This film is going to be the highest grossing film ever by a very large margin, so it must have done something right. Its managed to appeal to all demographics in pretty much every country on a level never seen before. I think it would be a worthy best picture winner.
Avatar - Welcome to the future of cinema!
- Thread starter RedSky
- Start date
Yeh, but it didn't hold Noodle's attention or cause Mockney to ponder the meaning of life. It therefore must be utter shite.
Erm...yes, but were in not in 3D, I doubt it would have. Are you trying to claim the film alone has captured the hearts and minds of everyone on the planet? Or that 3D shit will make people want to watch it. The Harry Potter films do a very similar thing and are 6, 8 and 9 on the highest grossing films list...Should they have won an Oscar?...just asking like
Again, sarcasm is very hard to detect in print, so I'll just take you at your word and agree with you.
The thing about the 3D is that it's part of the whole experience, which was great. The original Star Wars as a story was pretty terrible, I mean I actually get bored watching it now and I'm a big fan - it was the impact it had and the experience of it that made it such a hit.
Well yes, but Star Wars was also wildly original for its time. This isn't. I also don't get Star Wars fandom at all, I find it incedibly baffling so there you go...To sum up, take this quote from Duncan Jones, who made a genuinely fantastic film on the cheap in Moon this year. He sums it up perfectly.
" ... at what point in the film did you have any doubt what was going to happen next?"
The answer is, at no point at all. Yes the 3Ds great. But it was always going to be wasn't it? If he'd spent 4 years on this mega hyped thing and it wasn't, now that would be a giant giant let down wouldn't it?
Jurassic Park > Avatar
" ... at what point in the film did you have any doubt what was going to happen next?"
The answer is, at no point at all. Yes the 3Ds great. But it was always going to be wasn't it? If he'd spent 4 years on this mega hyped thing and it wasn't, now that would be a giant giant let down wouldn't it?
Jurassic Park > Avatar
Jurassic Park was full of cliche as well. The HUGE deus ex machina moment where the T-Rex grabs the raptor in mid-jump? No one had noticed the fecking Tyrannosaurus arriving? I thought it made everything shake?
Also, I thought the ending of Moon was a bit rushed, but I do agree it was a great film. As an experience, though, I'd take Avatar every time. It was an adrenaline rush, and I really enjoyed it.
Also, I thought the ending of Moon was a bit rushed, but I do agree it was a great film. As an experience, though, I'd take Avatar every time. It was an adrenaline rush, and I really enjoyed it.
Where did I say that?
Yes the Harry Potter films gross a lot of money, but this film is in a different stratosphere to pretty much any film before it. Before it only 4 films in history had any made 1 billion+ worldwide, this is going to go well beyond 2 billion. What its doing is a phenomenon to be honest, and its not just down to hype, a lot of people clearly like this film. You make something enjoyed by so many people then thats a success if you ask me and worthy of any awards that go its way.
That's just it though. It seems to have, more or less, lived up to that enormous hype. This was a project which the critics have been itching to tear into for years now. The long knives have been sharpened since about 3 or 4 years before it ever got released.
Despite all this, it's actually been very well-received, by fans and critics alike. Which is a direct reflection of what a fantastically entertaining movie it is.
There will always be a market for big, dumb pot-boiler movies and Avatar has raised the bar. Did it make me think? No. Was I gripped by the plot? Of course not. Is it art? feck no.
It's still one of the most entertaining cinema experiences I've had in a long time. It's a movie that appeals to the 10 year-old in all of us, you just need to kick back, relax and let it do it's thing.
James Cameron has never been regarded so much as a storyteller; rather he's an extremely adept adolescent-nerve tickler. For some reason he's never ventured out of that comfort-zone.
The likes of Spielberg can take a cup on a table and milk it for suspense, JC has to blow the cup up but can still manage to get a rise out of you. Michael Bay just blows the cup up with a lazy reliance on base visceral reaction being his idea of transmitting emotional experience.
Oh, and again: BO grosses are misleading since IMAX ticket prices contribute heavily to the total - in some cases up to 100%. $8 USD vs $16, for example. And no one's arguing that it's made a lot of money. Just that its story lacking in suspense is disappointing.
The likes of Spielberg can take a cup on a table and milk it for suspense, JC has to blow the cup up but can still manage to get a rise out of you. Michael Bay just blows the cup up with a lazy reliance on base visceral reaction being his idea of transmitting emotional experience.
Oh, and again: BO grosses are misleading since IMAX ticket prices contribute heavily to the total - in some cases up to 100%. $8 USD vs $16, for example. And no one's arguing that it's made a lot of money. Just that its story lacking in suspense is disappointing.
It was full of ridiculous moments yes, but it's a good comparison to Avatar in terms of "wow" factor spectacle. I'm not trying to big it up as a high brow film, just a film that made use of it's wow factor in more creative and interesting way. JP included some genuinely iconic shots and moments. The T-rex Foot. The eating the bloke on the Toilet, the Water shaking in the Glass, the Raptor breathing on the window or tapping his claw as he walked round the kitchen. What were Avatars? I can't remember one moment that struck me as half as clever or inventive as any of that and I've watched it twice now. It was just "lets throw loads of shit at the screen and see how cool it looks"...It's like watching the iTunes vizualizer without caring what song's playing in the back ground.
Of course, and I'm not saying its shit. And kudos to him for making it so well. But I don't agree that it pisses on everything thats gone before it. I think it's incredibly like everything thats gone before it, just in 3D and bigger. I wasn't awe struck by anything other than the 3D itself if you know what I mean. It's a great achievement, but I'm not going to say it's a great film just because of it. I don't want to watch it again and I wouldn't get it on DVD.
Great post HWFrom a pure storytelling standpoint, Mockney is right. There's just no suspense in the film. It's paint-by-numbers in that aspect. (And a distinct reliance on sweeping-scale shots, although this has a lot to do with the fact that they spent a lot of money on big sets/scenes and wanted it to show.) Some may chalk it up to pre-release overexposure, but then again, you have to remember we are talking about the man who re-used the ending from Alien in Aliens.
That argument falls down for me because no one is forced to see the film or pay the higher prices (the film has been available in 2D, more people wanted to see it in 3D and I-Max), people are willing to pay more to see it and do so again and again because they enjoyed it. The tickets may cost more but its still sold more tickets than most films before it.
But my point isn't how its the best film ever because its grossed the most money, just that it shows how the film has appealed to a wider audience than practically anything before it. Male/female, any age, any nationality etc. Thats worthy of recognition.
I don't think its the best film ever or even James Cameron's best film (Aliens!) but its something special, its got something fundimentally right to have such a broad appeal.
I know what you mean but I thought the sheer eye-watering spectacle of it all was what impressed me most. The 3D was great but the effects, art design and - most memorably of all - the way it blended CGI with real footage was like nothing I've ever seen before.
That scene where
the big tree got blown up
At the end of the day, cinema is a (mainly) visual medium and Avatar was absolutely fecking gorgeous to look at. For that reason alone, I think it stands out from almost every other effects-laden popcorn movie released in the last couple of decades.
EDIT: I do realise using spoilers in pointless in such an incredibly predictable plot but just in case...
Its just a fantastic visual experience. The plot is obviously nothing new, but the overall experience more than makes up for it.
80% of it's ticket sales have been IMAX or 3D
Based on what? a film in 1910 would have to sell close to 100 times as many tickets as a 2007 film in order for the two to have equal gross takings. The list for highest ticket sales is thus...Most popular movies based on ticket sales... - Windows Live
Avatar isn't included yet because it hasn't finished taking but Titanic comes in at number 8, with less than 1/7th of the amount taken by No1 and will still likelu account for more than Avatar as, again 80% of sales have been for IMAX tickets, which they weren't with Titanic. Making it less accessible. Avatar would almost certainly be below that. In fact in the list of films adjusted for inflation it comes in so far at No33 (so far of course)...So don't believe the hype, don't don't don't believe the hype.
All Time Box Office Adjusted for Ticket Price Inflation
Of course 33 is still more than most films before it...but it should dent your un backed up assumption its the most watched film ever ever ever ever ever!...Cos it's simply not
Again, how do you know this? Have you done a demographics survey? How many middle aged polish women do you think have seen this film? You seem to know!
Just got back from seeing this.
Nothing groundbreaking in the story - enjoyable stuff on the whole.
As for the visuals, just incredible. It might sound shallow, but the 3D made up for any deficiencies in the movie.
Nothing groundbreaking in the story - enjoyable stuff on the whole.
As for the visuals, just incredible. It might sound shallow, but the 3D made up for any deficiencies in the movie.
You've seen it all before? Well I haven't...
There have never been cgi characters as photo-realistic before, no uncanny valley just pure believability... I've only seen it once and I missed the ending (so no spoilers) but I know a special film (and not calling it a masterpiece) when I see one.
Some of you must be really picky... picking holes in this is pointless because the good far outweighs the bad.
There have never been cgi characters as photo-realistic before, no uncanny valley just pure believability... I've only seen it once and I missed the ending (so no spoilers) but I know a special film (and not calling it a masterpiece) when I see one.
Some of you must be really picky... picking holes in this is pointless because the good far outweighs the bad.
Fair enough, you seem to love it, but what about the iconic moments? Where are those scenes akin to the ones in Jurassic Park I mentioned? The clever, creative visual moments that become iconic and snapshots of the film? I can't think of one that comes anywhere near the 4 I came up with off the top of my head from Jurassic Park...and thats just Jurassic bloody Park!!!...D'you get me? It's all whirly glowy shit but not actually anything that creative from a cinematography perspective. Thats where it's lacking for me. Even the "king of the world scene" from Titanic is more visually creative than throwing 100 brightly coloured Pterodactyls at me...IMO anyway
That's not his point. He's not saying that the IMAX sales are less than people are accusing it of because of the presence of 2D screens - he's saying you can't use it as a stick to beat it with, as some people are doing. Its critics are saying that because of the higher ticket prices, its gross is misleading and therefore inaccurate, but his point is that if people wanted to see it for the price of a normal ticket, they could.
That people are paying extra to see it in 3D is not something you can use to disparage its higher gross, because they are given the choice to watch it for less money in a normal setting, but are actively selecting the more expensive - and far better - option. You're not being forced to pay more for it; it's a merit of the film that people are willing to when given the option.
At gunpoint, no. Peer-pressure/social-acceptance-wise, yes. Also, I'd wager that a sizable chunk of the repeat viewings are either A. people who saw it in 3D going to see it in 2D and vice versa, or B. people who didn't really enjoy it the first time, but go again to see if they missed something that everyone else is going nuts about.
A much more likely explanation is that this is the event film of all event films to date. Our generation's equivalent of someone having the first TV in the neighborhood and everyone and their grandma going over to check it out.
I wouldn't say I love it. It probably wouldn't even make my Top 10 favourite films, if I'm honest. I prefer movies with a bit more plot. Nonetheless, it entertained the bejasus out of me.
As for iconic moments, it would be hard to pick out any. Mainly because it was such a roller-coaster ride, it would be hard to break down into visual sound-bites (visual bites? is there such a phrase?).
I guess one of the reasons it's so amazing is that it almost redefines the movie-going experience. Usually I'm happy to enough wait to watch a DVD and find that watching most films on a home cinema system is as enjoyable (often more so) as watching them in the cinema. Avatar needs to be watched in the cinema though and is something I enjoyed, almost viscerally, rather than at any sort of intellectual level. It was a film to be experienced, rather than analysed.
Well two of the iconic moments from JP aren't iconic at all, really - I certainly wouldn't remember them. The shaking water, yes, and the T-Rex foot, but the others you mentioned haven't gone down in history as "iconic moments". It has two, which, owing to the fact that it's a brilliant film, isn't unreasonable.
But Avatar hasn't been out long enough for moments to become "iconic". It needs to be around a while before people start picking out bits that really stick in the mind - at the moment the whole thing is too fresh. But there are some epic scenes in there; we just don't know what will stick in the memory yet or not.
Also, iconic moments are not the way to judge a film. Independence Day had some very memorable moments, but it was shit compared to Moon, for example.
I'm not arguing that people want to see it. But he seems to think it's still on the way to being one of the most watched films of all time when it isn't. Not even close in fact. And he's using that as his argument on why it deserves respect and awards. Based on a wrong fact.
I agree....Completely in fact. And purely because seeing in 2D is completely pointless, and without the 3D experience it becomes hardly anything groundbreaking or even remotely interesting at all.
Look, I'm being backed into a corner here to say its shit cos I'm arguing with you all..I don't think its shit at all. But I think the film is incredibly boring and lacking in anything strikingly inventive or original beyond the mere concept of making up lots of aliens and then throwing multicloured glowing shit at you. The 3D does make it infinitely better without doubt, and is a crowning achievement. But I'm not gonna be fooled into thinking it's a great film because of it. It's a great achievement as a film, but I don't think it's a great film. We can debate all day what things encompass the term "film" and what should or should not be used to damn or praise it, but for me Story, Script, Characters, Performances > Everything else. If you lot are going to use the fact it's a "wow" film as the only reason it's great, I should be allowed to use the fact the story, the script and the characters suck as a reason why it isn't surely?
