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

ChipG said:
Since no one gives a Sh*t it's almost at $2.4 BILLION I'm posting it. http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=avatar.htm

Man, If I produced a movie that grossed over $2.4B I'd cut ever cast and crew member a thank you bonus check. $2.39B = no bonus check btw.
Click to expand...

So to adjust domestic grosses for inflation is fairly simple, and gives you an accurate comparison of tickets sold, since you just have to divide the gross by the average ticket price at the time. Avatar right now is number 17 when adjusted. How do you even do that for worldwide gross, with the differences and fluctuations between currencies now and over the years. Is it even possible? And how does Avatar do in that comparison?
 
Yes, Avatar is 17th in adjusted gross, but it's gotten there in a fairly short time. 9 of the 16 ahead of it had multiple releases. (Not finding fault, just pointing it out for anyone who might to be aware that many of the top adjusted grosses were partially due to the films being released multiple times.)
 
Batutta said:
So to adjust domestic grosses for inflation is fairly simple, and gives you an accurate comparison of tickets sold, since you just have to divide the gross by the average ticket price at the time. Avatar right now is number 17 when adjusted. How do you even do that for worldwide gross, with the differences and fluctuations between currencies now and over the years. Is it even possible? And how does Avatar do in that comparison?
Click to expand...

Foreign sales are converted to US currency within days of the ticket sales so it's always the US numbers they go by but I see what your saying, inflation nunbers could actually go the other way for some of these countries that economies have collapsed. $5 ticket 5 years ago adjusted for inflation could be $2 today making it gross less as time goes by.
 
Courtesy of Bounty over at Stardestroyer.net...


It's a mix of things. Most of it is an adventure movie about how to live on an alien world mixed with some drama, then it turns into an SF action flick for the last 45 minutes.

Think Titanic, except steerage is full of cat people and mecha sink the boat.


I like that.
 
I was reading a Time magazine from December, pre-release, and it was funny to see the writer trying to cast doubt about whether it could live up to the hype A) while desperately trying to pretend to be objective and B) this long after the release.

Also, I was amused by a bit of set graffiti that was mentioned: "Dude, it's Avatar. Nothing works right the first time." :D That wasn't yours, by any chance, Max?
 
My cousin who is an opthalmic surgeon just wrote to thank me for sort-of steering a new patient her way: a lady who noticed that she couldn't perceive the 3D effect while watching Avatar and decided to come in for a checkup as a result...
 
It's been posted... and it was nearly as effective at ruining Avatar for me, as the South Park episode railing Family Guy was at ruining THAT show for me. I can't sit through 3 minutes of FG anymore... and that online review kept me from seeing Avatar in 3D a second time.

I do think he conveniently ignores some simple FACTS about all movies however. He focused too much on the implication that the audience is somehow "tricked" into liking the characters more because of their beauty... which I think is a totally stupid point to harp on in an otherwise good review.

Over a third of his review is about this... and yet he never comes to the conclusion that, since the beginning of the entire history of filmmaking... that almost all movies, good, bad, or otherwise, use hot chicks. To spend so much time on that specific point... and yet ignore the obvious reality of the situation... makes his "slob sounding intelligent" schtick annoying to me.
 
MattinSTL said:
I
I do think he conveniently ignores some simple FACTS about all movies however. He focused too much on the implication that the audience is somehow "tricked" into liking the characters more because of their beauty... which I think is a totally stupid point to harp on in an otherwise good review.

Over a third of his review is about this... and yet he never comes to the conclusion that, since the beginning of the entire history of filmmaking... that almost all movies, good, bad, or otherwise, use hot chicks. To spend so much time on that specific point... and yet ignore the obvious reality of the situation... makes his "slob sounding intelligent" schtick annoying to me.
Click to expand...

True. It's like complaining that chefs "trick us" into liking their food because they know humans love salt and fat...I think when you get into these kind of criticisms you dance on the edge of complaining that a film is too manipulative, ignoring the fact that all art is manipulation. The purpose of any artistic enterprise is making other people see something from your point of view, and filmmaking by its very nature is probably the most manipulative of all forms. You may object to the methods, and that's what this guy is mostly complaining about, but he nearly goes over the edge toward implicating the wrongness of any form of audience manipulation. The most successful artists are the ones who manipulate us the most skillfully, and anyone who is uncomfortable with the whole concept of manipulation probably has no business either watching films or being a filmmaker.
 
Last edited:
So one director's top 2 movies have made $145 million MORE than the top 4 movies he didn't direct.

I think it's safe to say he knows what the audience wants. And you'd have to go down to #19 (Finding Nemo) to find the next movie that's neither a sequel nor based on previous material.
 
re: the review series on youtube - I don't care. I love, love, love this guy's stuff. Didn't spoil Avatar for me, at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top