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

Rottenwatch: AVATAR (82%)

Status
Not open for further replies.
The film was OK, although the smurf sex was too odd for my liking. I saw it in 3d and i swas a bit disapointed. I mean, 3D improves the picture quality significanlty but other 3d films i had seen (this was a fim at the science museum) used the effects much better.
 
syllogism said:
It's still way behind for example Return of the King in # tickets sold. Just trying to keep some perspective here.
Doesn't matter.

Money is money.

People are willing to pay for the 3D/IMAX premium.

Bleepey said:
The film was OK, although the smurf sex was too odd for my liking. I saw it in 3d and i swas a bit disapointed. I mean, 3D improves the picture quality significanlty but other 3d films i had seen (this was a fim at the science museum) used the effects much better.

I've seen enough gimmicky 3D shit in trailers to last me a lifetime. Cameron instead used 3D to add depth and distance to Avatar, and I loved it.
 
Snaku said:
Good lord.

rbw3lh.gif
 
Good. Glad so many people are experiencing this in a theatre. It's not my favorite movie (not in my top 20), but it's one of my favorite "movie experiences" of all time. If that makes sense.
 
ToxicAdam said:
It's not my favorite movie (not in my top 20), but it's one of my favorite "movie experiences" of all time. If that makes sense.

It completely does. Its not even close to my Top 20, but it is THE best theatrical experience Ive ever had.
 
ToxicAdam said:
Good. Glad so many people are experiencing this in a theatre. It's not my favorite movie (not in my top 20), but it's one of my favorite "movie experiences" of all time. If that makes sense.
Yes it does. I don't think it's Cameron's best movie - though I need some more time to let it sink in - but it's one mother of a great theatrical experience.

I think that's what is driving the performance: Cameron has delivered something people really must see in theaters, because the home video experience just won't even be close.

I'm not sure Avatar is going to age as well as Cameron's other movies (until the extended cut hits), but hot damn is it a wonder to behold in 3D.
 
It's like rooting for my favorite team, and it just keeps on winning. This actually made my day. :D

irfan said:
5th January, 2010 = 1B WW.

Or sooner :lol

In an earlier post I bet it'd hit 1B during the next weekend. I still vouch for it!!
 
Solo said:
It completely does. Its not even close to my Top 20, but it is THE best theatrical experience Ive ever had.
Same for me. The overall experience for me was worth the admission (x3 and counting).
 
Sharp said:
You know, they were just showing the third of these (which I'm assuming you're referring to) on ABC tonight, and having finished watching it, I'm going to have to categorically disagree with this statement in nearly every way. And that's not knocking the CG in the POTC movies either.
The CG in At World's End is noticeably inferior than the CG in Dead Man's Chest since I don't believe ILM's A team did the CG in At World's End like in Dead Man's Chest (they were working on Transformers). I was just watching Dead Man's Chest and the CG on Davy Jones's is still more impressive than anything I saw in Avatar. The way they got the weight of his tentacles just right is mindblowing. Then again I'm of the opinion that District 9 had better CG than Avatar, albeit on a much smaller scale. Maybe it was all of the hype that got to me but I just didn't find Avatar to be all that revolutionary. The CG was amazing but it was still in line from what I expected from a $300 million blockbuster. Nothing like watching Jurassic Park or Terminator 2 for the first time.
 
I dont get that ROTK tickets comparison, as per my numbers the difference between the two is 2 million tickets (Avatar - 29M and ROTK - 31M). I dont see how that is way behind .. :lol
 
U K Narayan said:
LOL. Were the ears just a novelty?

I don't see any cues for the motion capture system and from what I know ears and tail were done by animators so I'm guessing it was so the actors would have a more... immersive experience. :lol

Perhaps if they had crowded scenes it would help the other actors know who was supposed to be Na'vi, but there were few scenes with both humans and Na'vi.
 
FirewalkR said:
I don't see any cues for the motion capture system and from what I know ears and tail were done by animators so I'm guessing it was so the actors would have a more... immersive experience. :lol

Perhaps if they had crowded scenes it would help the other actors know who was supposed to be Na'vi, but there were few scenes with both humans and Na'vi.

Maybe to avoid potential clipping issues?
 
Soo, the movie is now completely sold out for the week over here. We were going to get tickets today but word must be spreading fast because now we can't go until next week's tickets become available. Now that is some insane word of mouth.
 
