Avatar Superthread

mrniceguy2

mrniceguy2 wrote: »

n try d videogames

That the name of some new Nintendo console? The N-Try-D.

bnt

Lots of "making-of" pics are here:

vinylbomb

Deleted User wrote: »

That the name of some new Nintendo console? The N-Try-D.

Nice to see a constructive, on topic post

vinylbomb

opinion guy wrote: »

And let me spell this out to you.

My original point was: I, AS AN IRISH CONSUMER, DID NOT FEEL THAT THIS FILM WAS AS HEAVILY MARKETED AS NEW MOON, FOR EXAMPLE. Thats my opinion and others have agreed me. You are strawmanning me

The advertising spend of Avatar is rumoured to be in the in the 150-200 million range.
- This NT Times article states total cost may run to 500 million (production was 245 million )

EDIT: While you may not have noticed any billboards it would seem the residents in Mumbai have been treated to a 10,000 sq ft billboard.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/services/advertising/Marketing-takes-a-brand-new-Avatar/articleshow/5341764.cms

New Moon's production budget was 50 million, so assuming the marketing budget was another 50 million (which would be highly unusual - marketing spend does not match production costs except in cases of massive budgets such as Avatar)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/business/media/09avatar.html?pagewanted=all


Whether or not you feel Avatar was heavily sold is irrelevant, the money was spent somewhere.

I'm not trying to condone New Moon here, I havent seen either of those Twilight movies. I can only imagine my eyes would bleed and my brain would dribble out my ears if I attempted too, so I'm avoiding.

vinylbomb

To get back to the crux of my (and what seems to be many) of the problems that people have with Avatar - people are lauding it as one of the greatest stories of the year and possible all time.

Its far from being in the top ten stories of the year in my opinion, and I expected better (but not something completely original) for a movie of that budget.
(Mind you I would disagree with Hurt Locker too, bit too silly and gung ho. Best picture that I have seen this year was Up - Original, funny and heartwarming - thank God for Pixar)

Another problem is the preachy eco and anti-capitalism messages while many lucrative tie-ins exist that dont give a sh-t about the environment and are solely based on revenue streams
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mitchell-blatt/2009/12/29/anti-capitalist-movie-avatar-partners-mcdonalds-corporate-marketing-

mayordenis

Jaysus didn't know mumbai was in Ireland, madness.

vinylbomb

mayordenis wrote: »

Jaysus didn't know mumbai was in Ireland, madness.

And who said it was? I really dont see where you've managed to take that from what I have said, you may need to have another read of my post.

L31mr0d

vinylbomb wrote: »

Nice to see a constructive, on topic post

oh snap... Darkos been served :rolleyes:

vinylbomb

vinylbomb wrote: »

Nice to see a constructive, on topic post

L31mr0d wrote: »

oh snap... Darkos been served :rolleyes:

The quick wit evident by that post left me speechless.


I'm still trying to find people saying that the story in Avatar is amongst the greatest of the year. In fact most agree that the story is hackneyed but entertaining which is exactly what it set out to do, entertain. You can cry all you want about it being Smurfs with Wolves or whatever thinly veiled comparison you want but at the end of the day it's an ages old tale which eprfectly suited Cameron's needs.

hick

yawn, happy new year, still crap story

BlitzKrieg

I'm not trying to condone New Moon here, I havent seen either of those Twilight movies. I can only imagine my eyes would bleed and my brain would dribble out my ears if I attempted too, so I'm avoiding.

I actually tried a few weeks back. Got sky player on my xbox and decided to give twilight a watch. I was literally hitting my head off the wall about a third of the way through and simply stopped. awful awful cinema.

In its defence though, I lasted longer watching twilight then I did with alone in the dark, which I honestly swear my housemate started having a nosebleed 6 minutes into the film it was so bad...

My original point was: I, AS AN IRISH CONSUMER, DID NOT FEEL THAT THIS FILM WAS AS HEAVILY MARKETED AS NEW MOON, FOR EXAMPLE.

well its opinion vs opinion because I cant understand how you might have missed the 20 foot poster if you passed by parnell street (not in the cinema outside the cinema) or the billboards/bus stops that for the first half of december between smithfield and coolock had mostly avatar adverts (its the route I go by to work). Maybe you live in an area that was considered part of the market for avatar or something, I dont know, I have no idea where you live. You also seemed to have missed avatar day completly, which while you were not a member at the time (I think) you can see it spawned a pretty big thread here (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055650795&highlight=avatar) so it was something that was not missed by other boardsies. And this wasnt kept to just boards.


On the topic of New Moon, yes it got heavily blitzed in advertising but it came in at a low point of the annual film cycle with little competition around it, unlike avatar which had sherlock holmes breathing down its neck (all those billboards/busstops quickly swapped out avatar for sherlock holmes literally days after its release).

I just think its ridiculous to jump that because you missed the big preview push in august and missed most of the adverts for it in the first half of december to assume that the film wasnt pushed.

Yes its your opinion, but it can still be a ridiculous one.

BlitzKrieg

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

In its defence though, I lasted longer watching twilight then I did with alone in the dark, which I honestly swear my housemate started having a nosebleed 6 minutes into the film it was so bad...

Was that during the never ending scene of scrolling exposition? I love Alone in the Dark as I love the remake of the Wicker Man, has ever there been more comical material ever committed to celluloid?

BlitzKrieg

Deleted User wrote: »

Was that during the never ending scene of scrolling exposition? I love Alone in the Dark as I love the remake of the Wicker Man, has ever there been more comical material ever committed to celluloid?

No we were both training to be editors at the time and its the car chase scene that randomly starts at the airport which is a f*cking mess of a sequence...

though I might need to rewatch it because transformers 2 random teleporting location editing could possible top it for physical pain.

BlitzKrieg

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

No we were both training to be editors at the time and its the car chase scene that randomly starts at the airport which is a f*cking mess of a sequence...

though I might need to rewatch it because transformers 2 random teleporting location editing could possible top it for physical pain.

From an editorial viewpoint the entire film is a mess to be honest. I actually reedited the entire film to try and fix it but unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any way to make the film decent. Part 2 isn't bad though, watched it about a year ago and found it rather enjoyable. Possibly due to it having some connection to the games.

johnny_ultimate

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm still trying to find people saying that the story in Avatar is amongst the greatest of the year. In fact most agree that the story is hackneyed but entertaining which is exactly what it set out to do, entertain. You can cry all you want about it being Smurfs with Wolves or whatever thinly veiled comparison you want but at the end of the day it's an ages old tale which eprfectly suited Cameron's needs.

There are a lot of people saying it is one of their favourite films of all time though, and critics are giving it crazy good review - and fair enough, everything is opinion! I think alot of us are just not willing to overlook a hackneyed plot though. I would argue that most of the strong points of this film are a result of ludicrous amounts of money being thrown at Cameron and his crew (seriously - would Avatar be worth going to see if it had, say, a quarter of the budget? Perhaps then the narrative flaws wouldn't be excused with less extravagant visuals?). I saw a number of December releases (Humpday, Love Exposure, Where the Wild Things Are) that had a fraction of the budget and far more interesting (and entertaining) narratives (and I'd also probably argue that Wild Things is as interesting visually, but I won't dwell on that ). Is it really unfair to criticise a plot that isn't as engaging or original as ones playing a screen over? Yes, it clearly is a mainstream, financially risky blockbuster, so perhaps this argument is somewhat moot, but it is a central reason why I wouldn't consider myself as wildly enthusiastic about the film as others in this thread would.

And ignoring arguments about quality - which is clearly a contentious issue :pac: - I definitely wouldn't agree that there was no hype. Cameron himself heavily boasted that this film was going to be a revolution, or, in his words, a 'game changer' for years prior to release. And the man has a fairly solid track record. This of all films was one that very few people would've have been able to see without some element of hype - in particular regulars on an internet film board! If you did miss the PR and marketing - well done is all I can say!

gandalf

On the advertising front I am not sure how people didn't even notice it. It was everywhere. Christ I remember watching an episode of Bones on Sky a couple of weeks ago and part of the plot was a couple of the main characters mitching off work to alternate queuing for the first showing of Avatar !! So you couldn't even avoid it trying to watch a program on the telly!!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1514861/

opinion guy

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

I actually tried a few weeks back. Got sky player on my xbox and decided to give twilight a watch. I was literally hitting my head off the wall about a third of the way through and simply stopped. awful awful cinema.

