Avatar Superthread

slave1 · 16-01-2010 07:02PM

Well, it took a film like Avatar to drag me away from my ,mkv's and back into the big screen for the first time since Return of the King, also my first 3D film.
Fook me pink.
3D was amazing
Film was good
Animation of the Navi was seamless, no motion or lip synch issues

If you haven't seen it, you really have to make the effort

Kingp35 · 18-01-2010 04:45PM

Definitely a visual masterpiece but that does not make a great film. After the wow factor wore off aboyt an hour in, I quickly became bored until the final 20 mins. It's far too long, a really poor story and some dodgy dialogue really drag it down.

I would have no interest in seeing this again.

Kipperhell · 18-01-2010 05:03PM

How it one best film film drama is a mystery to me. The story and acting don't make it a good drama either do the special effects so what did it win for? Very odd and would make me believe in conspiracy theories.:o

norrie rugger · 18-01-2010 05:06PM

speedboatchase wrote: »

Gone with the Wind was on limited release for two years before it's general release and re-released in 1947, 1954, 1961, 1967, 1971, 1989 and 1998 - all of these re-releases are added into its box office figure In its original release there was no such thing as movie home entertainment - DVD, video, streaming videos or movie piracy of any kind obv. Also it didn't need to worry about the same competitiveness for theatre screens that we see today, where movies could stay in theatres for years because there was nowhere for them to go afterwards aside from re-release. It is still a incredible box office performance and you can never take that away from it, but there is zero comparison to any box office runs of the modern age, there is much of a difference in consumer habits and infrastructure of the entire business. Avatar is doing an incredible job and will take down the Titanic in 6 weeks I reckon - and yet it was still the fastest pirated movie of all time (980,000 in its first week)

What is the point in seeing Avatar any other way than 3D?

hick · 19-01-2010 10:38AM

Kipperhell wrote: »

How it one best film film drama is a mystery to me. The story and acting don't make it a good drama either do the special effects so what did it win for? Very odd and would make me believe in conspiracy theories.:o

Best Director maybe all though I think the hurt locker or Up in the Air were better movies. Actually they had a proper plot and Cameron had less to work with there so maybe??? :rolleyes:

Avatar is not the best movie of the year, best special effects, ground breaking 3d but not it's one side and rely's to much on those, Best picture is a holistic category.

Zardoz · 19-01-2010 03:30PM

hick wrote: »

Best Director maybe all though I think the hurt locker or Up in the Air were better movies. Actually they had a proper plot and Cameron had less to work with there so maybe??? :rolleyes:

Avatar is not the best movie of the year, best special effects, ground breaking 3d but not it's one side and rely's to much on those, Best picture is a holistic category.

I honestly dont see the big fuss about Avatar.
It is far from groundbreaking as a film.
The script is unoriginal ,cliched and childish.
There have been many heavily reliant cgi films before it ,e.g Final Fantasy Spirits Within (2001) ,that used the same methods and were pretty impressive using a much inferior budget.
Its use of 3D while being welcomed was underused in many scenes,I've seen much better 3D action scenes in the Imax .
Its all style and no substance ,a bit like the newer Star Wars films.
I get the feeling Cameron spend all of his efforts concentrating on the technical aspects of the movie and overlooked the main thing, the script.

jaykhunter · 19-01-2010 03:33PM

norrie rugger wrote: »

What is the point in seeing Avatar any other way than 3D?

I'm actually interested in seeing it in 2D because the 3D was a bit blurry (I should say 'focussed in parts') and seeing the 5-minute free Xbox Live clip of it, it looks like a much different experience - it's really sharply defined. The film should really be able to stand up without the 3D hoopla. Much like Watchmen, I really didn't like the film, but so many other people liked it I'm gonna give it another chance at some point.

Anakin.S · 19-01-2010 04:00PM

jaykhunter wrote: »

I'm actually interested in seeing it in 2D because the 3D was a bit blurry (I should say 'focussed in parts')

My sister-in-law studies Optometry and she says some people eyes just can't handle the effect of the 3D glasses and around the edges of the screen will be out of focus. She says people could try sitting further back in the cinema so there is less strain on the eye.

Zardoz · 19-01-2010 04:18PM

Anakin.S wrote: »

My sister-in-law studies Optometry and she says some people eyes just can't handle the effect of the 3D glasses and around the edges of the screen will be out of focus. She says people could try sitting further back in the cinema so there is less strain on the eye.

Interesting ,partly explains my experience in the second row !
It looked very blurry to me and I have excellent eyesight.

_Kaiser_ · 24-01-2010 03:23PM

Zardoz wrote: »

Interesting ,partly explains my experience in the second row !
It looked very blurry to me and I have excellent eyesight.

I've been to 2 of theese 3D films now (Avatar being the second) and didn't find it worked very well for me - my eyesight isn't great in one eye though.

Still, thought it was a very good film. Yes the story has been done before but as has been said elsewhere, the CGI/3D was really used to complement the film rather than just for the "wow" factor I thought.

Tragedy · 24-01-2010 04:44PM

Uninteresting story. Uninteresting plot. Uninteresting natives. Mostly uninteresting world(look, it's a jungle with typical earth creatures slightly changed, and with neon lights everywhere!).

What had happened to Earth, what it was like, how they came to Pandorum was never dealt with, there was no maturity or intelligence to the script. No questions of politics, ethics, morality. Just big bad white man and the RDA corp. It was too black and white, too good versus evil.

It was also far far too long.

seraphimvc · 24-01-2010 05:09PM

Tragedy wrote: »

Mostly uninteresting world(look, it's a jungle with typical earth creatures slightly changed, and with neon lights everywhere!).

hmmm.interesting point.

caused' myself, a foreigner from one of most tropical exotic countries on earth (hint:south east asia,the country on the equator),we have massive tropical forest over there,super amazing beaches/scuba diving spot,awesome weather -

Pandora IS an amazing world to me.either you have insanely high standard on the definition of 'beatiful world' or you just simply dont like 'jungle';)

Tragedy wrote: »

What had happened to Earth, what it was like, how they came to Pandorum was never dealt with, there was no maturity or intelligence to the script. No questions of politics, ethics, morality. Just big bad white man and the RDA corp. It was too black and white, too good versus evil.

nice spot.before i tell you that they actually have the explaination of why they go pandaro in their deleted scenes(human has destroyed earth's environment,go google yourself) - why on earth would that bother you at all?? since when a movie has to include 'politics, ethics, morality'?? you can say it lacks of those elements that you like,but please dont try to imply that it is sh!t because it doesnt give you what you want.

as a sidenote,there are many 'politics, ethics, morality' elements in the movie:(. i definitely see them.

Galvasean · 24-01-2010 05:16PM

I though the whole movie was one guy's moral/ethical turnaround?

Tragedy · 24-01-2010 05:16PM

seraphimvc wrote: »

hmmm.interesting point.
Pandora IS an amazing world to me.either you have insanely high standard on the definition of 'beatiful world' or you just simply dont like 'jungle';)

Beautiful sure. They go full CGI on an alien planet, and the most their imagination can come up with is something that looks like Earth on an acid trip?
(as an aside, I liked the Halleluja Mountains)

nice spot.before i tell you that they actually have the explaination of why they go pandaro in their deleted scenes(human has destroyed earth's environment,go google yourself)

I looked at the deleted scenes already, it isn't an explanation. You get one scene of a city on earth where people need to wear oxygen rebreathers. That's hardly explanation or exposition.

why on earth would that bother you at all??

Because it'd make the movie different than BIG BAD WHITE SETTLERS WANTING AMERICAN INDIANS LAND! WITH NEON COLOURS AND BLUE BODYPAINT!

since when a movie has to include 'politics, ethics, morality'??

A 162minutes movie about Corporate Greed and ruining an environment for profit, and it shouldnt have any depth to it whatsoever?

Ok, I can tell I look for more from some movies than you.

you can say it lacks of those elements that you like,but please dont try to imply that it is sh!t because it doesnt give you what you want.

It's **** because it's a movie thats been done a hundred times before, better. Except it has fancy 3D and CGI.

as a sidenote,there are many 'politics, ethics, morality' elements in the movie:(. i definitely see them.

I don't, well, at least elements that would tax a 5 year old, nevermind an adult.

Tragedy · 24-01-2010 05:20PM

Galvasean wrote: »

I though the whole movie was one guy's moral/ethical turnaround?

How? He never wanted to harm or kill the Na'vi. He never seemed particularly "I'll do what it takes to get my legs back and get home" which at least would have made his turn around to "I want to stay here and live with them" a bit more interesting.

Hell, if you have added in a bit of him being torn between two worlds and not knowing which to choose - it might actually have been a vaguely interesting subplot.

Alas, it was written for children.

Sleazus · 24-01-2010 05:46PM

Tragedy wrote: »

Alas, it was written for children.

It felt like it was written by children.

Galvasean · 25-01-2010 02:04AM

Apologies if this has been posted in here before, but I'm amazed that a bigger deal hasn't been made of this:
http://themonkeymind.livejournal.com/35638.html

speedboatchase · 25-01-2010 02:52AM

R.I.P Titanic's record for highest-grossing unadjusted worldwide gross of all time, it's been a good 12 years

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/

6m left to go, should reach that by tomorrow WW

Basq · 27-01-2010 12:14AM

Yep.. it's been done!

'Avatar' is king of the world
Film trumps 'Titanic' as the all-time grossing title worldwide
By ANDREW STEWART

James Cameron has conquered the worldwide box office, again.

As of Monday, 20th Century Fox and Cameron's "Avatar" surpassed previous record holder "Titanic" to become the highest worldwide grosser of all time.

Fox said final figures won't be available until Tuesday, but with weekend numbers for "Avatar" totaling $1.838 billion worldwide, pic's expected $15 million domestic earnings should give the pic enough steam to sail past "Titanic" with a global cume of $1.842 billion.

This latest record comes just after "Avatar" made history over the weekend, grossing $1.29 billion at the international B.O. to tackle "Titanic's" $1.24 billion.

"Titanic" still reigns Stateside with $600.8 million, but as "Avatar" maintains a heady lead over its competition -- pic fell only 16% in its sixth frame -- holdover should continue to close the gap, having already earned $551.7 million as of Jan. 24.

sprinkles · 27-01-2010 12:35AM

That really is crazy money for a film and with DVD/Bluray sales yet to come....

Basq · 27-01-2010 12:49AM

Yep, a workmate went to see it last night.. he had to book his tickets in advance, and he said the screening was packed out!

This is a Monday night almost 6 weeks after it's release! :eek:

Mad!

DazMarz · 27-01-2010 01:06AM

Some record for James Cameron too.

Say what you will about the man (some people maintain he's an arséhole and one thing and another) but he has crafted some of the most quality films of our time (as director unless otherwise stated):

-Aliens (1986)
-The Terminator (1984)
-Terminator II: Judgement Day (1991)
-Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985; writer)
-The Abyss (1989)
-Titanic (1997)

and now Avatar... Nice work, Jimbo!:D

speedboatchase · 27-01-2010 02:05AM

To put things in perspective, Avatars gross outside it's biggest market (U.S) is 1.3bn, which would actually put it 2nd by 150m in the all-time box office!

Amazing stuff, and I still know a few people who haven't seen it yet but want to

kraggy · 27-01-2010 02:21AM

Tragedy wrote: »

Beautiful sure. They go full CGI on an alien planet, and the most their imagination can come up with is something that looks like Earth on an acid trip?
(as an aside, I liked the Halleluja Mountains)

I looked at the deleted scenes already, it isn't an explanation. You get one scene of a city on earth where people need to wear oxygen rebreathers. That's hardly explanation or exposition.

