• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Rottenwatch: AVATAR (82%)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Prestige is a smart movie. Avatar is a live action Disney cartoon. That doesn't mean Avatar is not awesome, but there's no reason to put it in a category it doesn't need to be in.
 
DanielPlainview said:
also when is it estimated that Avatar will pass $402 million domestically? Just doing some data calculation..

Should be there by Thursday, unless there's a heavier drop off starting from Monday.
 
DanielPlainview said:
I love Avatar and one of it's biggest supporters, but it isn't a "smart" movie.
Ok let me rearrange my wording. Avatar is by all means a sci-fi movie that *should* only appeal to a niche amount of people. But America has proved in spades that everyone's a nerd at heart.
 
DanielPlainview said:
also when is it estimated that Avatar will pass $402 million domestically? Just doing some data calculation..

Possibly next weekend.

By next weekend, Cameron's comeback will hit the $400 million mark and by next Sunday, it should pass Michael Bay's Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen to become the highest-grossing movie of 2009, as well as breaking into the Top 10 highest-grossing movies (domestically) of all time.

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=62053
 
DanielPlainview said:
also when is it estimated that Avatar will pass $402 million domestically? Just doing some data calculation..


Well, it's in the 350's now.. so next weekend at some point.
 
Cameron initially wanted to make the Na'vi green. But he knew he'd be seeing 1 billion pieces of green in the near future so there was no point in rubbing it in.
 
TacticalFox88 said:
Ok let me rearrange my wording. Avatar is by all means a sci-fi movie that *should* only appeal to a niche amount of people. But America has proved in spades that everyone's a nerd at heart.

Why would you say that? The only barrier Avatar ever had, was that the Navi designs were a real turn off in all promotional material and trailers. They looked stupid and dumb. Outside of that, everything in the story screamed BIG ADVENTURE FOR THE WHOLE FAMILY. I was a huge doubter of the commercial aspects of the movie because of the marketing of the film and the designs, but never once did I question the potential appeal of the actual scenario. It's a big action adventure on a lush alien world, it's PG-13, and it's by a master action filmmaker. How is that niche?
 
thanks! just checking my facts. Going to write up a post of all the heavy ownage...any more facts you guys want me to throw in there? So far this is what I have:
  • Avatar made an estimated $68.3 million at the domestic BO in it's third weekend, crushing the previous record of $45 million set by Spider-Man 3.
  • James Cameron will hold the #1 and #2 spots at the worldwide box office by the end of the week.
  • irfan over at the NeoGAF forums also did some compiling in terms of how long it took the top 5 grossers to hit the $1 billion mark. This is what he found:

    1. Titanic took 11 weeks (final: $1.84 billion)
    2. LOTR: Return of the King took 10 weeks (final: $1.12 billion)
    3. Pirates of the Caribean: Dead Man's Chest took 10 weeks (final: $1.07 billion)
    4. Avatar took 17 days (current total: $1.02 billion)
    5. The Dark Knight only hit it with the small Janurary re-release, making just a hair over $1 billion.
  • The #1 2009 domestic grosser (so far) Transformers Revenge of the Fallen took 114 days to hit $402 million. Avatar will surpass that by next weekend (21 days).

Anything else?
 
If Avatar makes a bit more money Cameron will have ww nr 1 and 2. That´s okay, but:

He´ll also be the director that has a combined ww gross of 3 BILLION dollars for 2 movies.

And if Avatar makes even more than Titanic he´ll be close to 4 billions.

headexplodes.gif
 
TacticalFox88 said:
Ok let me rearrange my wording. Avatar is by all means a sci-fi movie that *should* only appeal to a niche amount of people. But America has proved in spades that everyone's a nerd at heart.
You're reading waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much into it.
Avatar, for better or worse, is a movie in the age old Hollywood tradition of the FX epic, and the successful entries in this genre were always box office hits, there is nothing niche about it.
As for the "smarts" of this movie, that's a whole different discussion, but I think the movie's success is mostly attributed to its visuals.
 
duckroll said:
Why would you say that? The only barrier Avatar ever had, was that the Navi designs were a real turn off in all promotional material and trailers. They looked stupid and dumb. Outside of that, everything in the story screamed BIG ADVENTURE FOR THE WHOLE FAMILY. I was a huge doubter of the commercial aspects of the movie because of the marketing of the film and the designs, but never once did I question the potential appeal of the actual scenario. It's a big action adventure on a lush alien world, it's PG-13, and it's by a master action filmmaker. How is that niche?
I can see where your coming from, I just thought because of the genre itself it shouldn't have done so well. But then again, I'm didn't think the film would go pass 600 WW so I guess my crow is served.
 
DanielPlainview said:
I love Avatar and one of it's biggest supporters, but it isn't a "smart" movie.

More than anything, it's a very smart world design. If you read the scriptment, you see that everything in the world makes sense, all the "scientific" detail is very well thought out, BUT it all revolves around the Treeroot network/mind Eywa. In trying to simplify that, and hide it a bit for the sequels, some things were introduced that don't make much sense. For instance, when Jake goes to visit all the clans (btw did they transport the Avatar module/emiter around or did he visit only nearby clans?), why do it when they can communicate through the network (as they did in the script). When Ney'tiri found Jake and took him to the village, in the script the rest of the village already knew about it in the scriptment version. You can argue that they also knew there was a stranger coming in the movie but it's not so explicit. It's as if on simplifying things, possibly to make them part of a greater whole for the sequels, there was some loss of consistency. There are other things... but the gist of it is, when I read the scriptment I kept thinking how well put together everything was. The plot was still simple, and there was little character development, but everything made complete sense. The movie loses some of it. I'd not describe it anywhere near "dumb" anyway. It's still light-years beyond crap like Transformers 2.

I also read someone's post mentioning that the guys in the horses were completely decimated. That's not so in the scriptment. They don't just charge. They run away when needed and ambush the AMP suits and even low-flying jocks in the Scorpions. They have their small victories even if they're losing before Eywa responds. It's not a massacre like in the movie.

Still, we all know Cameron was a relatively unknown filmmaker, a budding youngster, before he made Avatar. I firmly believe, however, that with the added clout this movie will grant him he'll now have the studio kneeling before him. He'll be able to ask for whatever resources, time, money he wishes, and will do better next time. I, for one, expect great things of him. ;)
 
TacticalFox88 said:
I can see where your coming from, I just thought because of the genre itself it shouldn't have done so well. But then again, I'm didn't think the film would go pass 600 WW so I guess my crow is served.

Well, as far as genre limitations go, I would say Avatar has a lot more in common with Star Wars, than it does with actual sci-fi genre films like Star Trek. It's definitely closer to "space fantasy", and I think that works better in its favor.
 
ryutaro's mama said:
I like how Cameron walks away from Hollywood for 12 years and during that time, no one really challenges Titantic's position.

In 12 years.

He comes back and rings up a cool billion in his first movie back.

In just 17 days--the same amount of time it would have taken for the Space Marines to be declared missing.

Jimmy was sending us code back in 1986.
:lol

I really think the high prices are pushing the revenue for this movie in ways no other movie had a chance to prior. Not to mention natural ticket price progression. Box Office Mojo is showing Titanic's year was at 4.69. While it is 7.19 for this year. Add on the 3$ surplus charge for 3D, and the inclusion of Imax Theaters which really didn't have much of a presence till recently outside of Museums and such. Fair chance Avatar's average ticket price is over 10$ Well over 100% higher. For sheer volume pushed, I don't think it is nearly as impressive as Titanic.

But damn is it not going to smash everything else in it's way. It shows that Cameron is probably the best still at bringing in people. Making a movie generic enough not to turn off people while still being good enough to draw in such a wide variety of people constantly.
 
Daniel, Avatar broke the 2nd and 3rd weekend records too, the 3rd weekend record by a margin of 51%. :D If any movie that needs to break this 3rd weekend record with normal drops of 40% then it needs an opening weekend of almost 200M. :lol
 
Vic said:
I wish you guys would stop saying this.

-He took a break after making a $1.8B box-office success;
-He apparently took a break to wait & see the CGI technological advancements for his next features films (Avatar and Battle Angel, not sure about that on though);
-He keep shooting stuff (documentaries), participate in audio-visual projects (with the NASA). Developed the 3D tech used with Avatar with his deep ocean documentaries.


This is not what I call a break from movie making.

Dude there are TWELVE YEAR OLDS who had no idea who James Cameron was. The kids are almost old enough to watch the movie. 12 years is a really long time. Also the non-franchise IS a good point.
 
shintoki said:
:lol

I really think the high prices are pushing the revenue for this movie in ways no other movie had a chance to prior. Not to mention natural ticket price progression. Box Office Mojo is showing Titanic's year was at 4.69. While it is 7.19 for this year. Add on the 3$ surplus charge for 3D, and the inclusion of Imax Theaters which really didn't have much of a presence till recently outside of Museums and such. Fair chance Avatar's average ticket price is over 10$ Well over 100% higher. For sheer volume pushed, I don't think it is nearly as impressive as Titanic.

Oh please, if we go by that logic then Gone With the Wind is #1, not Titanic.
Also, there are FEWER 3D theaters than 2D ones and the movie is meant to be seen in 3D.

When Titanic broke the record, people were blaming inflation too.
 
Speevy said:
So how do you reckon that works out for a movie that it almost entirely about visual spectacle?

I disagree with you that Avatar is almost entirely about visual spectacle. It's a journey with a strong emotional aspect based on a clear core theme. It's inspiring. I've seen it twice and I'm looking forward to seeing it again soon.

Again, I like TDK a lot, but it's hard for me to revisit because the characters are so flat.
 
Avatar is not a smart movie at all, but it was very good.

And yeah, that the movie is already over $1 billion worldwide and will be the 2nd highest grossing movie of all time next week is amazing. I didn't think I'd be saying it, but at this point Titanic may be within reach worldwide. The overseas weekend totals have been massive. $133 million is this weekend's estimate, but the initial estimates were revised upward the last two weekends. As for the North American market, it'll definitely see a major drop next weekend, but the NA release schedule is fairly dry until the 15th. We'll see what this little movie can do.

As a sci-fi nerd, I'm just happy to see it doing so well.

Oh and if we're going to start talking about prices adjusted for inflation, yeah, Titanic is at #6 in North America. So what's the point in even going there?
 
DanielPlainview said:
thanks! just checking my facts. Going to write up a post of all the heavy ownage...any more facts you guys want me to throw in there? So far this is what I have:
  • Avatar made an estimated $68.3 million at the domestic BO in it's third weekend, crushing the previous record of $45 million set by Spider-Man 3.
  • James Cameron will hold the #1 and #2 spots at the worldwide box office by the end of the week.
  • irfan over at the NeoGAF forums also did some compiling in terms of how long it took the top 5 grossers to hit the $1 billion mark. This is what he found:

    1. Titanic took 11 weeks (final: $1.84 billion)
    2. LOTR: Return of the King took 10 weeks (final: $1.12 billion)
    3. Pirates of the Caribean: Dead Man's Chest took 10 weeks (final: $1.07 billion)
    4. Avatar took 17 days (current total: $1.02 billion)
    5. The Dark Knight only hit it with the small Janurary re-release, making just a hair over $1 billion.
  • The #1 2009 domestic grosser (so far) Transformers Revenge of the Fallen took 114 days to hit $402 million. Avatar will surpass that by next weekend (21 days).

Anything else?
Avatar's 3rd weekend is $28m larger than the all-time record January opening weekend.

It's also the largest 3rd weekend ever, by $23m.

At this point it's not just breaking records, it's breaking them by just absurd margins.
 
TacticalFox88 said:
A science fiction movie that has no ties to any existing franchise at all, made by a man that hasn't made a film in 12 years just made $1 billion worldwide....this is not normal. But man is the crow so sweet. Phoenix has got to be crying now.

I do wonder how much of this is will be a self-propagating myth now. The fact that his last film was Titanic still means a lot (I don't think his absence took anything away from that and I don't think young kids were the ones that drove the boxoffice) and now that Avatar has done so well, his next film might automatically become an 'event' film.

I am skeptical about it being the 'savior' of cinema though and a bit worried about what studios would take away from this.
 
koam said:
Oh please, if we go by that logic then Gone With the Wind is #1, not Titanic.
And we would be (mostly) right.
Compare these two lists -

  1. Gone with the Wind
  2. Star Wars
  3. The Sound of Music
  4. E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial
  5. The Ten Commandments
  6. Titanic
  7. Jaws
  8. Doctor Zhivago
  9. The Exorcist
  10. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs

  1. Titanic
  2. The Dark Knight
  3. Star Wars
  4. Shrek 2
  5. E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial
  6. Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace
  7. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
  8. Spider-Man
  9. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
  10. Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith

Do you really find the second list better?
And I'm not talking about which list have better movies, but what list better represents the biggest blockbusters in history.