And no one has been forced to pay the inflated prices, and pay them again and again. If this was some average film people only went to see once it would have dropped like a stone, but its box office drops are ridiculously small and people are still going to see it, repeatedly. You look at all these other blockbusters and they're boxoffice drops aren't anything close to this film's, even at higher ticket prices, which is something that could put people off but isn't doing.
Adjusting for inflation is a very flawed, as is comparing films from different eras. And those ticket sales are all for US audiences only (this film has made 65%+ of its cash outside the US), there isnt enough data to do those comparisons for worldwide gross. You can compare Avatar to the more recent blockbusters though, like Jurrasic Park, Dark Knight, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings and you get an idea of just how popular it is.
Theres plenty of polls out there showing the average ages of people who are seeing it, what gender etc. But the fact is a film doesn't gross 2 billion worldwide if it just appeals to teenage boys, its just common sense. Its setting records in pretty much every country, that alone tells me its appealing to a wide range of people.
You don't remember the bloke being eaten on the toilet?
Fair point. I still can't think of any one moment though, and I've seen it twice. Even the truck being flipped in The Dark Knight struck me as iconic instantly. Thats the kind of creative thing missing from this IMO.
True, but that what I'm saying...Thats my point. Great special effects don't = great film. No matter how great the special effects.
Also I wouldn't judge Moon like I would judge this, because it's a different type of film...Just like you can't compare The Godfather to Life of Brain...But Independence day is a similar film to this. It's intention was to be a wow film, and yet despite being shit it did have a lot of iconic moments and is also one of the highest grossing films of all time...It's characters and story were rubbish, but also tongue in cheek, but it's wow factor and gross don't suddenly make it a great film...or do they? Cos thats what you lot seem to be saying.
In fact Avatar was far more dull as a story, far more pretentious and ridiculously serious in it's "message" but, far better in it's special effects...
So why is it so great and ID so shit?...Would 3D and better effects have elevated ID to greatness?...No, of course not. You're arguing that though, not me.
You can yes, and at the moment it's on a fairly even keel with them. Below JP and TDK and just above Independence Day and Spider man. I'm sure it will rise though, but all I was contesting was your rather lofty assessment that it's massive superiority to those films makes it inherently a great film. At the minute it's about the same as them. And I would've expected it to be. You're the one being lulled into thinking it's the super smashing wonder film of all time because of it's gross
Have you got one?
How come Twilight managed to gross so much when it appeals almost unanimously to teenage girls? Stats back that up in fact..
"he largest age group by far is 12- to 24-year-olds, accounting for 38 percent of all admissions, though they represent only 22 percent of the total population, according to the Motion Picture Association of America.
Among frequent moviegoers, 12-24s make up an even larger share, 41 percent. Parents with kids still living at home and singles go to the movies most often. "
I'd quite like you to back up your "common sense" assumptions with some basis at some point
My common sense alone tells me the fact the vast amount of people who are going to see it aren't going to 2D cinemas shows exactly where the only appeal of this film lies.
This is a good film, but ID4 is one of my all time favourites 
...
Which is sort of the point, we all like different things from movies... some are picky some aren't, so we are never all going to be on the same page.
On a side note, would any of you lot that hated be willing to give the directors cut a go when it comes out? or better yet, would you check out the sequel when it gets here?
...Which is sort of the point, we all like different things from movies... some are picky some aren't, so we are never all going to be on the same page.
On a side note, would any of you lot that hated be willing to give the directors cut a go when it comes out? or better yet, would you check out the sequel when it gets here?
Translation: the wife took care of the kid and I got out of the house for the first time in seven months and the sunlight was so pretty on my skin and all was right with the world.
I didn't hate it, I just didn't think it was great. And no to the directors cut. I wouldn't even watch the DVD...In fact I wouldn't even go to the IMAX again if someone paid for the ticket, I'd just get bored even earlier
If translation is your day job ...
If you didn't hate it then it wasn't aimed at you but judging by your posts on this it really doesn't sound like your sort of thing Mocks, did someone drag you down there?
Correct.
I also smoked my first reefer in about 4 months.
This may also have been a factor.
You're describing technical achievement, not filmmaking prowess.
But it was weird how Sigourney Weaver's Avatar looked more like Sigourney Weaver than Sigourney Weaver did. Sigourney Weaver. Just for the hell of it.
Mockney is simply trying to avoid losing all faith in humanity by making a last stand against the masses decrying Avatar as anything more than competent effects-driven spectacle.
I'm disappointed because I read Cameron's nearly note-perfect script from a decade ago and the final product takes everything that was perfect and twists it all slightly out of sync.
As for the ending, Quaritch is Jake's father, and Netyiri is his twin sister. And Grace is a ghost who doesn't know it.
Yeah sort of..My mate had already bought at ticket in the Wimbledon IMAX so I said I'd go down. I watched a pirate version a month back and thought it was actually quite good (If you read my thoughts on page 4 or 5 or something you'll see I said it was quite good) so I thought at least I'll enjoy the 3D this time if nothing else.
But weirdly, having already seen it, I found it excruciatingly boring the 2nd time. Like, really boring. The 3D was great for the first 45 minutes or so, but then the novelty sort of wore off and it became very obvious how shit the story and the dialogue was..Since I wasn't distracted by the possibility of a great action sequence round the corner, and knew what was coming, I could focus on the characters and the story. And it was bollocks. I actually found the Na'vi primitiveness quite offensive and crass at one point, and Camerons hippy message got incredibly irksome 2nd time round too. I just didn't care about any of them. If it had ended with the scarfaced guy killing Jake and raping the blue girl violently up a tree I wouldn't have given a crap. At times I just wanted the characters to shut up and move out of the way so I could see the background in 3D.
Look, it's a great experience if you see it in 3D, and a great achievement. But the fact I wouldn't dream of watching it again means it probably wasn't a great film. TDK has lots of flaws and is just as long but I went and saw that 3 times. The 2nd viewing is what ruined it for me...cos I wasn't distracted by all the pretty colours. I can see why it's liked though, it is fantastic to look at, but like a great painting is, not necessarily great cinema is.
That explains a lot.
If you'd combined that initial novelty with the whole 3D spectacle and only watched it the once, you'd probably be a lot more favourably inclined.
I'm almost certain if I watched it again it would bore the tits off me. But for two glorious hours I was rapt.
It should be noted that films typically stay at theaters for much less time in the modern era than they did back in the day, when the likes of Gone with the Wind were out. The need to get films out of theatres and into ancillary markets usually results in less ticket sales at traditional theatres, while more revenue is generated through DVD sales, rentals, I-Tunes purchases, TV rights, PPV rights, etc. This makes it rather pointless to compare raw box office numbers (whether adjusted for inflation or not) between 2009 and 1939. We're simply living in a different era.
I'm sure...and for the firs 20 minutes or so in 3D I was rapt...then it sort of wore off. A few times I had to take the glasses off and put them on again just so i remembered it was in 3D cos you get acclimatised to it after a while.
Also, I nicked the glasses, but have since found out that there's no point cos only certain projectors can create that sort of polarised 3D so they're useless...anyone want some IMAX glasses?
Obviously, which is why i said it isn't a masterpiece
To be honest, not one poster in this thread has called it a masterpiece, those that have said it's technically superior to every other film out past & present I'd agree with, but that's a given looking at the budget and technology. So when someone comes in and says 'I've seen it all before', 'The only decent thing was the 3D' or 'Meh!' I'm wondering if they watched a VHS CAM on a black and white telly.
E-slap for those spoilers too...
So I'm sorry, but I'm not really getting this, just what was it that made the film so special, other than the 3D?
The plot was crap, there was no artistry or suspense. Nothing memorable about the film itself. I remember the first time I saw the trailer, saying "well, I've basicaly already seen it now" and that's exactly how it turned out. I just don't get how some fancy effects can plug a hole like that? It's like saying a crap song becomes amazing if you play it on a decent sound system and turn the volume up.
To be honest, for the second half of the film, I was fecking bored, and I'm someone who tagged along to see 2012, just to watch the part where the buildings fall down...and thought it was worth it.
The plot was crap, there was no artistry or suspense. Nothing memorable about the film itself. I remember the first time I saw the trailer, saying "well, I've basicaly already seen it now" and that's exactly how it turned out. I just don't get how some fancy effects can plug a hole like that? It's like saying a crap song becomes amazing if you play it on a decent sound system and turn the volume up.
To be honest, for the second half of the film, I was fecking bored, and I'm someone who tagged along to see 2012, just to watch the part where the buildings fall down...and thought it was worth it.