*** Official AVATAR Discussion Thread - Page 18

Actually, Titanic was released one day later (Dec. 19th, vs. Avatar's Dec. 18th).  Both Titanic and Avatar have benefitted from timely holiday weekends, and a lack of substantial competition (January/February are notoriously bad months for movies)

Yes, when using the actual adjusted for inflation numbers (for domestic only, as international inflation is very hard to factor in), Avatar is currently "only" ranked number 26. See table here.  That is adjusted to current (2010 ticket prices) where Titanic's domestic gross (adjusted) stands at $943 million.

Even this, however, is deceptive, as Avatar has the advantage of higher-priced premium "3-D" ticket sales that Titanic didn't have.  The actual number of sold tickets is a better comparison, and from what I understand, firm numbers on this statistic are not available (BoxOfficeMojo has a "Est. Tickets" selection, but that doesnt' work correctly when 3D and Imax3D are considered).

My best guess is that Avatar will surpass $600 million next week, or no later than next weekend.  I'm thinking it will wind up somewhere around $700 million, depending on what kind of bump it gets around the Oscars.  It could very well be the first movie to gross $700 million domestic.  Even that, when adjusted for inflation will only put it around #20 all-time.

Finally, to your comment about giving any director this kind of money and getting similar results - I beg to differ.  James Cameron is a completely different "animal" when it comes to making movies.  He has pushed the envelope farther in this one film than any director ever has, the lone exception that comes to mind would be George Lucas when he made the first Star Wars.  Cameron has devoted 12 years to bringing this to the screen - that included time to actually DEVELOP and PATENT the equipment and technology used to make the movie.  How many other top directors would devote that much time to a project?  Now, I personally am biased, since I have thoroughly enjoyed every one of Cameron's movies (Piranha 2 the lone exception, as I have yet to see it), but I can't think of another director who, to me, has a 100% success rate.

Edited to reflect a corrected link.

Oh, one more thing to remember when looking at the all-time domestic adjusted tables.  Notice how many movies ahead of Avatar (including Gone With the Wind and Star Wars) have enjoyed multiple theatrical releases (denoted by the caret ^ next to the release date).  15 of the 25 movies have had multiple releases that pad their numbers further.

No, Avatar has no chance of taking the top spot, but it's astonishing what it's done in just over 6 weeks.

Is that all it takes? Really? Wow I can't wait to see the string of $2billion hits coming out each year. Apparently it is easy as pie. Who knew they were doing it wrong all these years.

GWTW is a good example, box office ticket king and all. Of course it only made $20m (from an EW article) during its first run, but no one wants to mention that.

A view? Sure. Your argument is self-refuting.

Avatar is a phenomenon that has, in a very short time firmly anchored itself so deeply in the world's cultural landscape that it's unlikely to be dislodged from there within the lifetime of anyone currently reading this thread. That isn't something that can be engineered by sheer corporate will power. If they could do it, they would.

You can always tell when something like Avatar has achieved its status as a cultural icon, because attention seekers go running up to it, kick it, then turn around and say, "Look at me!" Except that, when you look, all you really see is the behemoth they kicked looming behind them: not a scratch on it and not budging a millimeter.
Edited by Michael Reuben - 1/27/10 at 1:47pm

I'm not miffed by Avatar's success at all. It's pretty simple really. The film is basically about a big evil corporation picking on the little guys. What's been happening in the world lately? Lots of people laid off by their employers, a lot of which can be characterized as "big evil corporations". Even if you weren't laid off, you know someone who has been "screwed" and it makes you angry. The fact that it creates this quasi-utopia that people want to escape to, and its 3D is really tech cool in an age where everyone is a gadget geek just sweeten the deal.

Is the film great storytelling? I don't think so. Is it incredibly relevant to our times? I think it is.

I just saw it.  Great effects, although the night time scenes felt like a 1970's dorm room under black light.  Too much glowy stuff.  He certainly likes his Abyss style creatures.  Story was derivative.

I think the success is due to group think. 

I did enjoy the 3D and I'm glad I saw it in the theater.  And that I contributed to the overall gross - lol.

Thats a bit much!! Look Im not a fan of the film but Im not going to stand here and say its not been impressive to see how well the film has done. But to claim this is some sort of cultural phenomenon is a bit OTT. Its a film thats made a lot of money - thats it! I doubt it will be regarded as anything more than that and its use of 3D. What has surprised me even more is how low key this rise to the top of the box office has been - this is a typical big budget film that has earned its money in a similar way to most good Hollywood blockbusters like The Dark Knight - low percentage drops but has 2 key things going for it - the 3D effect which has never been utilised or presented in such an effective way regardless of previous films released and which people are going back for (and paying higher ticket prices for) and a very derivative story which for some reason most seem willing to forgive where they normally wouldn't. I put that down to Cameron's skill as a director as well as the wow factor of the 3D - again this down to Cameron's skill too. It will become to be regarded as a milestone in 3D films in the same way Terminator 2 and Jurassic Park were milestones in CGI and will hold the boxoffice crown for a while but like Titanic it will be beaten eventually.

Casablanca, Gone With The Wind, The Godfather, Star Wars, Titanic - they are what I perceive as cultural phenomenons. I dont see masses of people out buying the soundtrack, making of books, (quick check of Amazon top books and music) media coverage of Sam and Zoe. Its bizarre to see really this low key rise to the top. I remember when Titanic came out - everyone wanted to see it and told their friends about it. Over and over. Holding the box office crown for the number of weeks and in many cases with virtually no percentage drop like Titanic did - thats a phenomenon. People came out enthusing about the sinking and the effects, but more importantly about the characters of Jack and Rose to - they responded to them (and that I put down to DiCaprio and Winslet's acting skills). Very few are doing that about Jake and Neytiri (and i did not say no=one and its largely Zoe Saldana who rightly gets credit here). Nearly everyone who I know who sees it says great effects, beautiful film, then...it was ok.

Well done to Cameron and he is certainly a gifted director. This is the first of his major films I have not been particularly fond of. I will be looking forward to his next film and hoping he gets someone else to write the screenplay or better leading man to deliver his story.

That is sincerely the best thing I have read all week! Thanks, Michael :)

The Titanic part of this comment makes it sound like it was just an easy jaunt to having TITANIC's box office records fall. It took 12 years for a film to finally beat TITANIC's total worldwide and domestic box office records. You make it sound like AVATAR's record will be short lived. I expect that it will hold on to the #1 all time earner for a long time to come.

On another note, today I just found out that the local theatre, in a town of 10,000 people, actually has digital 3D projection, unlike the pathetic multiplex in my hometown of 75, 000. Luckily, the town is only about 100 kilometers South of where I live. So, it appears that Avatar is about to add another 12.00 bucks to its already swollen gross as I intend to go there this weekend and see just what I missed by watching it in 2D. 

 It's hard to know what will come in the future. 

Titanic probably would not have been beat if it wasn't for the premium 3D ticket pricing, but the advent of 3D + higher ticket prices could lead to some records falling the next few years. Effectively you can sell fewer tickets and still end up with a higher gross. 

The next Spider-Man, Transformers, Star Trek, and Hobbit will probably be shot for 3D if the studios get their way. I get the feeling Lucas may also renege on his "no more Star Wars movies after Episode III" mantra as well. 

Until 3DTVs become commonplace in the average home (and I don't think that will be for a while) at least these "blockbuster" type movies may for the next 2-3 years find not so much more attendance but greater repeat attendance, until the "wowness" of 3D wears off some. 

But I think effectively perhaps what might be happening is a reset of viewing habits for big blockbuster movies more akin to where it was in the mid-1990s, where you'd go see a Jurassic Park 2 or 3 times just for the wow factor. 
Edited by Pete-D - 1/27/10 at 8:40pm

All it would need to sell is 80.5 million tickets at today's prices (non3D) to beat Titanic's domestic. It will pass that as it is already at an estimated 75m and predicted to get to 85m. The 3D prices pad the numbers for sure, but they don't diminish the results.

That wasnt my intent. Different circumstances. lower ticket prices and the way in which the money rolled in for Titanic over several months make Titanic's rise to the top much more impressive but yes I do think Avatar's record is less so and will last less time than Titanic's. Half of the films that have made over $400 came out in the last 10 years. In Titanic's time, breaking $400 million was almost unheard of let alone $600 million. We have had 3 in the last 2 years, one of which to put it mildy is a terrible film. Once Dark Knight came out and set a new standard for a summer film I think Titanic's displacement from the top was always gong to be on the cards in the next few years.

Well, I think that the present box office bonanza is due mostly to the present economic climate. Economically and psychologically people have been battered over the last two years. Right now. real world conditions are depressing and I think that is contributing to a lot of the money-making that is going on in cinema at present. People just want to escape the continual bad news for a few hours and movies are still one of the cheapest ways to do that. I think the need for some kind of escape valve can explain why even a torturously bad movie like Transformers 2: ROTF can be such a huge money maker. Right now, a lot of people can no longer afford the expensive vacations that they normally would have used to shut out the crapfest that is the world, so movies have suddenly been rediscovered as a relatively cheap substitute. The movie's bad? So what. Even at its worst it is nowhere near as bad as the economic, political, and personal troubles that people face for most of their day. Even watching a bad movie could be considered some sort of relief for a few short hours.
 

Now, along comes AVATAR. AVATAR has one big thing going for it: its simplicity. Avatar at its core is a very simple story. It's white hats versus the black hats. It's good against bad with good people, living simple and uncomplicated lives, standing up to an immoral and greedy corporation (Fill in your favorite hated bank here). And, unlike real life, where greedy, immoral corporations are the winners, the people win and send the corporation packing. Professional critics have criticized the film as simplistic, like that is a weakness; however, now I realize that Avatar's simplicity is actually its strength. The simplicity and directness of the themes in the film are what have struck a chord with a lot of people. Cameron's flick for a few hours speaks to people's desire to somehow go back to living a simpler existence, even though deep down they know that living that "simple existence" isn't really that simple at all; however, for 3 hours a person can believe that sleeping in a tree and "communing" with a hostile, natural world is not only simple but actually desirable.