Because it'd make the movie different than BIG BAD WHITE SETTLERS WANTING AMERICAN INDIANS LAND! WITH NEON COLOURS AND BLUE BODYPAINT!

A 162minutes movie about Corporate Greed and ruining an environment for profit, and it shouldnt have any depth to it whatsoever?

Ok, I can tell I look for more from some movies than you.

It's **** because it's a movie thats been done a hundred times before, better. Except it has fancy 3D and CGI.

I don't, well, at least elements that would tax a 5 year old, nevermind an adult.

It's more about the unethical wars that America has started. Not corporate greed.

Duggy747 · 27-01-2010 02:53AM

speedboatchase wrote: »

To put things in perspective, Avatars gross outside it's biggest market (U.S) is 1.3bn, which would actually put it 2nd by 150m in the all-time box office!

Actually, you're wrong

:

HollywoodInsider.com wrote:

James Cameron really is King of the World; the 55-year old director is now the proud papa of the top two highest-grossing movies ever. Twentieth Century Fox announced today that Avatar has crossed Titanic’s worldwide box office gross of $1.843 billion on Monday and now holds the global box office record of $1.859 billion. Most of the credit for the film’s success has to be given to its phenomenal performance in 3-D, which accounts for 80% of the film’s domestic box-office gross. Avatar still needs another $45 million to cross Titanic’s domestic gross of $600 million, a feat that will be achieved in the next two weeks. It’s rather amazing that Titanic held its record for so long considering ticket prices have obviously risen since the film debuted in 1997 and grosses are not adjusted for inflation. Don’t expect Avatar to drop off anytime soon. With the film falling only 20% every weekend, its likely to remain in theaters for many weeks to come.

The smugness that man must be feeling should be inhuman! The top 2 highest grossing movies are yours!!

*wonders what it feels like*

opinion guy · 27-01-2010 10:42AM

Duggy747 wrote: »

Actually, you're wrong :

The smugness that man must be feeling should be inhuman! The top 2 highest grossing movies are yours!!

*wonders what it feels like*

I suspect it feels like having a bath in 100 dollar bills!

opinion guy · 27-01-2010 05:05PM

So in fact Avatar is 26th most popular film of all time:

http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/blog/article/11801/avatar-is-actually-26th-biggest-movie-of-all-time.html

Draupnir · 27-01-2010 05:26PM

opinion guy wrote: »

So in fact Avatar is 26th most popular film of all time:

http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/blog/article/11801/avatar-is-actually-26th-biggest-movie-of-all-time.html

Considering an awful lot of the films above of it in that list have had multiple releases, I call shenanigans.

MikeC101 · 27-01-2010 05:35PM

"Most popular" is a loaded term - the rankings in the link rely solely on cinema tickets sold.

And that's ignoring the fact that so many of those films were released in a time when films could run in a theatre for months, and more people went to the cinema. Plus, how many people didn't have DVD players, VHS players, or even televisions? Not to mention lower amounts of piracy. It's just not comparing like with like, really. If DVD and VHS sales were included, adjusted for inflation, it'd be better. Added to that, Avatar hasn't even finished it's cinema run.

Draupnir · 27-01-2010 05:37PM

MikeC101 wrote: »

"Most popular" is a loaded term - the rankings in the link rely solely on cinema tickets sold.

And that's ignoring the fact that so many of those films were released in a time when films could run in a theatre for months, and more people went to the cinema. Plus, how many people didn't have DVD players, VHS players, or even televisions? Not to mention lower amounts of piracy. It's just not comparing like with like, really. If DVD and VHS sales were included, adjusted for inflation, it'd be better. Added to that, Avatar hasn't even finished it's cinema run.

That plus the fact there are three Star Wars movies on their that have been released twice, in two different versions to two different generations. There's at least 3 movies that have have more than 2 general releases on there too.

Avatar Superthread

Comments