Hahaha - yeah I can imagine.

well its opinion vs opinion because I cant understand how you might have missed the 20 foot poster if you passed by parnell street (not in the cinema outside the cinema) or the billboards/bus stops that for the first half of december between smithfield and coolock had mostly avatar adverts (its the route I go by to work).

But you say that like its something on unusual. it s the cinema. They alway have 20ft posters for whatever is big at the time. Onlly time I go by there is when I'm going to the cinema. I saw avatar there - can\t remember if there was aposter but since i was going to see it i woulnd't have noticed most probably.

Maybe you live in an area that was considered part of the market for avatar or something, I dont know, I have no idea where you live.

I don't imagine it varies that much by area.

You also seemed to have missed avatar day completly, which while you were not a member at the time (I think) you can see it spawned a pretty big thread here (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055650795&highlight=avatar) so it was something that was not missed by other boardsies. And this wasnt kept to just boards.

Yup never heard of it - in fact never heard of avatar at that point either. Which is kind of my point really. Yeah it might have happened, but I never heard of it. Seems like they didn't market the event that heavily (even if it was a marketing event in and of itself). New Moon on the other hand - Christ on a bike I had dem gaunt annorexic gurmpy teenagers staring down at me for weeks on end. Never seen any films posters up for so long.

On the topic of New Moon, yes it got heavily blitzed in advertising but it came in at a low point of the annual film cycle with little competition around it, unlike avatar which had sherlock holmes breathing down its neck (all those billboards/busstops quickly swapped out avatar for sherlock holmes literally days after its release).

There you said it yourself - that stuff changes so often. I didn't think avatar had any more presence than your average film.

I just think its ridiculous to jump that because you missed the big preview push in august and missed most of the adverts for it in the first half of december to assume that the film wasnt pushed.

Yes its your opinion, but it can still be a ridiculous one.

Yes well its equally as ridiculous to assume that becuase you were aware of it that everyone was. And oh by the way its not just me - other people have agreed with me.

vinylbomb

opinion guy wrote: »

Seems like they didn't market the event that heavily (even if it was a marketing event in and of itself). New Moon on the other hand - Christ on a bike I had dem gaunt annorexic gurmpy teenagers staring down at me for weeks on end. Never seen any films posters up for so long.

And oh by the way its not just me - other people have agreed with me.

Please see post #665
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055655055&page=45

For fear of repeating myself - The proposition being made is not that YOU did see the advertising (you may have closed your eyes. looked the other way or simply not left your domicile) but that in economic terms (production and marketing - in this case marketing) the spend for Avatar has been the biggest in history, far more than than the latest Twilight mess.

opinion guy

Oh My God why are you guys continuing to argue this point. I NEVER said anything about advertising budgets. What you just posted right there is the very definition of a straw man argument. I said that to me, it seemed like there was less advertising than for other recent films such as New Moon, hmmm and maybe even Sherlock Holmes is ramping up now. its also possible that there advertising was sucky and ineffective. Point is it didn't reach me and I'm fairly aware of the stuff I see around me/on tv/ on net. Maybe they spent more on Avatar - whatever, maybe they spent more in other countries than here - did u think of that? Whatever. I said it did not seem to me to be as heavily advertised, some people agreed. Thats my opinion. You can't prove it wrong (especially not with straw man arguments). Just accept I, and several others have a different opinion to you. ok ?

hick

maybe you can't see blue

Galvasean

vinylbomb wrote: »

Nice to see a constructive, on topic post

If you have a problem with a post you should report it.
For what it's worth, the odd bit of humour in a heated discussion thread is quite refreshing now and then.

irish_bob

i live in rural ireland so i wouldnt be seeing any billboards for avatar or any other movie for that matter so the only form of advertising available to me when it comes to movies is via the idiot box and personally speaking , before its release , i did not see all that many adds for avatar , i remember a few years ago when king kong was released around christmas , you could expect to see tv adds around three times during every half hour of programming , that said , i have noticed an increase in adds for avatar in the past week

jaykhunter

I've said my piece so I've no want to re-thread old ground, but I thought i'd pass this info along from Boxofficemojo.com :

AVATAR : TOTAL LIFETIME GROSSES

Domestic: $268,886,074 36.1% + Foreign: $476,192,825 63.9% = Worldwide: $745,078,899

vinylbomb

opinion guy wrote: »

Oh My God why are you guys continuing to argue this point. I NEVER said anything about advertising budgets. What you just posted right there is the very definition of a straw man argument.

Ok, fair enough you didn't see the advertising and wasn't aware of the movie prior to release. Thats cool. Point made




All I was pointing out is that there was a significant amount of money spent on marketing, quite a lot more than the Twilight movie (which you made an example of). I haven't attacked your argument (or my fallacious one which I have supposedly substituted in for yours), merely stated (again and again) that Avatar had the most spent on marketing in history.

So its not the definition of a straw man argument IMO, but we'll agree to disagree on that too I think

vinylbomb

opinion guy wrote: »

Oh My God why are you guys continuing to argue this point. I NEVER said anything about advertising budgets. What you just posted right there is the very definition of a straw man argument.

Ok, fair enough you didn't see the advertising and wasn't aware of the movie prior to release. Thats cool. Point made




All I was pointing out is that there was a significant amount of money spent on marketing, quite a lot more than the Twilight movie (which you made an example of). I haven't attacked your argument (or my fallacious argument which I have supposedly substituted in for yours), merely stated (again and again) that Avatar had the most spent on marketing in history.

So its not the definition of a straw man argument IMO, but we'll agree to disagree on that too I think

Galvasean

jaykhunter wrote: »

I've said my piece so I've no want to re-thread old ground, but I thought i'd pass this info along from Boxofficemojo.com :

AVATAR : TOTAL LIFETIME GROSSES

Domestic: $268,886,074 36.1% + Foreign: $476,192,825 63.9% = Worldwide: $745,078,899

Big money. And it doesn't appear to be slowing down just yet.

L31mr0d

Galvasean wrote: »

Big money. And it doesn't appear to be slowing down just yet.

Went to see it a second time with my Dad there yesterday (first film hes actually wanted to go to in a decade). Was fully expecting the cinema to be empty at around lunchtime on New Years Day but it was completely packed.

Opinion is still the same for me though. Amazing film. It's definitely up there with one of my all time favourites. Neytiri steals the show, her character is utterly compelling to watch.

Raging Bob

I'd rather stick my head in an oven than endure this film again. I always find it amusing to see so many flock to see this and fail to turn out to view other far superior films throughout the year. Suppose that's how it works but it still sucks.

L31mr0d

Raging Bob wrote: »

I always find it amusing to see so many flock to see this and fail to turn out to view other far superior films throughout the year.

and then there are also those, like me, that watch all these "far superior films" and still found Avatar to be excellent for what it is.

These "far superior films" you speak of btw. Are they visually and technically superior? Again we come back to this subjective weighting each of us gives to varying aspects of a film. Take "Coffee & Cigarettes" for example. No plot to speak of, fairly muted visuals but it still holds up imo due to the dialogue alone.

The premise and stunning visuals of Avatar are enough to make it an excellent film for me. It's a narrow perspective imo that can't weight the achievement of Avatar accordingly due to wearing blinders and only seeing it's plot and characterizations (which aren't actually bad, just not great). I can guarantee you've weighted plenty of films higher even though they've lacked or failed in numerous other facets of cinematography.

amdublin

I'm confussed!

Are some cinemas showing Avatar in 3D? Or are they all 3D??

Also then what is this imax - available anywhere in Dublin?

Please can you advise me which cineman and format would be best to watch the film in - any cinema in Dublin city or Blanchardstown.

Thanks!