Avatar - James Cameron Returns! (Spoilers in thread, obviously!)

I don´t understand why a lot of folks here are seem to be so obsessed about box office numbers?

How much money a film makes has nothing to do with the popularity but everything with the prices.

In my book only the number of audience is what counts, not how much they paid.

Frank
 
Can't speak for others but I care because it's a business and if it weren't for the money people would not be seeing movies like Avatar not to mention that I'm a News Corp share holder and have seen the stock up 250+% over the last year. Avatar has given it a nice boost in the last couple months.

I see how artist don't care about money or numbers but it's those numbers that let them do what they want.

I'd rather have a non popular movie that made millions than a popular movie that made nothing or lost money.

Different strokes.
 
I'm just interested in how much it makes. It makes no difference to me in terms of whether or not I like a film.

I'm simply curious.
 
Right --- who cares how good a movie is as long as the "numbers" are right! :-Mad(DBG): [What's wrong with you folks?!?]
 
That's not what we're saying. I don't care about the numbers. I care if a film is good.

But with this film, I'm INTERESTED and CURIOUS about the numbers.
 
I kind of like to root for the films that I liked to be successful. It is nice knowing that a film I like that falls into my favorite genre is doing well. It means more films in the genre will have a chance to be made. Of course, I think it is good that we have films of all genres in the marketplace.

The flip side is when a film that I really despise is making tons of money, then it can get kind of annoying. I suppose there are some that don't like or even hate Avatar, and are probably tired of hearing about it.
 
Giganova said:
Right --- who cares how good a movie is as long as the "numbers" are right! :-Mad(DBG): [What's wrong with you folks?!?]
Click to expand...

Welcome to the producer mentality, if a director said what I did I'd fire him then shoot him, turn his body into shark food.

All aspects are needed btw :) Directing is just not my thing.

Google producer / director relations.
 
What I find interesting is that the movie is doing so well across the board in so many markets. I find that fascinating from a cultural/social standpoint.
 
Batutta said:
What I find interesting is that the movie is doing so well across the board in so many markets. I find that fascinating from a cultural/social standpoint.
Click to expand...

That's why this film is worth an award....not saying which one but a big one for sure.
 
Michael Anthony Horrigan said:
Writing, acting, etc.... not so much. Director maybe. That must have been a daunting task.

MAH
Click to expand...

Totally agree.

Michael Anthony Horrigan said:
Its reward is cleaning up at the box office. :)
MAH
Click to expand...


true, but I'm also talking about an award for its abillity to attract millions and millions and millions........of people. This film is the best film of the year, not for its story, actors... but for its ability to entertain people. And for me the film industry's goal is to entertain people (well, also teach and a whole bunch of more things, but the main is entertainment). And this film has been the best one by far in doing that this year. I know of people that have seen it more than 3-4 times in the cinema. Every sesion is fully booked, one month after its release. That, for me, is the only reason for Avatar winning the best film golden globe.
 
So, strictly by the numbers, N'Sync's "No Strings Attached" was the best album of the 2000s, right? It sold the most copies, and entertained the most people?

Avatar is an impressive technical achievement. It is not the best film of 2009, no matter how much money it ends up making.
 
stephenmick said:
So, strictly by the numbers, N'Sync's "No Strings Attached" was the best album of the 2000s, right? It sold the most copies, and entertained the most people?

Avatar is an impressive technical achievement. It is not the best film of 2009, no matter how much money it ends up making.
Click to expand...

Avatar ISN'T the best film of 2009 (well, this is too subjective, I'm sure that for lots of people it is), is only the best at attracting people, and that nobody can argue.
 
Last edited:
ilauzirika said:
This film is the best film of the year, not for its story, actors... but for its ability to entertain people. And for me the film industry's goal is to entertain people.
Click to expand...

But wait, isn't that exactly what you said? This is the best film of the year, according to your criteria, correct?
 
I have not made my pick for the best of the year just yet .... coming to mind are the Basterds and The Hurt Locker


But basing the top grossing films on the best ?

Out of the TOP 20 Grossing films of 2009 -

Avatar is leaps and bounds a much killer film than any of these pieces of crap films below; no matter the box office receipts.


1 Avatar Fox $552,797,000
2 Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen $402,111,870
3 Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince WB $301,959,197
4 The Twilight Saga: New Moon Sum. $293,187,400
5 Up BV $293,004,164
6 The Hangover WB $277,322,503
7 Star Trek Par. $257,730,019
8 The Blind Side WB $234,027,000
9 Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel
10 Monsters Vs. Aliens P/DW $198,351,526
11 Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs Fox $196,573,705
12 Sherlock Holmes WB $191,564,000
13 X-Men Origins: Wolverine Fox $179,883,157
14 Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian Fox $177,243,721
15 2012 Sony $164,767,722
16 The Proposal BV $163,958,031
17 Fast and Furious Uni. $155,064,265
18 G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra Par. $150,201,498
19 Paul Blart: Mall Cop Sony $146,336,178
20 Taken Fox $145,000,989
 
stephenmick said:
But wait, isn't that exactly what you said? This is the best film of the year, according to your criteria, correct?
Click to expand...

Not exactly, I was trying to find a reason for the golden globe it won. not saying that for me it's the best of the year. Maybe I Prashed things wrong (english is not my first language)...
 
I get what you're saying, Iñaki. No worries.

And again, I think Avatar deserves to win every technical award on the board, except cinematography. I also don't begrudge for a second a singe dollar made by Avatar. When you invest upwards of $400 million in a movie, the payoff for success should be measurably impressive.

But I can think of a handful of movies that are, for lack of a better word, "better" than Avatar, which primarily means better stories and better performances.
 
J.R. Hudson said:
Avatar is leaps and bounds a much killer film than any of these pieces of crap films below; no matter the box office receipts.


1 Avatar Fox $552,797,000
2 Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen $402,111,870
3 Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince WB $301,959,197
4 The Twilight Saga: New Moon Sum. $293,187,400
5 Up BV $293,004,164
6 The Hangover WB $277,322,503
7 Star Trek Par. $257,730,019
8 The Blind Side WB $234,027,000
9 Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel
10 Monsters Vs. Aliens P/DW $198,351,526
11 Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs Fox $196,573,705
12 Sherlock Holmes WB $191,564,000
13 X-Men Origins: Wolverine Fox $179,883,157
14 Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian Fox $177,243,721
15 2012 Sony $164,767,722
16 The Proposal BV $163,958,031
17 Fast and Furious Uni. $155,064,265
18 G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra Par. $150,201,498
19 Paul Blart: Mall Cop Sony $146,336,178
20 Taken Fox $145,000,989
Click to expand...

Man, that list is depressing. Not in the fact that Avatar made over $500m (and counting) but that Paul Blart: Mall Cop has made over 10x the box office money that The Hurt Locker has.
 
stephenmick said:
I get what you're saying, Iñaki. No worries.

And again, I think Avatar deserves to win every technical award on the board, except cinematography. I also don't begrudge for a second a singe dollar made by Avatar. When you invest upwards of $400 million in a movie, the payoff for success should be measurably impressive.

But I can think of a handful of movies that are, for lack of a better word, "better" than Avatar, which primarily means better stories and better performances.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

And that's where I think other award should be given to the best film in the year for its social attraction merit, Because that for me is as important as a good script, good actors, good cinematography, good art direction, good sound... and as cinematography has its award a films attractiveness or social impact (I don't know how to call it).

And the film that excels in all those is the one that gets the best film of the year award. It doesn't have to excel in all of them but it should have a balanced combination.

For me a film that reaches deep on me gets it. As of this day, this year (2009) I wouldn't give it to any film (of the ones I've seen). That's why you ask many people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top