I, personally, do not think this film is going to be beat box office-wise for a long time to come because Cameron inadvertently created a film that, by some sort of serendipity, arrived on the scene at precisely the moment when people needed its simplicity the most. And by "simplicity", I don't mean simplistic which is a term that is more fitting for Bay's Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen than for Cameron's Avatar. 
Edited by Edwin-S - 1/28/10 at 5:16pm

1) I agree regarding the story of Avatar.  I made this argument years ago about Titanic's script.  It is intentionally straightforward and boilerplate.  Cameron's gift is in the telling of the story, the construction of the narrative, not the tale itself.  So he chooses traditionally resonant stories.

2) I think Avatar has a lot more than one big thing going for it.  The immersion of 3-D, the beautiful visuals, and his incredible direction all enhance the story, making it feel both real and new.

Titanic's script is well-constructed: start in the present. Explain that -- SPOILER! -- the ship is going to sink, and how. Then sink it. Intercut with the present in a few strategic places. Doing it all linearly in the past would have been more obvious, but probably inferior.

Question on the DVD ratio.

IIUC (and please correct me if I am wrong), the film was shot in 1.85:1, which is the IMAX presentation ratio.  For the standard theater presentation, the film was vertically cropped to 2.40:1.

For DVD, I would think that the IMAX ratio of 1.85:1 would be best use of the HDTV format:  all the screen area is in use, and all the available source material is presented.  Or would black bars on the top/bottom allow a lower compression for the film material if 2.40:1 is used?

Opinions?

jdg

most tv have overscan so you won't see black bars with a 1.85 HDTV.. however if you can unscale the HDTV.. then you will get black bars around it.. very thin, but never the less some.
something that I learned when I got my new HDTV last year.

Jacob

Cameron has stated that he prefers the 1.85 for 3D but 2.35 for 2D.  The IMAX theaters are showing it in 1.85, but the RealD theaters are using 2.35.

The movie was shot in Super35, not IMAX.  Neither stock is 1.85 (typical IMAX films are projected at shot at 1.33, like documentaries and such).

I suspect the 2D release will be 2.35, and the 3D Bluray will likely be 1.85.

The 2 IMAX theaters I saw AVATAR in were showing it  at about 1.66 definitely not 1.85

Also the IMAX screen has a ratio of 1.44:1 which is how true IMAX films are shot and projected, not 1.33.

Actually, I think Cameron referred to 1.78, not 1.85 for 3D.   As for the rest -- close but no cigar?  I've been wronger.

Me too. Still seemed like 1.66 though. Anyone know for sure?

RealD depends on the theater you go to. One could have 2.35, another could be 1.78 and they both worked well visually in 3D.

DVD to be released BEFORE June 30


http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i9ee4b481143e87d79516ecde091df129

But won't be 3D...  no mention at all of Bluray.

i dont think people will want 3-D on DVD. just another reason to upgrade to Blu-Ray already.

I'm looking forward to seeing it on BD in 2d, have not seen in 2d yet.

Rupert Murdoch was had this to say this AM about the 3D release in the Hollywood Reporter:


Its safe to say that he meant Blu-ray not DVD since there is no pending 3D DVD standard.

I just watched Larry King's show from last night when the entire hour was devoted to Avatar.  Cameron, a couple technical persons, Sigourney Weaver and Stephen Lang (both remotely), Joel Moore, MIchelle Rodriguez appeared.  I didn't really learn much new from the hour.  There was some footage of Zoe Saldana performing while the finished footage was displayed along side.

Sam Worthington was supposed to be there but was stuck somewhere without a cell phone.  It sounded like he doesn't want a phone.  Cameron mentioned that when he was cast, Sam was living in his car.  I guess he did Avatar before Terminator.

Cameron mentioned there is about 8 minutes of finished footage not in the movie.  He didn't commit to a sequel but it's a possibility.  They also had a still image of King as a Navi.  Cameron joked that it gave him ideas for a whole new direction for a sequel.

Cameron recommended Worthington to McG for Terminator Salvation, which he shot while still making Avatar. Zoe Saldana  made Star Trek while doing this at the same time as well.


It was a good program.

Yep, I saw it twice in RealD and both times it was 1.78 (or perhaps 1.85).  Definitely not 2.35.

I'd prefer it opened to 1.78 for the Blu-ray/DVD, whether 2D or 3D. I want it to show as much of the lush Pandora landscape as possible! 

Sorry if this was already discussed but there are too many pages to go though in this thread but has anyone noticed that the IMAX 3D version is missing some subtitles?  I watched it the first time in IMAX when it was first released.  Then watched it in 2D once, Real D 3D twice, and just today, Imax again.  This time I noticed there were no subtitles when the military aircraft took down the tree.  In Real D 3 D and in 2D, I definitely remember Eytukan ordering Tsu'tey to go up the tree and take the Ikran and strike from above.  There were other subtitles such as telling everyone to stand their ground or something like that but was missing in Imax.

Or were there ever subtitles in the first place and I've learned enough Na'vi that I can understand it without subtitles now?