01 Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End $300m
02 Spider-Man 3 $258m
03 Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince $250m
04 Avatar $237m (official)
Avatar was less expensive to make then ALL of these movies.
Imagine that...
 
Jibril said:
Avatar was less expensive to make then ALL of these movies.
Imagine that...

You can also SEE where all the money went in Avatar, as opposed to those other movies. Imagine that. Almost $100M of S-M3 went straight into Maguire, Dunst and Raimi's pockets :lol
 
JasoNsider said:
Soo, the movie is now completely sold out for the week over here. We were going to get tickets today but word must be spreading fast because now we can't go until next week's tickets become available. Now that is some insane word of mouth.


What country do you live in?
 
Jibril said:
Avatar was less expensive to make then ALL of these movies.
Imagine that...

Let's put aside the 400 million spent on R&D and just talk about the production budget.

Solo said:
You can also SEE where all the money went in Avatar, as opposed to those other movies. Imagine that. Almost $100M of S-M3 went straight into Maguire, Dunst and Raimi's pockets :lol

Easily, hopefully even 2012 taught Sony a lesson, they don't need to pay 30 million alone on a piece of shit like Tobey.
 
Solo said:
You can also SEE where all the money went in Avatar, as opposed to those other movies. Imagine that. Almost $100M of S-M3 went straight into Maguire, Dunst and Raimi's pockets :lol

So true. I'm just laughing at this whole matter right now.

:lol
 
Anyone else thinking about buying a brand spanking new TV just for the Blu-ray release? I got a 50" Bravia back in October for Uncharted 2 and I'm already thinking of upgrading. :lol
 
WrikaWrek said:
Let's put aside the 400 million spent on R&D and just talk about the production budget.
Part of the R&D is included in that budget. They're basically amortizing the R&D across a couple different movies, which does push the budget for Avatar down a bit.

Solo said:
You can also SEE where all the money went in Avatar, as opposed to those other movies. Imagine that. Almost $100M of S-M3 went straight into Maguire, Dunst and Raimi's pockets :lol
As Ebert said, "There is still at least one man in Hollywood who knows how to spend $250 million, or was it $300 million, wisely."

We really have entered the "just totally bonkers" phase of Avatar's run.
 
GhaleonEB said:
Part of the R&D is included in that budget, as it's being amortized across several movies.

Look, the official budget is never the full budget. When insiders are telling us that Spiderman 3 cost almost 300 million, pirates the same, and that Avatar is the most expensive movie ever at 400 million, i believe those people. Because they get those numbers from producers, when the "official" budgets are given out by the Studio execs that divide and cut stuff from the production budget.

In the end fact is, the movie cost that much. Pretending this massive undertaking was lighter on the feet than previous movies is pretty much bs.

I do agree about the whole problem with actors pay, but that's changing anyway. Will Smith is the only one that will keep his pay day as it is, guaranteed.
 
WrikaWrek said:
Look, the official budget is never the full budget. When insiders are telling us that Spiderman 3 cost almost 300 million, pirates the same, and that Avatar is the most expensive movie ever at 400 million, i believe those people. Because they get those numbers from producers, when the "official" budgets are given out by the Studio execs that divide and cut stuff from the production budget.
Look, I know that, and was amplifying and clarifying your post not countering it. I have refined my post a bit to be more clear. I understand how studio budgets are reported, and Avatar in particular.
 
GhaleonEB said:
Look, I know that, and was amplifying and clarifying your post not countering it.

Look, I made an edit to refine my post further.

Look, I'm not six years old and do actually understand how budgets are reported.



No need to get upset. It's not like i know what you know, take it easy.
 
TacticalFox88 said:
Anyone else thinking about buying a brand spanking new TV just for the Blu-ray release? I got a 50" Bravia back in October for Uncharted 2 and I'm already thinking of upgrading. :lol


Yep me. I'm going to look for a 1080p 120 hz 42" TV next year just for the 3D Bluray movie.
 
Jibril said:
Got the Artbook for AVATAR today. I'm perplexed at the sheer beauty of this.


Still deciding wether to buy this or not. Most complaints come from it being a relative thin artbook. Which given the scale of Avatar and how long it was in production, the amount of work in realizing this universe i can understand.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom