought Zoe Saldana was really good. :D I loved the Na'vi!

And Sigourney Weaver rocks, whatever film she's in.

The image is quite clear: military equals evil, mindless, heartless, native murdering, land stealing, tree burning psychos blindly following orders.

It's a James Cameron movie. :cool: The guy likes his stereotypes. Just consider those sneery, British White Star staff in Titanic. :rolleyes: :grumble:

But I like his films, nonetheless. I love Aliens and Terminator 2 -- and I think those two films are better than Avatar. But I enjoyed it a lot, nonetheless: Cameron created a truly exquisite world and got me fairly and squarely on the aliens' side ... who wouldn't be?

Another thing I like about Cameron is that he always has strong female roles in his films -- Ripley in Aliens, Sarah Connor in T2, Kate Winslet's Rose (far and away the best thing in Titanic, apart from the ship itself) and now Zoe Saldana's Neytiri and her powerful shaman mother. (I also liked the female chopper pilot.)

I don't get the story comparisons between Avatar and Transformers 2. Avatar is simple and unoriginal. Transformers is convoluted and incoherent.

And with Avatar having a simple and linear narrative, that means it is more 'there' than pretty much anything. Avatar has a much clearer narrative than Harry Potter does, for instance. So when it is said that 'I didn't feel Avatar had any narrative', it really makes little sense to me, because it's really quite the opposite. It has a shockingly obvious narrative, because it is so linear and lacking in complexity.

Now, this isn't a good thing or a bad thing. With a simple story, it depends entirely on the presentation.

There are several moments in the film that are truly incredible. The entire flying sequence from when Jake first gets on his ikran is something to behold. The ecstasy experienced by the characters in that scene, and so in turn the audience, is gargantuan.

It is moments like the above that make the film what it is. And really, the simplicity of the plot only helps this. The moments are that much more defined.

So that's Avatar. A big, epic film with clear and focused story, huge emotion and unbelievable, never-seen-before effects. Now all that's done. All the character exposition is out of the way. Pandora has been introduced. The 'oh, wow, cool!' feelings have been experienced, and those who like it (that is: most) have connected to the characters and world. Now, as with most sequels, the real meat of the story comes next.

-----

$22m estimated. Once again, Nikke overestimated Avatar, and so it had a $9.2m Saturday. Based on when Valentine's Day last fell on a Sunday, I think Fox is underestimating Sunday, and will stay flat rather than drop 10%. That would put this weekend pretty much flat from last weekend.

Alice in Wonderland should finish Avatar, but it depends on how much theatre owners want Avatar. Theatres get a much larger cut of the gross in weekend 12 than OW due to studios cashing in on the frontloading trend, and so Avatar is pretty much a theatre's dream. But if Avatar would end up making sub-$10m that weekend, I think we can safely say that its run essentially ends there.

I don't get the story comparisons between Avatar and Transformers 2. Avatar is simple and unoriginal. Transformers is convoluted and incoherent.

Well said. :lol: (Not that I have any desire to see a Transformers film whatsoever, but the trailer for it was certainly convoluted and incoherent ... :yuhup: )

And with Avatar having a simple and linear narrative, that means it is more 'there' than pretty much anything. Avatar has a much clearer narrative than Harry Potter does, for instance. So when it is said that 'I didn't feel Avatar had any narrative', it really makes little sense to me, because it's really quite the opposite. It has a shockingly obvious narrative, because it is so linear and lacking in complexity.

:agree: And I would say exactly the same thing about Titanic. First hour of Titanic = unconvincing and cliched romance on board the famous, doomed ship. Second hour: famous, doomed ship sinks. :lol: Not exactly complex plotting. :cool:

And the same is true of Aliens and T2. Both have 'shockingly obvious' narratives: chase movies, both of 'em. :lol: But really, really good ones. :tu: And both pack a great emotional punch.

Now, this isn't a good thing or a bad thing. With a simple story, it depends entirely on the presentation.

Precisely, and one has to hand it to Cameron, his presentation is always absolutely first-class. Which is why I forgave him for the painfully unconvincing (to me) Jack/Rose romance because he made me feel the tragedy of the ship. (And I liked Winslet, at least, if I didn't like di Caprio.)

There are several moments in the film that are truly incredible. The entire flying sequence from when Jake first gets on his ikran is something to behold. The ecstasy experienced by the characters in that scene, and so in turn the audience, is gargantuan.

It is moments like the above that make the film what it is. And really, the simplicity of the plot only helps this. The moments are that much more defined.

:agree:

So that's Avatar. A big, epic film with clear and focused story, huge emotion and unbelievable, never-seen-before effects.

In a nutshell. :tu:

Now, as with most sequels, the real meat of the story comes next.

I hope so. :whistle:

I don't get the story comparisons between Avatar and Transformers 2. Avatar is simple and unoriginal. Transformers is convoluted and incoherent.
I wasn't comparing Transformers 2's story with Avatar's. I was pointing out the faulty logic in ginger1's post where she said surely one wouldn't go see Avatar for a great plot. I wanted to see if ginger1 would say the same for that film, also a huge blockbuster, that is constantly being berated for having a bad story or having no story.

NumberEight - I don't consider my logic to be faulty. :) I heard a lot about Avatar before I went to see it, and therefore was not expecting a complicated plot line. I believe it was a simple story, told well. (Thank you, Pearl Took, for "Dances With Wolves in Space" - brilliant! :) )

For complicated plot lines I would think, perhaps, of The Matrix.

Transformers? - don't know, haven't seen it.

NumberEight - I don't consider my logic to be faulty. :) I heard a lot about Avatar before I went to see it, and therefore was not expecting a complicated plot line. I believe it was a simple story, told well. (Thank you, Pearl Took, for "Dances With Wolves in Space" - brilliant! :) )

My apologies, then. I just found it odd that you think one shouldn't expect a great story from it.

For complicated plot lines I would think, perhaps, of The Matrix.

The Matriz 3, especially...that one they felt complicated = great, and it actually was so convoluted that it didn't make any sense in the larger story arc.

Complicated can actually be a detriment in some cases. I felt this way with Minority Report, and The Dark Knight to some degree.

I think if Avatar had a complicated story, it would take away from the wonder of Pandora, which to me was really focus.

I believe it was a simple story, told well. (Thank you, Pearl Took, for "Dances With Wolves in Space" - brilliant! :) )

Thanks. :D I was quite proud of that. :blush:

Some other wag has dubbed it Dances with Smurfs. :rotfl: But the Na'vi are far too beautiful to be called Smurfs! :grumble: :lol:

My apologies, then. I just found it odd that you think one shouldn't expect a great story from it.

Depends on how we are defining 'a great story', doesn't it? :hmm:

James Cameron is hardly the cinematic equivalent of Charlotte Bronte or J.R.R. Tolkien or Daphne du Maurier or Cormac McCarthy, if that's what we mean by 'a great story'. (It's what I would mean by it, because all those authors, in their vastly different ways, all wrote great books that got made into films.)

I don't expect 'high art' from James Cameron. (His Titanic is hardly high art.) What I expect is a thoroughly elegant action film with emotional punch -- which Avatar, Aliens and T2 all are. I don't expect a complex storyline from James Cameron: I do expect to be thoroughly riveted and entertained for two hours. And I also expect a film which looks fabulous, because Cameron excels at this also.

And yes, I do expect his particular style of action film to be miles better than Transformers, which looked to me from the trailers to be nothing more than a bunch of machines knocking each other about. Booooooooooring. :lol:

The Matriz 3, especially...that one they felt complicated = great, and it actually was so convoluted that it didn't make any sense in the larger story arc.

Matrix 1 is fabulous. Such a clever story. Matrix 2 and 3 made no sense whatsoever.

Complicated can actually be a detriment in some cases. I felt this way with Minority Report, and The Dark Knight to some degree.

'Complicated' can be wonderful, as in The Usual Suspects and Memento.

Or it can be just downright pretentious. :lol:

I think if Avatar had a complicated story, it would take away from the wonder of Pandora, which to me was really focus.

:agree: I am just dandy with simple storylines. Simplicity does not equate insulting one's intelligence.

What I expect is a thoroughly elegant action film with emotional punch -- which Avatar, Aliens and T2 all are. I don't expect a complex storyline from James Cameron: I do expect to be thoroughly riveted and entertained for two hours. And I also expect a film which looks fabulous, because Cameron excels at this also.
The only character in the film I cared about was Weaver's. If there's one thing I like about Avatar, it's that the scientists aren't portrayed as evil.

The only character in the film I cared about was Weaver's. If there's one thing I like about Avatar, it's that the scientists aren't portrayed as evil.
Agreed! The whole time I was rooting for her! She did such a great job with the role. She had the stern but nice side to her. She really made me enjoy the movie a lot more.

I wasn't comparing Transformers 2's story with Avatar's. I was pointing out the faulty logic in ginger1's post where she said surely one wouldn't go see Avatar for a great plot. I wanted to see if ginger1 would say the same for that film, also a huge blockbuster, that is constantly being berated for having a bad story or having no story.

Well, I think people synonymously use 'great' and 'complex', or conversely 'poor' and 'simple' too much, and maybe without realising it.

But I'll just say this (not a direct response to you by the way...):

The main reason I see Avatar being berated for its bad/lack of story is due to simplicity and predictability, but without any reason that connects that with poor quality. If you separate Avatar's plot from the movie and stick it in a book, then one may come to the conclusion that the book is of pretty poor quality, because in a book the plot is the main focus, and generally needs a bit of complexity to make reading interesting. However, film is first and foremost a visual medium, and pulling pieces away and judging them separately is at best inappropriate. I would insist that the way the plot is integrated within the film as a package couldn't have been done much better. Yes, I would consider it amongst the best when it comes to storytelling in film. Simplicity doesn't preclude greatness.

Transformers 2, on the other hand, is being berated for incoherence and indirection. These are inherently bad qualities of a story.

-----

Estimated weekend went up to $23.5m, due to a 7.1% increase on Sunday. Valentine's Day was huge all round - the movie Valentine's Day increased 28.1% for a huge $23.5m Sunday alone! 4-day for Avatar is estimated at $30m.

I think if Avatar had a complicated story, it would take away from the wonder of Pandora, which to me was really focus.

I agree. I went back and saw this movie for the 2nd time not because the story was amazing but because the visuals of Pandora blew me away. I'm not saying it was bad, I'm saying it was adequate to move the movie along and not bog you down so you could ogle at the landscapes.

-JR

Hey, guess what?! I'm actually strongly considering going to watch this now before the Oscars roll around. :p

I said before that it would take some strong convincing and someone has done it. I'd say he's likely the only one that could too :lol:

In fact, while Vince's (MasterofDeath) recent review had me even more convinced to skip it...I think I'm going to trust Oz on this one... :whistle:

So yeah, I was able to drive down and visit with my best friend (whose taste in movies I highly trust obviously) over the 3 day weekend. :D At some point I asked him if he'd seen "that Avatar movie". His answer was an enthusiastic yes...and while he did go on to affirm some of my suspicions he also persuaded me that it was worth seeing. He confirmed that the story is thin and the acting is mediocre at best, but he considers it like popcorn entertainment at its finest and something to be experienced, which I suppose is good enough for me since first and foremost I watch movies for entertainment anyways. In response to another concern he assured me that the runtime isn't too long and it suprisingly holds your interest. Oh, but he urged me to go 3D or else it's not much different than your average action/adventure movie...

I also asked which movie he thought should win Best Picture. He said def not Avatar...unless the award is now for "most groundbreaking" and/or entertaining. :lol: By any other standards though, his choice is either The Hurt Locker or Up in the Air. Unsurprisingly same as me :)


EDIT:

Forgot to mention my brother's response to the movie provides some back-up. He said "you should see Avatar, it's actually pretty good"

Oh, I'd still recommend seeing it. The visual experience alone (even if it doesn't look real or photo realistic) is beautiful and really takes you away. I was expecting it to look real but it's more like a high-tech animated film or video game. The experience in 3D is still one that shouldn't be missed.Just don't expect a great story or great characters or a great script or great acting or anything. Just expect some pretty fantastic visuals. :p And yeah, the movie is pretty short.

And yeah, the movie is pretty short.

I wouldn't consider nearly 3 hours to be short :lol:

The only character in the film I cared about was Weaver's. If there's one thing I like about Avatar, it's that the scientists aren't portrayed as evil.Did it bother anyone that her character was smoking cigarettes, especially in the beginning? I couldn't help thinking - what year is this supposed to be??? How many cigarettes did they pack for the 5 year trip to Pandora. I don't think it added anything to her character, and after her opening scenes it was like they forgot about that aspect of her. I don't know why it annoyed me so much, but it really did.

Did it bother anyone that her character was smoking cigarettes, especially in the beginning? I couldn't help thinking - what year is this supposed to be??? How many cigarettes did they pack for the 5 year trip to Pandora. I don't think it added anything to her character, and after her opening scenes it was like they forgot about that aspect of her. I don't know why it annoyed me so much, but it really did.I agree with you - I didn't like it either. The only reason I can think of is to make her more tough-looking. But there are many other better ways to get that point across. :shrug:

I suspect the smoking bit was added to reveal just how well humans can control their personal environment. After all, I believe every space program in existence today is definitely a non-smoking environment.

It's telling that she didn't smoke in her avatar.

James Cameron did an interview with MTV, looks like pre-Oscars, and talks a little about Pandora 2, how Hollywood is doing 3D wrong, and other things. The interview is probably on MTV.com somewhere but I found it on SlashFilm (http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/02/18/james-cameron-talks-avatar-2-terminator-5-6-spider-man-reboot-batman-movies-how-hollywood-is-getting-3d-wrong-and-his-oscar-changes/).

-JR

I liked Avatar...Pandora,especially at night time, just looks so beautiful.It looks so real.If I had not known that it was all graphics,I would not have believed it was so...:lol: ..As far as romance it is less than Titanic..Even the ending of Avatar was not up to the impact that Titanic end had created.Of course I cant compare Titanic and Avatar but I tend to do it because of Cameroon...Both Titanic and Avatar had simple plot lines (Avatar's plot was simple for a sci-fic)..But titanic had more impact on me than avatar emotionally..

The Numbers and a couple of other places are posting comparisons of Avatars sales vs. some other big films. None of them standardize for inflation, however. Assuming an average of $10 / ticket for Avatar, and appropriate yearly prices for other films of the last decade, here is a comparison of estimated ticket sales for Blockbuster Films of the Aughts (http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/9324/blockbustersales.jpg). "Blockbuster" here is a film selling 50+M tickets in N. America.

In the case of series with two or more films with 50+M tickets sold (Rings, Star Wars, Spidey, Pirates and Shrek), I have the biggest selling film only ("King", i.e., Return of the King for Lord of the Rings, "Sith," i.e., Revenge of the Sith for Star Wars, "Spidey" for Spider-Man, Shrek 2 for Shrek and "Dead Man," i.e., Pirates 2: Dead Man's Chest for Pirates of the Caribbean). "Stone" is for Philosopher's/Sorceror's Stone, of course.

Now, Avatar is a different beast from these films from the word go. All of these save Stone and Spidey are sequels, and sequels (as we know from HP) burn out much faster than do "originals." Moreover, Stone and Spidey both are adaptations, and there is a similar (albeit much weaker) effect here: the original source both provides an immediate audience for larger openings, but it also makes a lot of people certain that they do not want to see the film.


Still, this can only partly explain why Avatar's sales are going so strong after 9 weeks. Obviously, extremely strong word-of-mouth has helped: after all, the vast majority of other "originals" are not selling 10M tickets, never mind knocking on the door of 70M tickets. Avatar will almost certainly catch Spidey & Shrek 2 in ticket sales in the next two weeks, and it seems improbable that it will not catch Dark Knight in the next 6 weeks.


By the way, Avatar had another good Friday, with initial estimates giving it $3.9M. That's another relatively small 15% drop. As we predicted last weekend, it has leap-frogged Wolfman and practically tied Percy Jackson. VD still came in 2nd. What is telling is how the four films do in estimated tickets per theater: Film E[TS/theater]
VDay 204
PJck 154
Avtr 151
Wolf 116So, on the 10th Friday, theaters for Avatar are filled as well as theaters for so-so (or worse) 2nd weekend films. (Although why Valentine's Day is still getting 200+ people per theater escapes me! It must be a concatenation of all of the drawing power of the names....)

I finally caught up with the rest of the world and saw the film last night. It may not be perfect, but it lived up to all of my expectations.

The plot is certainly not original - calling it "Pocahontas in space" is fair - it's a very classic "lone soldier infiltrates exotic culture and 'goes native'" story. It's not about the uniqueness of the plot, though, or any other element, and that's where the Star Wars comparison really comes in to me; what makes Star Wars so striking, and Avatar as well, is the way the familiar parts are combined into a brilliantly entertaining and truly immersive whole. Avatar takes you to a new world, in new ways, and I felt watching this film that James Cameron knows Pandora nearly the way J.R.R. Tolkien knew Middle-Earth, or L. Frank Baum knew Oz, or Jo Rowling knows the wizarding world.

If Avatar looks like a video game, it's because video game visuals have only become more and more cinematic over the years. No, I say Avatar looks like a high-quality 3-D film with outstanding cinematography and visual effects that are 100% convicing. I was compelled by and involved with the characters throughout, and bought into the environments. I think Sam Worthington and Zoe Saldana are both very good - this isn't really an "actor's movie," but there are good performances. It's going to be a while yet before motion/performance-capture is truly embraced, though, and even longer before the Academy even considers acknowledging a motion-capture performance.

I don't know that it's the best movie James Cameron has made, I don't think it has or will totally change the way we think about films and filmmaking, but it is an old story told in an exciting new way.

The plot is certainly not original - calling it "Pocahontas in space" is fairYeah, the story has been done: but Pocahontas was "Cartoon Dancing with Wolves" and "Cartoon Dancing with Wolves" was "Colorized Broken Arrow." (That makes Avatar "Cartoon Colorized Broken Arrows in Space": but that isn't correct, is it!) I think that the plots sensu stricto actually are a bit different in all of these, but cats, skinning, etc.
but it is an old story told in an exciting new way.Well, as I have written above, finding a story that has not been told before (even if in a very different way) is a tough search right now! That being written, I question whether this is an "old" story: the oldest one that I can find that I would consider to be the same story is from 1950. Now, that might seem old on one hand: but what stories are there that were first told after that?

(P.S.: that is largely rhetorical, by the way.... :cool:)
and even longer before the Academy even considers acknowledging a motion-capture performance.A week or two ago, there were a couple of articles about this. Basically, actors who have done motion capture performances state that it is every bit as challenging and possibly more challenging than "normal" performance. Actors who have not done motion capture tend to think that motion capture is a "performance enhancer" and that such performances should not be considered for awards.

So, what the deciding factor will be when the majority of academy members have sufficient first-hand experience with motion capture that they understand just how much actors actually contribute. (That, and the assumption that actors having done motion capture are not exaggerating!)

A week or two ago, there were a couple of articles about this. Basically, actors who have done motion capture performances state that it is every bit as challenging and possibly more challenging than "normal" performance. Actors who have not done motion capture tend to think that motion capture is a "performance enhancer" and that such performances should not be considered for awards.

So, what the deciding factor will be when the majority of academy members have sufficient first-hand experience with motion capture that they understand just how much actors actually contribute. (That, and the assumption that actors having done motion capture are not exaggerating!)

I think as more big-time directors make movies like Avatar with motion capture technology that really captures the actor's facial features as if filming them in real-life, we will see more of an acceptance and hopefully some nominations. For example, I saw a production photo for the movie Tintin based on the old comic books/cartoons that Steven Spielberg is making. The actors playing the main characters might as well have been on the set of Avatar with the dots on their faces and little camera in front of their face. It's coming people!

-JR

Another excellent weekend for Avatar! It showed a great hold, with <20% drops on both Friday & Saturday. (Sunday's drop was much bigger simply because last Sunday was a holiday Sunday.) At $16.1M, it not only came in 3rd (amazing for a 10th weekend!), but it also sold over 1M tickets yet again. We have to go back to Titanic to find a film that sold 1+M tickets in its 10th weekend.

Now, as we have discussed, ticket prices boost Avatar's $$$ relative to other films. However, the new releases from last weekend all are in many more theaters, which gives them more opportunities to sell tickets. As a result, Avatar sold more tickets per theater than did any of last weekends releases: Film E[TS/Theater]
Avat 624
VDay 615
PJck 592
Wolf 401The upshot? Walk into the average showing of any of these films, and there were more people in the Avatar theater than in one of the other three films.

These are legs the likes of which we have not seen in a long time, and the likes of which we probably will not see again any time soon.

Wimsey - I love the way you put things - " the likes of which we will probably not see again any time soon" - but just because I'm curious, have you seen it - what did you think?

I suspect the smoking bit was added to reveal just how well humans can control their personal environment. After all, I believe every space program in existence today is definitely a non-smoking environment.

It's telling that she didn't smoke in her avatar.

This. She pretty much doesn't care about her human body. She's also much more irritable as human.

I'm not over the moon about Avatar's drop this weekend...it fell harder than other post-holiday weekends and Superbowl weekend, so I guess you could say that it is its worst weekend yet. Still pretty good though.

Had a another $51m overseas by the way...15% drop. $2.46b cume. I'm holding out hope for $3b worldwide, but with Alice, I don't think that's likely anymore.

I really didnt care for this movie. The visuals were stunning and the 3D was wonderful but the overall experience was...lacking. Im glad i saw it in 3D, otherwise, i would have been very angry. I found it to be a cliche storm of epic proportions! Ive seen that story before in many forms. Pocahontas, Dances With Wolves, The Last Samurai, etc. So yeah, outside the visuals, it didnt impress me at all. The way Pandora looked was great though. But...yeah...Jupiter's moon housing life? :lol: Yeah ummm...I know its just fantasy but...

I personally don't follow box office numbers at all - but you all have me thinking. I wonder if the Olympics taking up much of TV coverage affects the desire to go out and see a movie? Just a thought. :)

Wimsey - I love the way you put things - " the likes of which we will probably not see again any time soon" - but just because I'm curious, have you seen it - what did you think?My blushes! :blush: However, whether it is grandiloquence or grand delinquency is some times disputed, as I think I've noted before.... :cool:

I posted on it several pages back, but I can briefly repost. I liked the movie a lot. It was my #2 film for 2009, close behind Star Trek: and I am a major Trekkie (I probably didn't even kiss a girl until I was at least 16! :p). It does a good job of telling the story of considering the choice that "your" side might not be the right side. That story had been kicking around since WWII, but it is always timely. The anti-capitalism, anti-nationalism themes did not bother me in the slightest: but, then, to use a very ironic metaphor here, I was the choir to Cameron's preacher!

Add to this the fact that it was just fun to watch, and I'm not at all displeased to see how well it is doing.

This. She pretty much doesn't care about her human body. She's also much more irritable as human.Also, scientists smoke a lot more than people would think. Do we know that it is bad for us? Heck, yes: we even are better able to understand the statistics. However, smoking offers an addictive, legal calming drug: and we tend to be a very uptight lot.

The bad mix is that you also find the most hardcore "NO SMOKING AROUND ME!" types in our lot.....
I'm not over the moon about Avatar's drop this weekend...it fell harder than other post-holiday weekends and Superbowl weekend, so I guess you could say that it is its worst weekend yet. The drop was only 14% on Friday and only 18% on Saturday. It was even better when you compare Sunday to last Monday: 9%! (President's day is not a universal holiday in the States, either: University's are not off, for example.)

Add to that the fact that it had the 2nd highest per-theater ticket sales, and we cannot complain too much.

Here is one other way to look at it: the percentage drop from Sunday 31 January (the last "normal" Sunday prior to this one) and this Sunday was 60%. That is the same as the 3 new releases last weekend showed in one week!
Had a another $51m overseas by the way...15% drop. $2.46b cume. I'm holding out hope for $3b worldwide, but with Alice, I don't think that's likely anymore.Given the decay rate, that probably will not quite happen. Alice is running into early problems: because Disney wants a quick release to DVD, they want a truncated theater run, and the Odeon complexes in the UK & Ireland are refusing to show it unless it runs the required 17 weeks.

I'm not a huge fan of the "competition" model: there are actually very few recent examples of competition inducing bigger than expected drops in box offices. The real competition will be for theater space, however, and if Alice bumps Avatar out of the 3D theaters, then the sales obviously will drop: per theater sales just cannot make up for loss of theaters.

I personally don't follow box office numbers at all - but you all have me thinking. I wonder if the Olympics taking up much of TV coverage affects the desire to go out and see a movie? Just a thought. :)Olympic viewing is not that high: it basically performs like a good prime-time show. Only The Super Bowl is anything like The Super Bowl in terms of audiences. There, you have more viewers than you have voters in presidential elections....

Here are estimated ticket sales after 10 weeks (http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/7268/blockbustersales2.jpg) for the big blockbusters (or representatives of big blockbuster series) from the last decade. Avatar now is tied with Spidey & Shrek 2: and as those two were flat-lining at this point, it certainly will pass them in another week.

After that, it's just Dark Knight. Given how little decay there is on this trajectory (and remember, it is log-transformed!), I really think that this is probable.

A week or two ago, there were a couple of articles about this. Basically, actors who have done motion capture performances state that it is every bit as challenging and possibly more challenging than "normal" performance.

Well they would say that, wouldn't they.

Well they would say that, wouldn't they.And the same should be said for the actors who have not done CGI! That was the tacit point.

Early estimates give Avatar another good hold at $3.1M. That is again only a 20% drop. Avatar will easily cross $700M (and thus 70M tickets sold) today. This also will mark the 11th weekend of 1+M tickets sold, which has not been done since Titanic.

Avatar's ranking is steadily falling, due to two more new releases that will be mildly successful. However, all three of the films released two weeks ago have fallen far below Avatar, and only Valentine's Day sold more tickets than Avatar did yesterday, despite playing in many more theaters than Avatar is. (VD sold fewer tickets per theater, for what that is worth.) I do not expect that Cop Out or The Crazies will last long in the box office, so Avatar could eke out another week or two in the top 5 after this one. (The loss of 3D theaters to Alice will get it shortly thereafter, however.)

It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if Odeon's Alice boycott went ahead.

The way Pandora looked was great though. But...yeah...Jupiter's moon housing life? :lol: Yeah ummm...I know its just fantasy but...

Missed this.

Jupiter's moon?

No.

It's a moon of the planet Polyphemus (http://james-camerons-avatar.wikia.com/wiki/Polyphemus) approximately 4.7 light years away from Earth.

World of Avatar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictional_universe_of_Avatar)
:relax:

It's a moon of the planet Polyphemus (http://james-camerons-avatar.wikia.com/wiki/Polyphemus) approximately 4.7 light years away from Earth.Also, the idea that satellites of gas giants might support life is not entirely preposterous: the best candidates for life in the Solar System are satellites of Jupiter and Saturn, after all.

However, advanced life as in the film might be more problematic. Presumably you would want a fairly warm system, but gas giants by their very nature should be fairly far from a star.

That being stated, the "where/how" does not have much effect on the story, plot or themes....

EDIT: Avatar posted another very strong weekend at $14M. That is down less than 15%, just as we saw last weekend. (Remember, you have to compare last Sunday to the prior Monday.) So, that is 11 weekends of 1+M tickets sold. As the releases from 2 weekends ago all slipped well below Avatar (Avatar sold more tickets than any of them, even after giving it the "special" adjustment of $10), Avatar even remained in the Top 5, coming in 4th.

The ranking was unaffected, but the small drop happened despite another big winter storm (it's been a wet winter here on the east coast!) severely curtailing audiences in several US cities.

Finally, Avatar overtook Shrek II as the second biggest ticket seller of the Aughts (70.6M for Avatar, 70.3M for Shrek II). Next up is The Dark Knight, at 74.3M tickets. That will probably happen in 2-3 weeks. So, can it be the first film since Phantom Menace to sell 80+M tickets? Wait and see....

Yeah, the idea of moons orbiting gas giants and housing life is considered perfectly reasonable. In fact, if life is common on terrestrial planets, then I would say that life is common on moons orbiting giant planets too.

BTW Wimsey, the idea that gas giants tend to be further away from the sun has been challenged significantly by all these so-called hot Jupiters they've been finding. Sure, the results are vastly biased toward these planets due to methods of detection (radial velocity) being very much suited to finding large and close in planets, but the mere existence of giant planets with periods of a couple of days kind of throws off our formation models.

Avatar doesn't have a chance at 80m tickets, anyway. Alice will stop that due to taking away 3D/IMAX screens, should see a drop ranging from a little bigger than its worst so far to absolutely gigantic. Depends entirely on the bottleneck created...that is, how much extra per screen sales there are.

I was watching a show last night on Jupiter and they said that Jupiter puts off more heat than it receives from the sun. So I figure a moon around a Jupiter like planet could theoretically be warm enough for life due to the radiative heat of the gas giant.

Yes, radiation from the planet itself can also help.

It can also be the wrong types of radiation, but we'll just ignore that. :p

Well, I finally saw Avatar today (in IMAX 3D), and it really exceeded my expectations.

I went in expecting the story to be thin and cliched. It wasn't nearly as bad I thought it would be. In fact, I thought the writing was much better than the writing for Titanic (which is a visual feast but which has that whole ridiculous plotline with Jack & Rose and her Snidely Whiplash fiance - when it could have been telling the much more compelling real stories).

As for the visuals... I expected them to be spectacular. But I had no idea just how spectacular. Overall, I was pretty awe-struck.

I have now experienced twice in my lifetime the first-runs of visually-groundbreaking movies: Star Wars and Avatar. It's not likely to happen again in my life. But it seems clear that Cameron just moved the goalposts (to use a cliche from American football).

Well, I finally saw Avatar today (in IMAX 3D), and it really exceeded my expectations.

I went in expecting the story to be thin and cliched. It wasn't nearly as bad I thought it would be. In fact, I thought the writing was much better than the writing for Titanic (which is a visual feast but which has that whole ridiculous plotline with Jack & Rose and her Snidely Whiplash fiance - when it could have been telling the much more compelling real stories).

As for the visuals... I expected them to be spectacular. But I had no idea just how spectacular. Overall, I was pretty awe-struck.

I have now experienced twice in my lifetime the first-runs of visually-groundbreaking movies: Star Wars and Avatar. It's not likely to happen again in my life. But it seems clear that Cameron just moved the goalposts (to use a cliche from American football).

I have to agree with you about Avatar. It was groundbreaking visually. I have a few little nitpicks about the plot but on the whole I really liked it.

Personally I loved it.

Usually a heavily hyped movie doesn't meet expectations but this one surpassed them. With a movie heavy in special effects, it's vital to have a good story, or in this case, an interesting and credible relationship/romance at the centre of the film. Avatar had that. The Star Wars prequels for example did not. Cameron was very clever to make sure Jake and Netiri's relationship was believable, even in a fantastical setting. Doing that means the audience has an emotional interest in the movie and are not simply watching a 2 hour special effects reel.

I have to say, the facial depth of Netiri in particular was very convincing, particularly in the eyes which looked very real and expressive. Zoe Saldana deserves a lot of credit for her performance. I was happy to see a disabled character as the lead too, and I think it was a good idea to cast a relatively unknown actor in the role of Jake, who I found to be a very endearing character.

The culture of Na'vi was very fleshed out and explored in depth. The political message was I think mostly valid and relevant to today's world (the Iraq invasion seemed to be the basis, but I don't think it fully applied since I would not at all want to compare any Earth based real world totalitarian regime or paramilitary insurgency with the Na'vi, but the idea of being ignorant towards other cultures I think does apply to our real world situation. The soundtrack was also very good and really seemed otherworldly, yet appropriate to Na'vi culture.

The special effects were the best I've ever seen in a movie. Pandora was dazzlingly beautiful. I liked how everything glowed and the lifeforms on the planet seemed be to realistic animals rather than movie monsters. The concepts of "avatars" I thought was very interesting and I loved the idea of a planet essentially functioning as a single living entity. The concept of the Na'vi actually "plugging in" their minds (via physical contact) to other lifeforms on Pandora and the planet as a whole was superb. The action/combat sequences were also top quality. The flying scenes were universally breathtaking, as was the landscape of Pandora.

If the movie did have a flaw, it's that the villains were rather hollow and lacked any redeeming features. They were just generically (and absurdly) violent and stupid, which meant the movie was unbalanced, in the sense that the Na'vi were all good, and the villains were unrealistically bad, but on the other hand, the idea of corporate ignorance and greed (represented by Giovanni Ribisi's character) and gung-ho militarism (Stephen Lang's character) I think is to an extent realistic.

The 3D element I think is an unnecessary gimmick. The movie works just as well without it. Good characters are good characters. If they are well written, it doesn't matter whether they are in 2D, 3D or written on a page.

I wonder if I'm the only person out there who didn't like it. (I'll read through the rest of this thread later, I suppose.) Cameron has no imagination left, it seems. Not only is Avatar just a retelling of Pocahontas, Dances with Wolves and Fern Gully, Pandora seems to be a plagiarism of Earth. There are horses, panthers, wolves, pterodactyls and even humanoids. And unobtainium? Seriously?

I appreciate some of the themes in the film and there were certainly some engaging moments. I really loved the idea of having a physical connexion to the planet, really representing an idea of a collective consciousness and being able to share senses with animals, other Na'vi and the trees/earth. The floating mountains were pretty cool too.

But the problems with the film are too big to overlook. It was so long, I found myself drifting off during parts. Seeing it in 3D was so unfulfilling - it added absolutely nothing to the film apart from one cute little moment when it seemed like seeds or butterflies or something was floating in your face - that we could have completely done without it. The fact that the budget was probably the biggest in film history and it took 12+ years to create hardly makes a film any good. Yes, Cameron created an interesting filming/animation style but that doesn't actually make the film he made any good.

It's just too overrated. Was it a good film? Sure, it's just fine, even entertaining. But it's certainly not the best film of the year, and James Cameron ought to chill out.

I wonder if I'm the only person out there who didn't like it. (I'll read through the rest of this thread later, I suppose.) Cameron has no imagination left, it seems. Not only is Avatar just a retelling of Pocahontas, Dances with Wolves and Fern Gully, Pandora seems to be a plagiarism of Earth. There are horses, panthers, wolves, pterodactyls and even humanoids.

The story concept of invaders/aggressors destroying a culture repeats often because it's something we do experience in society frequently. As for Pandora, Avatar is not alone in that sense. Many movies, books, TV shows etc...show life on other planets being rather similar in broad strokes to life on Earth. It's not plagiarism, but rather serves to give the audience common ground to relate to Pandoran culture.

And unobtainium? Seriously?

I figured it was a codename for the material they were searching for.


It's just too overrated. Was it a good film? Sure, it's just fine, even entertaining. But it's certainly not the best film of the year, and James Cameron ought to chill out.

Chill out in what sense? What did he do?

I was pointing out how unoriginal an idea it was (for the most part), not that I fault Cameron for making another story exactly the same as Pocahontas. It's that people are praising the film for its originality that bothers me more than Cameron's current lack of imagination (I mean, he used to have a good one). Also, you took what I said about the seeds out of context. I was complaining about the uselessness of watching Avatar in 3D, not what the seeds represented.

Chill out in what sense? What did he do?Guess I should have explained that, but I felt my post was already full of too much complaining to be agreeable to anyone. I'm annoyed he's going on a lot of talk shows and whinging about his actors not getting any nominations for best actor, supporting actor etc. I mean, Avatar's already got a couple more Oscar nominations than it deserves. And it seems the second anyone has anything negative to say about Avatar, Cameron is up in arms accusing people of not understanding what brilliant things he's done.

Like I said, it's a good film, a little long, but not brilliant and certainly not best of the year. Out of its Oscar nominations, I'd say it would deserve film editing, visual effects and maybe original score (sound isn't really my forte so I don't really have a comment on those two nominations). Also, I would understand a best director Oscar, but I really think this is Tarantino's year, or at least it should be.

For the record, I don't hate absolutely Avatar (just mostly). I simply feel it's my responsibility to be the lone voice of criticism when everyone else seems to be head over heels in love. XD

I was pointing out how unoriginal an idea it was (for the most part), not that I fault Cameron for making another story exactly the same as Pocahontas. It's that people are praising the film for its originality that bothers me more than Cameron's current lack of imagination (I mean, he used to have a good one).

I think most people are praising the originality of Avatar for it's technical accomplishments rather than story.

Also, you took what I said about the seeds out of context. I was complaining about the uselessness of watching Avatar in 3D, not what the seeds represented.

Apologies. I misread it. I will remove that part of my post.

Guess I should have explained that, but I felt my post was already full of too much complaining to be agreeable to anyone. I'm annoyed he's going on a lot of talk shows and whinging about his actors not getting any nominations for best actor, supporting actor etc. I mean, Avatar's already got a couple more Oscar nominations than it deserves. And it seems the second anyone has anything negative to say about Avatar, Cameron is up in arms accusing people of not understanding what brilliant things he's done.

Like I said, it's a good film, a little long, but not brilliant and certainly not best of the year. Out of its Oscar nominations, I'd say it would deserve film editing, visual effects and maybe original score (sound isn't really my forte so I don't really have a comment on those two nominations). Also, I would understand a best director Oscar, but I really think this is Tarantino's year, or at least it should be.

For the record, I don't hate absolutely Avatar (just mostly). I simply feel it's my responsibility to be the lone voice of criticism when everyone else seems to be head over heels in love. XD

It is a little odd for a movie to be nominated in almost every catagory other than acting. The Academy does have a precedent discriminating against certain acting roles. Andy Serkis got no Oscar nomination for playing Gollum and now neither Sam Worthington or Zoe Saldana have received nominations either, despite the fact that all of them had significant parts in their respective movies.

The Academy needs to widen its perceptions and realise that an actor performing motion capture and providing a voice to a CGI character should also be considered for their acting catagories.

Andy Serkis got no Oscar nomination for playing Gollum and now neither Sam Worthington or Zoe Saldana have received nominations either, despite the fact that all of them had significant parts in their respective movies.

I agree for the most part a wider perspective is needed in the academy, and certainly the Oscars are not the be all and end all of quality films. They are far too political. In any case, Sam Worthington was not anything special and it is no surprise to me he was not nominated. It seems Saldana might at least have been considered for a nomination. Of all of the actors in Avatar, I thought she did the best job.

Worthington had the same problem that Mark Hamill had in the first Star Wars movie and Daniel Radcliffe had in the first few Harry Potter movies, in that his character was effectively a blank slate, because he was entering a new world where all he really did for most of the film was learn things about that new world.

A "learning character" is always less interesting than a "world weary one", which is why Saldana was more appealing than Worthington, Harrison Ford more appealing than Mark Hamill, and Rupert Grint/Emma Watson were more appealing than Daniel Radcliffe.

It's that people are praising the film for its originality that bothers me more than Cameron's current lack of imagination (I mean, he used to have a good one).
What people said that? I have yet to see any review or even read any post in this thread that said the story was original. That a familiar story was presented in an original way...now that indeed was said many a time.

:relax:

Alright, I've finally seen it and my brief review can be found in the "rate the last film" thread. :p

I have just one question, which seemed most appropriate to ask here. It's something the film surprisingly did not make clear-

If you die in an Avatar's body, do you die in real life? :hmm:

It felt reminiscient of those movies such as Jumanji, Matrix, etc where "if you die in the game you die for real"...but I'm not sure if that was the case here or not. Obviously if the human body is killed, that's it...but the reverse wasn't addressed. It wasn't said what'd happen.

Regarding Avatar:

The sound on the other hand was incredible and I especially loved James Horner's majestic score.
If by majestic score you mean recycling music (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glsyYJksGtg) from previous films he has scored. :)

I'm a little late, but Avatar had another good good week with estimated ticket sales (http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/8734/blockbustersales3.jpg), sliding into #2 for the decade.

Estimated ticket sales from here on out might be tough for a little while. Alice bit a huge chunk into the 3D theaters this weekend, and it showed both in Alice's huge haul and Avatar's biggest drop yet. This is how "competition" works in the modern box office: it was not people choosing to see Alice over Avatar, but theaters dropping Avatar for Alice.

Interestingly, all of the hold-over films showed drops of greater than 40%: yet despite losing so many 3D theaters (and despite being so darned old at this point), Avatar appears to have had the lowest or second lowest drop. The per-theater sales were outstanding, surpassing most of the other holdovers even if we assume $10 per ticket.

As for what we should assume from here on out, we'll have to see what the distribution of 3D:2D sales are like. Those were very uneven, but as the 3D-capable screens are showing Alice now, that will balance out. My guess is that $9/ticket will be about average if I am reading the numbers properly for Alice's distributions.

I'm not sure what the Oscar's will do, one way or the other. Avatar's name will be on all over the place, win or lose, and in many years the oft-nominated "losers" still show a box office bump the following weekend. (Fellowship of the Ring did that 9 years ago: it basically had an identical bump to A Beautiful Mind's.)
What people said that? I have yet to see any review or even read any post in this thread that said the story was original. That a familiar story was presented in an original way...now that indeed was said many a time.To which one might add, finding a truly original story in this day and age is very rare. Stories about considering whether your side is the right one or not are relatively new, but go back to the 1950's. Most other stories are far older than that.

However, that is the way it has been for a long time. Really, it is the telling of the story that might be original and/or good and/or entertaining.

I have just one question, which seemed most appropriate to ask here. It's something the film surprisingly did not make clear-

If you die in an Avatar's body, do you die in real life? :hmm:

Norm Spelling was in his avatar when he/it was shot to death, expelling him from it and returning him in to his human body. Whereupon, after clutching his chest where he was shot, he grabbed an exopack and a gun and ran out of the "shack" to presumably, return to the fight.
:relax:

If by majestic score you mean recycling music (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glsyYJksGtg) from previous films he has scored. :)

Heh really? :lol: I didn't notice...probably cause I don't typically pay much attention to the score. :shrug: Not unless it really grabs me anyways...

Besides, the only one of those I've seen is Troy and I imagine this is quite a common occurence amongst composers. I have no idea which movies but I wouldn't doubt even the legendary John Williams has "recycled" music from time to time ;) You must run out after a while :lol:


Norm Spelling was in his avatar when he/it was shot to death, expelling him from it and returning him in to his human body. Whereupon, after clutching his chest where he was shot, he grabbed an exopack and a gun and ran out of the "shack" to presumably, return to the fight.
:relax:

Hmm, that's odd. So your human body doesn't die necessarily but you do incur some injuries? :hmm: Figured it'd be all or nothing...

Hmm, that's odd. So your human body doesn't die necessarily but you do incur some injuries? :hmm: Figured it'd be all or nothing...

I don't believe he was injured. It was likely a memory carryover that was "pain" more than any real injury. When the "aliens" were trooping to their dropships, he was observing from the sidelines with the Navi and he appeared ok.

It's good that you finally saw the movie.

.

One thing I thought was really un-impressive visually was the floating mountains. They just looked like huge oddly shaped rocks and didn't really have any peaks, like they were more cubish, especially this one in the foreground...

http://blogs.mcgill.ca/circumference/files/2010/01/floating_mountains.jpg

They should have gone with something like the Canadian Rockies or the Himalayas or something more grand and majestic and actually recognizable as mountains. :lol: Well ok, maybe the snowy look wouldn't have fit with the rest of the landcape, but something like the Hawaiian mountains maybe. I saw much of 'em last summer, so beautiful with all the waterfalls and vegetation and the Iao Valley and the Road to Hana are especially breathtaking. Anyways, a novel idea but I thought they could've been much more impressive...


BTW, one thing I really appreciated about this movie was they didn't make it so entirely obvious there would be a sequel or end it in such a way that you could tell they already had one in the works even. I tend to get annoyed when filmmakers do that because it comes off really arrogant. What makes 'em think we want a sequel? (ie Twilight) And even though James Cameron does seem like a really arrogant guy, I actually got the feeling that they were holding off to see how much of a success this was before greenlighting a sequel. They left it open but this could've been it without the expectation of another movie if it'd done poorly. Clearly they'd be stupid not to make another though given how much this made. And you know what? I wouldn't mind seeing a sequel :) I just don't know where they could go with it from here :hmm:

I don't think Norm's Avatar was killed. Probably should have a look somewhere though.

One thing I thought was really un-impressive visually was the floating mountains. They just looked like huge oddly shaped rocks and didn't really have any peaks, like they were more cubish, especially this one in the foreground...

Anyways, a novel idea but I thought they could've been much more impressive...

The mountains looked as impressive as anything else in the film, IMO.


BTW, one thing I really appreciated about this movie was they didn't make it so entirely obvious there would be a sequel or end it in such a way that you could tell they already had one in the works even. I tend to get annoyed when filmmakers do that because it comes off really arrogant. What makes 'em think we want a sequel? (ie Twilight)

Twilight is the first in a series of books. With the size of the fan base, not to mention the interest generated by the whole franchise in the general public, the making of New Moon was kind of inevitable.

Twilight is the first in a series of books. With the size of the fan base, not to mention the interest generated by the whole franchise in the general public, the making of New Moon was kind of inevitable.

Ok maybe that was a bad example...but still, nothing says sequels have to be made, regardless of whether the source material already exists or not. A better example would probably be Matrix and PotC. Or how about Oceans 12 and 13? Those sequels were uncalled for :shrug:

So any ideas what the Avatar sequel will be about? :)

They should have gone with something like the Canadian Rockies or the Himalayas or something more grand and majestic and actually recognizable as mountains. :lol: Well ok, maybe the snowy look wouldn't have fit with the rest of the landcape, but something like the Hawaiian mountains maybe. I saw much of 'em last summer, so beautiful with all the waterfalls and vegetation and the Iao Valley and the Road to Hana are especially breathtaking. Anyways, a novel idea but I thought they could've been much more impressive...
While the subjectivity of it's majesty is entirely your own, I do have to point out that if someone wants to film an alien world, and invest millions in creating this world, why would they ever want to create something generically "recognizable" as the Rockies or the Himalayas? Yes drawing a correlation to our world is essential to make us capable to believe in this world, but I for one would never want to see something so recognizable that it'd be boring. That's like watching Star Trek Nemesis when they were on the away mission to retrieve Data's clone body. Most generic desert scene ever.
I tend to get annoyed when filmmakers do that because it comes off really arrogant. What makes 'em think we want a sequel? (ie Twilight) And even though James Cameron does seem like a really arrogant guy, I actually got the feeling that they were holding off to see how much of a success this was before greenlighting a sequel.
That feeling would be correct considering James Cameron said that in 2006:
They, in turn, might spawn back-to-back sequels. It all depends on how the first one does."
http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1535402/06292006/story.jhtml

That feeling would be correct considering James Cameron said that in 2006:

http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1535402/06292006/story.jhtml

Well at least it's not like Sherlock Holmes where WB was already planning and starting work on a sequel 3 months before the film even released! :wow: I'll be more than happy to see a Holmes sequel, but they could have really been jumping the gun there if it had bombed...guess they are really pushing to find a replacement franchise for HP :lol:

Well at least it's not like Sherlock Holmes where WB was already planning and starting work on a sequel 3 months before the film even released! :wow: I'll be more than happy to see a Holmes sequel, but they could have really been jumping the gun there if it had bombed...guess they are really pushing to find a replacement franchise for HP :lol:
Like someone earlier mentioned about Twilight, there is an installed fanbase for Holmes while being buffed out more with Downey and Law fans. Also with the lack of his arch nemesis, a sequel should be expected much like Batman Begins with the Joker. Also plans for the sequel started shortly after filming ended with the principal actors with the possibility of a sequel and well before the Dec 2009 release date. Jumping the gun or not, it's was almost expected due to minimizing risk by creating sequels from a franchise. Even if it bombed I'm sure they'll just put it into development hell and let contracts run out.

Perhaps we can keep this discussion on Avatar. :)

Yeah, sorry didn't mean to get the thread sidetracked on Sherlock Holmes...it was just an offhand remark.


Well, I'll ask again- has there been any indication or talk from Cameron of what the sequel will entail? :whistle:

EDIT:

Oh, hmm- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar_(2009_film)#Sequels

I don't know if Zhangjiajie in China inspired Cameron's vision of those mountains, but they're fairly similar to the floating mountains, especially if you catch the right kind of clouds.

One taste:
http://chinatour.net/images/zhangjiajietour.jpg

Having been there, there's few other places like that on Earth, and I think Cameron and his team may not have been limited to just Western influences for the mountains :).

I don't know if Zhangjiajie in China inspired Cameron's vision of those mountains, but they're fairly similar to the floating mountains, especially if you catch the right kind of clouds.

One taste:
http://chinatour.net/images/zhangjiajietour.jpg

Having been there, there's few other places like that on Earth, and I think Cameron and his team may not have been limited to just Western influences for the mountains :).

Yeah, actually I was looking at this this article yesterday and you'd be right- http://io9.com/5444960/avatars-designers-speak-floating-mountains-amp-suits-and-the-dragon

According to the tie-in book, The Art Of Avatar, designer Steve Messing actually visited China and traveled around photographing mountains there to get photoreferences for Pandora's floating mountains.

Designer Dylan Cole says the team looked at "many different types of mountains, but mainly the karst limestone formations in China. There were three main regions, Guilin, Huangshan and Zhang Jia Jie. Other locations were the Tepuis in Venezuela as well as the karst formations in Thailand. It was about finding that nice balance between rock and vegetation. For a lot of the jungle over views, I used photos that I had taken from the Kuranda Skyrail near Cairns, Australia."

Oh, and I guess that was a good point that Fluer had about NOT making them recognizeable to the typical earthly mountains. If that was their goal, they succeeded cause they didn't look like what I think of as mountains :lol: :shrug:

Yeah, actually I was looking at this this article yesterday and you'd be right- http://io9.com/5444960/avatars-designers-speak-floating-mountains-amp-suits-and-the-dragon

I read an article a while ago that said that Provence in China where those mountains are located has decided to rename that mountain range to the Hallelujah mountains. :)

Been away from this thread for a while, but in regard to the Oscars last night...I kinda equate the best picture award to the election between Bush and Gore. Gore or Avatar won the popular vote (best-selling movie in history) while Bush (The Hurt Locker) got the "vote that matters" and won. Just my 2 cents.

-JR

Been away from this thread for a while, but in regard to the Oscars last night...I kinda equate the best picture award to the election between Bush and Gore. Gore or Avatar won the popular vote (best-selling movie in history) while Bush (The Hurt Locker) got the "vote that matters" and won.R

Politics aside, the Academy is a much better representation of good films than ticket sales. If everybody voted for the Oscars, we'd get even more politics (via PR and advertising budgets) and even more awards going to films that don't deserve them. And on top of that, Cameron couldn't even beat himself in terms of ticket sales, so best-selling film in history is sort of diminished when you realize it only sold half the number of tickets Titanic did.

Been away from this thread for a while, but in regard to the Oscars last night...I kinda equate the best picture award to the election between Bush and Gore. Gore or Avatar won the popular vote (best-selling movie in history) while Bush (The Hurt Locker) got the "vote that matters" and won. Just my 2 cents.

-JR

Just because it made a lot of money doesn't mean it's good. Transformers 2 was the 2nd highest selling of '09 and a lot of people (myself NOT included) thought it was awful...in fact, it won the Razzie for worst picture of the year :lol:

I don't think Avatar was more deserving. A cool concept and an entertaining movie...but not Best Picture material. I place it 5th amongst the 10 nominees. The Hurt Locker on the other hand was a superb film from top to bottom. :)

Avatar got what it deserved which was recognition for it's visuals (even though I wasn't thoroughly impressed they were quite spectacular at times) and nothing else....though I'd argue the cinematography award was unjustified. :whistle:

Heh, it didn't get sound mixing/editing though. That is unquestionably weird, even not having seen Hurt Locker.

Avatar held very well against AIW. It only dropped 40%, even though it dropped to 661 3D screens (from somewhere probably above 1500, possibly 2000), and unquestionably even more showings. Must have made it up with some people moving from 3D to 2D.

Heh, it didn't get sound mixing/editing though. That is unquestionably weird, even not having seen Hurt Locker.

When you consider the filming conditions of Hurt Locker, it's not that strange. Most (all?) of Avatar was filmed indoors with excellent sound equipment just off camera. It probably didn't take much effort at all to mix the dialogue tracks at least. The other stuff - explosions, animal sounds, etc - would have been a little more work, but working with a blank slate is a lot easier in those sort of "safe" conditions.

Hurt Locker was filmed entirely on location in Jordan and Kuwait, outdoors with all kinds of elemental interference and it's likely a few of the dialogue scenes were even dubbed over. And getting the kind of explosion noises consistent with the bombs used, machine gun fire, atv movements, etc (stuff that would have been in Avatar too, to be sure, but all coming onto a blank slate) would have presented a slight challenge on a sound track that probably had a lot of stray sounds.

I don't really know as much as one probably should to make all of those assumptions, but it did seem strange to me Hurt Locker won as well. I would have thought Star Trek might have been pegged for those two awards, but then I guess it probably faced the same sort of "safe" filming environment Avatar did. Perhaps that was a factor in the judging.

Heh, it didn't get sound mixing/editing though.

Oh, yeah forgot about that category. Well I did think the sound was the best part of Avatar but The Hurt Locker had incredible sound mixing too, so that was some tough competition. Either could have won for sound in my book :)

As for editing, as I said before the battle sequences felt a bit long in the same vein as Transformers 2 so no I don't think it should have won for editing. The Hurt Locker? Hmm, well except for one slow scene it was tightly paced and suspensful

By sound mixing/editing, I meant sound mixing and sound editing. Two separate categories, which is silly really.

Film editing, on the other hand, is probably not so much of a technical award, even though it is. It seems very strongly correlated with BP nominations/winners. Have a look - all five films we nominated. Same with previous year as well. So it's certainly no surprise that Hurt Locker won that, independent of whether or not it actually deserved it.

The money aspect can be interesting...

I think it's kind of funny in that the movie that broke all kinds of records lost to a movie that had yet to break even. As of Sunday the Hurt Locker has only made a little over $13 million, yet had a budget of $15 million.

And Avatar is now skirting near the $3 billion mark? Despites being the costliest film made, percentage-wise that's incredible. If Cameron wept at the Oscars, he cried all the way to the bank.
:relax:

I can't really compare the Hurt Locker and Avatar. They were the best two of the 8 BP noms that I saw, but as different as Star Wars and Annie Hall were in 1977. Both had excellent sound, cinematography, etc for their respective purposes. THL's strong suit was its editing: those bomb diffusing sequences were as suspenseful as Hitchcock or Kubric, imo.
Most of the other nominees were disappointments to me. I'm a huge Tarantino fan, but IB doesn't stand up to his earlier films. District 9 was okay but predictable. Ditto Up in the Air, Education, etc. Really everything seemed kind of "meh" after Avatar. It was only the Hurt Locker that really impressed me...

Avatar held very well against AIW. It only dropped 40%, even though it dropped to 661 3D screens (from somewhere probably above 1500, possibly 2000), and unquestionably even more showings. Must have made it up with some people moving from 3D to 2D.I'm hoping that we'll get a breakdown on the new proportion of 3D:2D sales. We've been assuming $10 / ticket so far, but clearly Avatar was getting less than that with Alice taking so many of the 3D screens.

As for the fact that Avatar did not win preventing it from reaching $800M, well, I think that Alice taking away the theaters did that. However, Avatar still could reach 80M tickets. All publicity is good publicity they say, and half of the entertainment news on Monday dealt with why Avatar did not win. The repeated reasons were that the Academy shies away from popular in favor of acclaimed and that they do not take SciFi seriously. All that did was get Avatar's name back out there in a generally positive way.

We saw something similar in 2002. Fellowship of the Ring lost out to A Beautiful Mind, but both films showed essentially identical post-Oscar bumps: in fact, Fellowship showed a slightly bigger one. One of the suggested reasons was that all of the "what happened?" synopses were implying that the better film lost because it was too popular and too fantastic.
(Speaking of which, does anybody even remember "A Beautiful Mind? :cool:)

I can't really compare the Hurt Locker and Avatar. They were the best two of the 8 BP noms that I saw, but as different as Star Wars and Annie Hall were in 1977. You brush upon a key point here. It was not just how different they were, but the fact that Star Wars, Avatar and E.T. were SciFi films. Insofar as I remember, those are all three SciFi films that got nominated for best picture. The Academy is very much like the literary establishment: it looks down on SciFi and Fantasy in a big way. Remember how we had been discussing the political overtones of Avatar? The Academy wasn't: Avatar was a "popcorn" flick going up against a political film (or two or three).

One might have hoped that Lord of the Rings would have changed that, but clearly it did not.

I think Avatar rightfully lost. It's certainty not a good picture period, let alone best picture of the year. I'm happy that Hurt Locket won. The first time a female directer has won best directer and then her picture wins best picture. It was historic. Avatar was no Titanic, it was just a bad remake of Ferngully with the Smurfs that just happened to have nice special effects.

It's all hype. Once the hype dies down, I don't even think people will remember Avatar. God, even the title isn't original enough. I didn't even know this film existed until it came out. When people kept talking Avatar, I was thinking Aviator or that last airbender cartoon. :lol:

I think Avatar rightfully lost. It's certainty not a good picture period, let alone best picture of the year. I'm happy that Hurt Locket won. The first time a female directer has won best directer and then her picture wins best picture. It was historic. Avatar was no Titanic, it was just a bad remake of Ferngully with the Smurfs that just happened to have nice special effects.


I'm not surprised Avatar didn't win best picture. As talented as Mr. Cameron is visually in movie making, he is weak on script writing. In my opinion the Avatar script is weak and contrived, just like Titanic. Both films had awesome visual/special effects, but the script was nowhere near the same level.

The Academy is very much like the literary establishment: it looks down on SciFi and Fantasy in a big way.

Unfortunately, that's very true. I'm glad Avatar won visual effects and even art direction. Visual effects does often go to more popcorn intensive films it seems, but art direction doesn't. I'm glad it didn't win best picture and a few of the other awards though for exactly the point HedwigOwl made:

I'm not surprised Avatar didn't win best picture. As talented as Mr. Cameron is visually in movie making, he is weak on script writing. In my opinion the Avatar script is weak and contrived, just like Titanic. Both films had awesome visual/special effects, but the script was nowhere near the same level.

But at least it's great that the Academy isn't totally biased against sci-fi/fantasy films. And when great ones crop up, they usually get quite a lot of recognition. I'm sure Avatar will do great post Oscars for ticket sales. Even though it didn't win, all I ever hear about it are positive things on TV. Cameron has some great PR people.

I think Avatar rightfully lost. It's certainty not a good picture period, let alone best picture of the year. ... It's all hype. Once the hype dies down, I don't even think people will remember Avatar. God, even the title isn't original enough. I didn't even know this film existed until it came out.

I didn't like Avatar much myself, but even I think that's fairly harsh. Cameron made some great developments in filming technology, giving more emotion to characters that used to be only CGI, not to mention the unique 3D filming style. (Personally, I hope either the 3D gets much much better or it dies out because right now it's just a headache to me.) The script was fairly lacking too. He was trying to make a two-hour story into an epic one, possibly just to make the most out of his new technology. But people will remember Avatar. There are plenty of fanboys out there and Cameron has always been the type to make sequels for big sellers, even when he hasn't come up with the stories yet. I'm sure he'll make at least two more.

But at least it's great that the Academy isn't totally biased against sci-fi/fantasy films. And when great ones crop up, they usually get quite a lot of recognition. Hmmm, I'd hardly call 3 best-picture nominations "usually" getting recognition: there have been a lot more very good SciFi films that got ignored by the Academy than that. (OK, there were some good films in 1980: but were all of the nominees better than Empire, which might well be the best SciFi movie given popular and critical reception ever?)

I think that King is going to be the one SciFi/Fantasy film to win many Oscars for a while to come. It often works this way: once the glass ceiling gets cracked, then the establishment replaces it with a new and more resilient pane.....


But, again, all publicity is good publicity, and the prominence of Avatar in the post-Oscars discussion will not hurt its box office any. The excellent audience reaction means that the inevitable sequel will do extremely well, too. That one will be interesting: it's pretty easy to predict what sequels in the Harry Potter bracket will do, but Avatar might be near saturation audience levels as it is: at 72+M tickets, it has left very little room for DVD converts. We saw this with SpiderMan: it was as popular as Pirates or Shrek, but Spidey 2 saw a decrease whereas Pirates2 and Shrek 2 saw big increases. The difference was that Spidey 1 sold ~20+M tickets more than Pirates 1 or Shrek 1, and it is probable that the "gained" audience for Pirates and Shrek came largely from the people who rented P1 & S1 but saw Spidey 1 in the theater.

(Of course, with 2 examples, the "saturation" parameter will never be justified: and it will be a while before we get another Avatar or Spidey 1 again....)

The Academy is very much like the literary establishment: it looks down on SciFi and Fantasy in a big way.

Genre films usually have a hard time at the Academy, especially those which have a lot of effects. The voters want to see the pure application of their particular art unencumbered or enhanced by effects.

The effects of the movie were pretty good, albeit overkill. However, I praise the Academy for realizing that an Oscar-winning film must have qualities aside from great technological enhancement. An okay movie, but not an Oscar-winning one.

The effects of the movie were pretty good, albeit overkill. However, I praise the Academy for realizing that an Oscar-winning film must have qualities aside from great technological enhancement. An okay movie, but not an Oscar-winning one.

Yep, good entertainment and a cool concept...but not Oscar material by most standards. To be honest, I don't really see a huge difference in quality between Avatar which was nominated for Best Picture and Transformers 2, which won the Razzie for Worst Picture :lol: :whistle: Just a little better story, acting, and visual effects more or less...

Both films were huge blockbusters that over-indulged at times and the two stood atop last years Box Office list. The biggest difference might be the perception people have of James Cameron vs. Michael Bay. I think they make similar movies, yet for some reason Cameron's are typically lauded while Bay's are panned. I still wonder how the exact same identical Avatar would have been received if Michael Bay had been the director instead of Cameron...and vice versa.

Genre films usually have a hard time at the Academy, especially those which have a lot of effects. The voters want to see the pure application of their particular art unencumbered or enhanced by effects.The Academy certainly seems to view effects (of any sort) the way that many people view steroids in sports: they are "cheating," plain and simple. Of course, some people might take Mark Grace's dictum: if you ain't cheating, then you ain't trying.

The genre issue is a corollary of this. We saw this with the Harry Potter books: OK, the books were not bad, but why, oh why, does it require magic and monsters to hook the people? Why can't people read for story? (Or, worse: the books have magic, monsters, etc., and thus surely are devoid of story.) We just saw that with Avatar: as I noted above, despite the discussion of the liberal themes of a few months ago, all of a sudden Avatar was a "popcorn" flick. However, even Star Wars had strong themes: it might have been the same story as Lord of the Rings, but the themes were very, very different.

Again, I am hardly complaining: I liked Avatar a lot, but I've heard that Hurt Locker is an extraordinary film. Inglorious Basterds certainly was excellent, too, as were Up and District 9. Really, the only film that I thought better than one or more of the Oscar nominees that I saw was Star Trek, but, hey, I'm a geek....

At any rate, films that get Best Picture nominations proudly advertise that on the rentals, and it always picks things up. Well, usually: if 72M people already have seen the film, then maybe not so much.... :cool:

Really, the only film that I thought better than one or more of the Oscar nominees that I saw was Star Trek, but, hey, I'm a geek....

It wasn't just you. I thought Star Trek was pretty snubbed too. :(

It wasn't just you. I thought Star Trek was pretty snubbed too. :(Well, for all we focus on SciFi and/or Fantasy, it simply is not common for two Action/Adventure films (which includes but is not limited to SciFi and Fantasy) to get nominated. Sure, there is "action" in The Hurt Locker, but it is fundamentally different in tone and purpose from that in A/A films. Even then, Avatar's action was much more like that of a modern war movie than that seen in (say) Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter or even Pirates of the Caribbean. That probably helped get it nominated: strip off the CGI, and that's Blackwater being vilified.

And, let's face it: Star Trek will forever be associated with geeky males who are living in their parents' basements at age 35..... :cool:


Friday's numbers indicate that Avatar showed a 15% drop from last week. The sample size obviously is not good owing - blockbusters usually do not get nominated - but this is comparable to what we saw for Fellowship of the Ring 8 years ago. Of course, Avatar has already sold 17M more tickets than Fellowship sold, which means that it has an even smaller pool to lure to the theater at this point.

Friday's numbers indicate that Avatar showed a 15% drop from last week. The sample size obviously is not good owing - blockbusters usually do not get nominated - but this is comparable to what we saw for Fellowship of the Ring 8 years ago. Of course, Avatar has already sold 17M more tickets than Fellowship sold, which means that it has an even smaller pool to lure to the theater at this point.

I read today that there is a plan for a re-release, to include further material that was simply not ready in time for the theatre release.

Fox Mulling Avatar Summer Re-Release (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i474fda2d02866bfd83562ae66c9a5e91)

I read today that there is a plan for a re-release, to include further material that was simply not ready in time for the theatre release.

Fox Mulling Avatar Summer Re-Release (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i474fda2d02866bfd83562ae66c9a5e91)Yes, Avatar already has developed a Harry Potter-like fanbase, it seems. How one counts this towards the total box office is a bit subjective: some "purists" do not count sales of altered re-releases (e.g., the late 1990's Star Wars, or the short runs of the extended Lord of the Rings) on the overall tally. As places like Box Office Mojo let you separate them, it's easy to use the numbers that you feel to be appropriate.

At any rate, Avatar is pretty much a lock for 75M tickets sold. That will make it the #1 film of the aughts over The Dark Knight.

It wasn't just you. I thought Star Trek was pretty snubbed too. :(

And coming from someone who isn't even a Trek fan here, I agree with both of you. Star Trek was the 6th best movie of last year for me. I was also disappointed to see It's Complicated and (500) Days of Summer get snubbed...two of the other movies in my Top 10 of '09. Can't say I'm surprised that Star Trek wasn't one of the nominees for Best Picture though. I mean there's only ever been a few sci-fi and/or fantasy movies even nominated and like 4 out of the ordinary/major blockbuster winners I can think of (Titanic, Braveheart, Gladiator, and Lord of the Rings: Return of the King) So with Avatar having basically been a lock for a nomination, I wasn't going to bet on a 2nd sci-fi/fantasy making the list. I thought with the expansion to 10 that it might happen, but it didn't... :shrug:

You know, I guess maybe I should be sad that Avatar didn't win afterall. :hmm: I mean a win for Avatar might've helped to further pave the way for HP taking home Best Picture! I know I'm really jumping the gun, but I have high hopes for Deathly Hallows to totally blow everyone away and walk all over the Oscars like Return of the King did back in '04 :whistle:

But will they judge the 2 parts seperately or hold off until Part 2 is released and award it as a whole? :hmm:

P.S.

I guess I'm not surprised to hear they're planning to milk Avatar for all it's worth with a re-release...but it seems too soon and quite uneccesary. Wouldn't it make more sense to do so in a few years like in the months before Avatar 2?

I guess I'm not surprised to hear they're planning to milk Avatar for all it's worth with a re-release...but it seems too soon and quite uneccesary. Wouldn't it make more sense to do so in a few years like in the months before Avatar 2?

Yes it would. But then, everyone thought Cameron was mental to spend twelve years on tihs movie. They said Titanic would be too long and nobody would like it. They saw the Avatar trailer and castigated it all over the internet. People have a tendency to disregard him- but I imagine he laughs in their faces- justifiably....! :D

but it seems too soon and quite uneccesary. Wouldn't it make more sense to do so in a few years like in the months before Avatar 2?How so? It was pretty much shoved out of theaters because of not being able to show two fully 3D wide releases next to one another, that's essentially Cameron's reasoning, as well as trying to put out the extended version of the film that he didn't have to cut down for length issues (some theaters weren't going to show the full length version with the 3D).

It's pretty ridiculous to re-release the film just eight months (or so) after its initial release. It's not even like it sold that many tickets. Yes, 75 million is a lot, but it also seems like everyone who wanted to see it has seen it. I doubt they even breach 10 million tickets on the next release. All these extra scenes seem like something better suited for the super special shiny edition of the DVD/blu-ray. Either way, Cameron is indeed going to be crying all the way to the bank at how many people have snubbed him. He doesn't care about his new fans. He cares about your money.

Yes it would. But then, everyone thought Cameron was mental to spend twelve years on tihs movie. They said Titanic would be too long and nobody would like it. They saw the Avatar trailer and castigated it all over the internet. People have a tendency to disregard him- but I imagine he laughs in their faces- justifiably....! :D

I don't think he spent 12 years on this movie. He wrote it 15 years ago and put it in a drawer, and then when the technology got good enough he pulled it back out and started working on it. I believe he spent 3 years making Avatar.

As for a re-release, I'd go see it again. I was phenominal on the IMAX screen. My eyes could not soak up enough of the visuals and colors. It was like tapping into my dreams - 3D art on steroids. I felt this way with Kung-Fu panda too though - absolutely beautiful artistry and color...and unfortunately that is one that I didn't get to see on the big screen.

I also wish that they would not make any sequels. Caremon said in some interview that the humans would come back and there'd be another fight. So basically a re-hash of the first movie? Ugh..."Avatar 2: the search for more cash".

Caremon said in some interview that the humans would come back and there'd be another fight. So basically a re-hash of the first movie? Ugh..."Avatar 2: the search for more cash".

Ohhhh dear...I really hope he was joking.:err:

I really enjoyed the film. I thought the graphics and effects were absolutely stunning, and the storyline, overall, was pretty cool. I do agree, though, that the script wasn't perfect, though, I still think that the movie was pretty darn good despite that. The fact that this entire world and people, language, and customs was created is enough to keep me entertained.

I can't wait until it comes out on DVD so that I can watch it whenever I want :D

I don't think he spent 12 years on this movie. He wrote it 15 years ago and put it in a drawer, and then when the technology got good enough he pulled it back out and started working on it. I believe he spent 3 years making Avatar.

As for a re-release, I'd go see it again. I was phenominal on the IMAX screen. My eyes could not soak up enough of the visuals and colors. It was like tapping into my dreams - 3D art on steroids. I felt this way with Kung-Fu panda too though - absolutely beautiful artistry and color...and unfortunately that is one that I didn't get to see on the big screen.

I also wish that they would not make any sequels. Caremon said in some interview that the humans would come back and there'd be another fight. So basically a re-hash of the first movie? Ugh..."Avatar 2: the search for more cash".

What he says and what he does are very different things sometimes. I'm vesting my hope in this because I don't want a sequel either. I don't think it's necessary. I get the story as we all did; it would be like following up a good novel with a poor follow-up, purely based on the publicity and original reaction. Other films have probably shown that such sequels may not be well thought of in the long term, though they sure do churn out money.

I actually misstated something earlier and I want to clarify it for myself; when I say 12 years, I mean that it was the first film he made in twelve years. I have to assert from the wait that a lot of the interim time was spent thinking about Avatar and consistently improving it and rethinking it and adding to it in his head. But this is purely an assertion on my part. :)

As for the re-release, I agree with you wholheartedly. I would see it again. There were moments when Jake would fly and I would honestly feel my stomach getting butterflies like on a rollercoaster. That's an amazing reaction to cause with no G Forces! :D

I can't wait until it comes out on DVD so that I can watch it whenever I want :D

This I agree with totally. I know it won't be 3D and it won't be on a huge screen, but I just loved it and I will pick up the DVD asap.

I also wish that they would not make any sequels. Caremon said in some interview that the humans would come back and there'd be another fight. So basically a re-hash of the first movie? Ugh..."Avatar 2: the search for more cash".I don't think it would fall in the same pit alot of sequels do, Cameron is usually pretty great with doing sequels that in some ways rehash the original's, but do their own original spin on them (Terminator 2 is the best example of this, and Aliens has a similiar structure to Alien in how it plays out, but it's anything but a rehash).

^Exactly. If there's any filmmaker I trust to make a sequel that's an extension of the first film and not a mere retread, it's Cameron.

Well, another week in the books. Assuming $8.75/ticket since Alice came out (based on the distribution numbers of 3D & 2D theaters), Avatar has overtaken The Dark Knight in terms for ticket sales after 14 weeks (http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/9324/blockbustersales.jpg). Avatar still is about 600K behind TDK's total sales: but that will probably happen over the next week or so, given how slowly Avatar's box office has been decaying.

On decay, Avatar dropped about 81% relative to week 13. Again, that is really impressive for a film still hovering around the top 5 after so much time. This film has shown truly impressive legs: it's half life is up to 19 days, and it probably will finish at 20. By comparison, The Dark Knight had a half-life of 9 days, although that was a sequel AND buoyed by the "Heath Ledger Lives!" phenomenon.

heh, and to think that nearly a year ago in the HP Box Office Thread, I suggested that the optimistic prognostications for Avatar were very tough to evaluate that far in advance. Well, maybe those posters (or their sources) were lucky: but they were right!


^Exactly. If there's any filmmaker I trust to make a sequel that's an extension of the first film and not a mere retread, it's Cameron.He only toyed with ideas for a prequel to Titanic. Once Cameron realized that there was no story to be had, then he dropped the idea, despite the fact that they would have sold 50M tickets just showing the main characters on different beaches looking at row boats.

Here, there are several possible stories that Cameron might pursue. I'd much rather see a new story that picks up plot elements from the first film. In particular, the shareholders will NOT be happy: and as recent politics show us, there is very little that shareholders will not do to rectify their unhappiness.

Now, that's a start for a plot: but what might the story be? You cannot do a choosing sides story twice in a row: the choice is made already.

Just noticed this and thought it was interesting and something I'd bring to attention. Well, Avatar has obviously made a ton a money...but it apparently isn't as loved as everything thinks. Check out the flickchart stats- http://www.flickchart.com/movie/B63B9B9FF8

If you guys can't view that (you may have to be members, I dunno) I've copied over the stats below...

Global Ranking
#1264

Global Stats
Total Times Ranked: 52228
Percentage of Times Won: 66.70%
Comments On This Movie: 11
Percentage of Users Who Have Seen It: 64.45%
Users Who Have It At #1: 63
Users Who Have It In Their Top 20: 641

Sure it's winning 2/3 of the time, but a global ranking that doesn't even crack the Top 1000 is pathetic. :hmm: This suggests a lot of people thought it was really good, but not great...or else we'd see a higher # of people placing it amongst their Top 20 or even putting it as #1.

In addition, it's slowly falling down the IMDB ranks- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0499549/ Just a few weeks ago it was in the 40's, IIRC

I'm curious where it will settle out. You know, I did enjoy the movie quite a bit and I was entertained more or less...which is really all I desire from cinema, so I think personally I'd place Avatar somewhere on the fringes of the Top 100 but I've only seen about 600 films...



EDIT:

Someone on the IMDB boards made a great analogy, though I don't completely agree- "Avatar is like a beautiful girl without any brains" :lol:
I'd say mostly beautiful...with some brains. :) But then again I have not seen any of the movies they allegedly copy the story from ;)

Loved it! a brilliant mix of action, Sci-fi, fantasy and wonder thanks to the magic of my favorite director James Cameron. This was a marvelous and creative spin on westerns and old stories but done in a Sci-fi manner just like The Matrix about 12 years ago did in captivating audiences everywhere.

I saw this 6 times with 3 in 3D while the rest in 2D, it's just a unique and fascinating movie.

How about the beautiful girl who punches you in the face with Roman Gladiator gloves instead of talking to you?

I liked the film and enjoyed the experience but--

Four things about this film

1. It's a visual feast (no one can deny this and it's a great attribute)

2. It does have elements of an important message and does present them in ways that can be interesting.

3. The script (while it doesn't drag) uses the sledgehammer exclusively when the scalpel or the paintbrush could have been better. This leads to calling the movie's shots in the theater (becoming a mythic hunter to get back into the Narii civilization and rally the clans, the transfer that isn't working for our earthmother scientist, will it work for our hero if the souls tree and enough of his new people survive the attack, etc., etc., etc.).

4. (or perhaps 3b.) Dialogue. Cameron tends to have the same sort of trouble with dialogue that George Lucas did in the Star Wars saga. With great acting, the audience overlooks the way it was written and it becomes iconic. With anything less, it becomes a real barrier to enjoying the film. In spite of the fact that Sigourney Weaver is still really talented at 60+ and CCH Pounder has real chops, they cannot save this movie from itself. I'm not as sold on Saldana as some have been, and I find myself doubting whether Worthington can carry a film (translation, I don't see him being offered the next-decade equivalent of "The Departed").

James Cameron says "Avatar Sequels will come Christmas 2014 and 2015"

Long way away!

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2011/01/24/avatar-sequels-james-cameron/

This one is really great,,.. I have watched this flick.. this one is really great.,.. I think now this is the time when I should watch this movie.. Hope that this will be fantastic..

I quite enjoyed Avatar. The story may have been old-hat, but I loved the attention to detail in pretty much all aspects. Especially in the creation of the Na'vi culture. I still haven't seen the extended version, but I will someday.

I just finished watching it for the second time (the extended cut), the first being in the theater. I no longer hate it. I enjoyed it quite a bit and I love the bits with Grace and her crew doing research. in fact, I wish the entire film was just characters performing research and interacting with the Na'vi.

I of course still have some problems with it, mainly with the huge battle at the end. Why do arrows pierce the helicopters' cockpit windows when bullets don't (judging by the escape on base)? It makes no sense other than to give the Na'vi a way to do some damage.

I had a similar experience. I enjoyed it much more on my TV than I did at the cinema. It still falls short for me on the script, but it is an entertaining film.

Why do arrows pierce the helicopters' cockpit windows when bullets don't (judging by the escape on base)? It makes no sense other than to give the Na'vi a way to do some damage.
*sigh*
The director did his homework at every level.
You should have noticed that their arrows didn't penetrate when they were firing upward. (as in the scene when "papa dragon" was laying waste to the great tree.) Only when they were in flight and diving did their arrows have enough force to penetrate.

*sigh*
The director did his homework at every level.
You should have noticed that their arrows didn't penetrate when they were firing upward. (as in the scene when "papa dragon" was laying waste to the great tree.) Only when they were in flight and diving did their arrows have enough force to penetrate.

And? Those arrows move faster than bullets? They are stronger projectiles?

And? Those arrows move faster than bullets? They are stronger projectiles?

Debunking the arrow thing (http://www.avatar-forums.com/archive/index.php/t-7555.html) As you can see, the whole thing is kinda old.

Debunking the arrow thing (http://www.avatar-forums.com/archive/index.php/t-7555.html) As you can see, the whole thing is kinda old.

Thanks for the link. Yes, I know it's old.

From someone posting here (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100516043429AAY4k2D)


Though it might not seem like it, Jame Cameron did his research. Avatar is actually much more scientifically accurate than some people think.

The most gregarious example of scientific inaccuracy is that of the floating Halleluluah Mountains. In universe, the explanation is that they have high concentrations of unobtanium. Unobtanium is a room-temperature superconductor, and superconducting materials are repelled from magnetic field lines.

The Mountains float because the unobtanium inside is trying to get away from Pandora's magnetic field. Unfortunately, a magnetic field strong enough to float a mountain (even a superconducting mountain), would be strong enough to rip the haemoglobin from your blood. Cameron was aware of this, but decided that the image of a floating mountain was too brilliant to pass up.

The other major conceit of the film is the Na'vi. Even viewed with respect to Pandora's other animals, they make no sense. They are ridiculously human. They have only four limbs, even though most other animals have six. You probably noticed that Ne'tiri had breasts, even though she wasn't a placental mammal. It's almost as if the Na'vi are species in the same genus as humans (Homo) who somehow found their way to Pandora.

James Cameron was aware of this as well, but knew that it was important for the audience to relate to the Na'vi and see them as people, since they are the victims of the story.

Though it may not have come across on screen, lots of the science on the screen was well thought out. Remember that interstellar spacecraft (ISV Venture Star) that you saw in the first minute of the film? Cameron hired Charles Pellegrino, an established rocket scientist, to design it. Pellegrino based it on his Valkyrie, a serious design for an antimatter-propelled spacecraft.

Have a look at this Wikipedia article for an in-depth look at Avatar's fictional universe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictional_universe_of_Avatar

I re-watched the scene where Quaritch shoots at Jake and the others who are escaping. In slow motion the bullets penetrate. I couldn't tell at full speed. That's even worse writing, however, because the pilot should have been hit. But we have to have the hero get away. :)

There's a better article out there about the film's scientific accuracy. I'm trying to find it.

Edit: Here it is: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/43440

Edit again: I actually bought the extended Blu-ray cut yesterday. I like the movie enough to not get rid of it. :)

No plans of seeing the extended version or any sequels for that matter. Despite some visual eye-candy and a beautiful score giving it a certain emotional depth, it was no more than average on my first viewing and a chore to sit through the second time.