(mind you, this is only adjusted for inflation and ticket price, not population growth).
 
Timbuktu said:
I am skeptical about it being the 'savior' of cinema though and a bit worried about what studios would take away from this.

The only thing studios need to take away from this is that is it a smart move to give Cameron a blank check. That'll be enough to save cinema for another decade at least.
 
DanielPlainview said:
some people are saying 17, some saying 19 and some saying it took 21 days to hit $1 billion. Which is it?
Seventeen. BTW, this weekend gross is pretty ridiculous, I was expecting $60m, not $70m. I'll wait until the Monday drop to say anything for sure, but Titanic may be in sight after all.
 
Chichikov said:
And we would be (mostly) right.
Compare these two lists -

(list 1 and list 2)

Do you really find the second list better?
And I'm not talking about which list have better movies, but what list better represents the biggest blockbusters in history.

(mind you, this is only adjusted for inflation and ticket price, not population growth).
I know, the first list is better however, people are comparing Avatar's numbers to Titanic being on top which is list #2. If you're going to compare it to list #2, then you don't bitch about inflated prices.
P.S How do you get to the list of all time best with price adjusted worldwide?
 
Smaller paycheck, then points on the gross.

Meaning he's literally buying women to wipe his ass with $100 bills.
 
Chichikov said:
And we would be (mostly) right.
Compare these two lists -

  1. Gone with the Wind
  2. Star Wars
  3. The Sound of Music
  4. E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial
  5. The Ten Commandments
  6. Titanic
  7. Jaws
  8. Doctor Zhivago
  9. The Exorcist
  10. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs

  1. Titanic
  2. The Dark Knight
  3. Star Wars
  4. Shrek 2
  5. E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial
  6. Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace
  7. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
  8. Spider-Man
  9. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
  10. Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith

Do you really find the second list better?
And I'm not talking about which list have better movies, but what list better represents the biggest blockbusters in history.

(mind you, this is only adjusted for inflation and ticket price, not population growth).

And yet most of the older movies didn't have cable TV, home video and video games to compete against. Several of those movies didn't even have TV to compete against.. or as many movies releasing.
 
shintoki said:
I wonder how much money is Cameron making from this? Is it a pay check or a %, a deal like the Hangover Director got.

I don't think Cameron cares about how much he is making from this as much as he cares about how much more money he will be able to get to make his next movie. He's already a very wealthy man, so he could probably afford to make movies for free for the rest of his life as long as he gets the insane budget from Fox to do whatever he wants to do.
 
duckroll said:
I don't think Cameron cares about how much he is making from this as much as he cares about how much more money he will be able to get to make his next movie. He's already a very wealthy man, so he could probably afford to make movies for free for the rest of his life as long as he gets the insane budget from Fox to do whatever he wants to do.

Which I think we can assume will happen. Blank checks all around!
 
Vic said:
Cameron to be the first director to be given a $1B dollars budget for a movie?

Stay tuned!
Why the HELL would you need a 1B dollar budget? Shit, I couldn't think of anything that would cost that much. Or even a reason why.
 
TacticalFox88 said:
Why the HELL would you need a 1B dollar budget? Shit, I couldn't think of anything that would cost that much. Or even a reason why.

Why rely on CG effects to create alien worlds, when you can use genetic engineering to MAKE an alien world in a huge sound stage floating in space! :o
 
UnluckyKate said:
Just go and shoot the movie on the Moon.

If he wanted to make a movie about the moon, I'm sure he can afford to do that now. If he wants to film an alien world with life though, filming on the moon probably isn't going to get the results he wants...
 
cool, here is the write-up if you guys want all the facts in one place: ‘Avatar’ Crosses $1 Billion, Becomes 4th Highest Grossing Film of All-Time…in 17 Days

I also included some freaking awesome photos taken on the worldwide tour via LIFE:

Avatar_4.jpg


Avatar_5.jpg


avatar_6.jpg


avatar_9-590x435.jpg


so cool!
 
StoOgE said:
And yet most of the older movies didn't have cable TV, home video and video games to compete against. Several of those movies didn't even have TV to compete against.. or as many movies releasing.
Neither list is perfect, you're obviously not doing a totally fair comparisons either way.
But come on now, look at these lists, do you really doubt that as far as historical significance (and really now, unless you're a shareholder, what other reasons do you have to look at such lists?), adjusting for ticket price is the way to go.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom