Sirpopopop
Member
Enosh said:
You know I was referring to quality with my comment. And, if you are going to argue that they are of comparable quality, go right ahead.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Rottenwatch: AVATAR (82%)
- Thread starter SCULLIBUNDO
- Start date
- Status
You know I was referring to quality with my comment. And, if you are going to argue that they are of comparable quality, go right ahead.
BruceLeeRoy said:
Being completely naive about special effects technology, could you explain this to me further? I have read before that this movie did things that no one could even attempt to mimick, but I just didn't really know what exactly is so groundbreaking. Is it the 3D? Or the CG characters?
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Vomiaouaf said:
WTF?! How is this movie making so much money? :lol
GhaleonEB said:
In terms of allowing a director to put together entire worlds? Sure. I think there's a lot of over-exaggeration here about how groundbreaking Avatar is for narratives. It isn't at all. It's groundbreaking in special effects and in visual realization, sure. I'm simply pointing out that even before the era of CG, directors who want to create entire alien worlds to tell their stories could do it. Surely, you don't disagree on this point.
BruceLeeRoy said:
I don't think that's really true, I think the characters and the story were still subservient to the spectacle. It's just that Cameron did it much better and made it less obvious. Yes, Bay did it in a way where we don't care for anything and the robot fighting itself becomes a mess of CG junk.
I'm not sure if that is not true before, it just shows that it still take a lot of money to do it. Avatar took the best that we had and took it to another level, but arguably it is still continuing the trajectory we were on before and Cameron just jumped the curve a little. The technology is still only going to be in there for a handful of directors for the few tentpole films though and the mo-cap tech is only going to affect a few films.
The legacy is probably more about the boxoffice and audience expectation. Maybe you can't just put out Transformers 3 after this. I just hope that the studio don't take this to mean that you need a pared down story in order to do any business and be ambitious with the cinematic experience.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
GhaleonEB said:
Yeah why is this so hard to believe? I think it's a good point.
So I was bored and crunched some numbers to see whether the claims that Avatar could beat Titanic had any merit, and realized that in order to do so it would have to have a multiplier of at least 7.80 from its opening weekend--that is, its opening weekend take of 77+ million would have to be at most 12.82% of its final gross. Now, look. I know that Avatar is capturing the zeitgeist like no other movie of 2009. I know that its word of mouth is insane, as both personal experience and all available hard data have continuously confirmed. I know that its innovative use of 3D and state-of-the-art CG are driving people to theaters and making piracy and home theater entertainment systems something of a moot point, and I understand that the limited number of 3D and iMAX screens is creating an artificial bottleneck that appears to be dramatically extending its legs beyond what blockbusters traditionally do these days. I also understand that it is precisely these limited screens that are charging a premium, so that even if 2D ticket sales drop precipitously they won't affect the weekly gross to the same degree that they did for previous event movies. I realize that it was not a sequel and therefore was not as frontloaded as a lot of blockbusters. I realize that the first weekend was hurt by a snowstorm, which may further extend its legs. I realize that Christmas can give an already-leggy movie wings. And yes, I know you never bet against James fucking Cameron.
But even with all this going for it, I really, really doubt it's going to beat Titanic. Though it pains me to do this as a mathematician, I will attempt to explain this through proof by example. Here are some films with great legs, incredible grosses, or both that did not get to the 7.8 multiplier Avatar needs to beat Titanic (sorted by multiplier from lowest to highest; the three numbers in italics are Approximate Opening Weekend in millions / Approximate Total Gross in millions / Approximate Multiplier; all data are taken from Box Office Mojo):
That's not to say it's impossible to get to a 7.80 multiplier while opening to more than $20 million. Here are some movies that did:
Those seven are the only films EVER to open to over $20 million and meet or exceed a 7.8 multiplier. Only two of them opened this decade, and only one opened within the last nine years. None of them opened to more than $30 million.
So... I'm not saying Avatar definitely won't top Titanic, just that it's super, SUPER unlikely.
But even with all this going for it, I really, really doubt it's going to beat Titanic. Though it pains me to do this as a mathematician, I will attempt to explain this through proof by example. Here are some films with great legs, incredible grosses, or both that did not get to the 7.8 multiplier Avatar needs to beat Titanic (sorted by multiplier from lowest to highest; the three numbers in italics are Approximate Opening Weekend in millions / Approximate Total Gross in millions / Approximate Multiplier; all data are taken from Box Office Mojo):
- Watchmen (2009) - This is really only on here because it is something of an extreme--Avatar is already comfortably past its multiplier--but if nothing else it goes to show that if you make a movie with bad enough word of mouth and hype it sufficiently, you can take frontloading to ridiculous heights. I guess if you like Watchmen you should probably be pretty depressed that even Twilight: New Moon managed a higher multiplier. $55 / $108 / 1.95
- The Dark Knight (2008) - Doesn't really need any introduction. Not the most leggy of films, but when you gross that much in your first weekend you don't really have to be. Note that The Dark Knight would have needed around a 3.80 multiplier to beat Titanic. 158 / 533 / 3.37
- The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) - An epic event movie that came out during Christmas to massive critical and popular appeal and cleaned up at the Oscars makes for a pretty good comparison to Avatar, even though it was the third in the trilogy and based on a popular franchise (and, yes, had the weakest multiplier in the trilogy, but none of them approached 7.8). Avatar is tracking ahead of this, but not preposterously so (yet, anyway). $73 / $377 / 5.19
- Gladiator (2000) - Already a big box office success, Gladiator somehow became a critical darling as well. I guess it counts as a period piece or something? $35 / $188 / 5.39
- Armageddon (1998) - Remember when Michael Bay used to make good movies? No? Well, how about when they used to have great legs? Another '90s disaster flick, it did pretty well for a movie released that year not named Titanic. $36 / $202 / 5.59
- Twister (1996) - Honestly I hadn't even heard of this movie, but it seems to have been another '90s summer disaster movie with (probably undeserved) great legs despite a then-monster opening weekend. $41 / $242 / 5.89
- Independence Day (1996) - Roland Emmerich's disaster movie was pretty much the textbook mid-nineties blockbuster. Note that it came out nearly 14 years ago, when movies in general had much, much better legs, but a 7.8 multiplier remained firmly out of reach. $50 / $306 / 6.10
- The Matrix (1999) - When this came out it wowed people with its insane visual effects and smart action. One of my personal favorite movies, and in many ways comparable to Avatar in how it influenced filmmaking at the time. $28 / $171 / 6.17
- The Hangover (2009) - Not your typical blockbuster, but a breakout comedy that surprised everyone with its extraordinary legs, especially for a modern movie. $45 / $277 / 6.17
- Batman (1989) - That's right, the original Batman was something of a box office monster in its day as well. $40 / $251 / 6.20
- Shrek (2001) - Came out of nowhere, critically and commercially adored, animated, leggy, and released with very little direct competition, Shrek's leggy run was pretty damn impressive. $42 / $268 / 6.32
- Terminator 2: Judgment day (1991) - Even James fucking Cameron (in 1991, no less) only passed the 7.80 multiplier with one movie, and we all know which one that is. $32 / $205 / 6.45
- Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003) - Depp's starpower somehow turned this movie about a theme park ride into one of the most unexpected and greatest breakout hits of the decade. While its final box office tally could never compare to the films that succeeded it in the trilogy, it's all about the multiplier! $47 / $305 / 6.55
- Toy Story (1995) - Pixar's first movie has the best multiplier of them all (unless you count pre-expansion limited release runs like Toy Story 2's, which is more obstructive than anything else), which isn't too surprising, given that it was the best-grossing film of '95, a much less front-loaded time. Pixar movies are often lauded for their legs, but none of them have ever sniffed a 7.80 multiplier. $29 / $192 / 6.58
- Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999) - Coming so soon after Titanic, everyone expected George Lucas to rise to the occasion and take back the record Cameron had so unexpectedly snatched from Star Wars with the first entry in the series since 1983. Between the insane hype, which led to its near-record opening weekend, and the expectations people had for its legs given the series's pedigree, it was also the first movie that people thought had a chance to challenge Titanic. And maybe it could have, if it hadn't turned out to be a pile of steaming horseshit. Even so, it managed to have the best multiplier of any movie opening over $50 million to date. $65 / $431 / 6.65
- The Polar Express (2004) - I'm still not really sure how this movie was as successful as it was, but then again, I never watched it because I thought it looked creepy. $23 / $163 / 6.98
- Saving Private Ryan (1998) - 1998 was a pretty damn good year for leggy films, and this brilliant war movie is a prime example. Definitely not your typical blockbuster, its crazy multiplier is frequently attached to films of its quality but rarely to such staggering (for the time) numbers. Still not at 7.80. $31 / $217 / 7.08
- Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) - Technically I guess this is also sort of a Cameron film, but coming out in 1985 has a lot more to do with this movie's ridiculous multiplier than one of its writers. That, and being fucking awesome. $20 / $150 / 7.45
- Jurassic Park (1993) - Before James Cameron, there was Steven Spielberg. In many ways, this movie makes a great comparison for Avatar - a well-known, proven director promises out-of-this-world special effects the likes of which the public has never seen, and turns out to be telling the truth, drawing people to theaters en masse and revolutionizing cinema. Of course, it helped that in '93, frontloading was less of an issue. Even with so many things going for it, though, Jurassic Park--while an immense, unqualified success--fell short of the magical 7.80 multiplier. $47 / $357 / 7.59
- The Lion King (1994) - Another movie with a box office run that is nothing short of legendary. Though not my personal favorite Disney animated movie from its 2D renaissance (that honor would probably go to Aladdin or Beauty and the Beast), The Lion King's box office run was absolutely phenomenal. In fact, it had the best multiplier EVER for a movie that opened to more than $40 million. Even for it, though, a 7.80 multiplier was out of reach. $41 / $313 / 7.65
- The Fugitive (1993) - I was hesitant to actually include this film at all, because I feel like the Lion King was a much better place to end it and this is just sort of benefiting from the era in which it was released, but its multiplier was just too close not to include. $24 / $184 / 7.74
That's not to say it's impossible to get to a 7.80 multiplier while opening to more than $20 million. Here are some movies that did:
- Cast Away (2000) - I honestly know nothing about this movie except that it stars Tom Hanks and had an unreasonable box office run, but it doesn't appear to resemble Avatar in any meaningful way. $29 / $234 / 8.09
- Night at the Museum (2006) - Probably the most bizarre entry on this list, this is an example of how "Christmas legs" can propel a movie to an absurd multiplier. For the life of me I can't understand what made this movie such a success, but it doesn't make a very good model for Avatar since it mostly appealed to children and had virtually no hype. $30 / $251 / 8.24
- Mrs. Doubtfire (1993) - Robin Williams's starpower isn't what it used to be. $20 / $219 / 10.71
- Return of the Jedi (1983) - Hey, remember when Star Wars was good? I guess this is actually comparable to Avatar thematically, but probably moreso to Avatar 3--and, in box office terms, 1983 was as alien to today's environment as Pandora is to Earth. $23 / $253 / 10.97
- The Sixth Sense (1999) - These days, at least, most horror movies have terrible legs, but The Sixth Sense somehow managed to have some of the best in the business. I feel like there is a long box office story here that I know nothing about, but I have been researching for way too long at this point anyway. Either way, Avatar is unlikely to approach its phenomenal multiplier. $27 / $294 / 11.00
- Forrest Gump (1994) - A beloved classic and a true box office monster, this character-driven movie is, again, not really anything like Avatar, but blockbusters with multipliers over 7.80 are rare so I'm just including all of them out of completeness. If this movie had been released fourteen years later I doubt it would be anywhere near here; in fact, I know it wouldn't, since they tried it with Benjamin Button. OH SNAP. $24 / $330 / 13.48
- Titanic (1998) - Now that all those other movies are out of the way, two things should be clear: (1) Titanic's run actually made no sense at all, and (2) even if Avatar outgrosses Titanic, its performance is still the stuff legends are made of. I mean, Jesus fucking Christ. Or should that be James fucking Cameron? Fun fact: if Avatar had Titanic's multiplier, its final domestic gross would be around $1.616 billion dollars. Yes, that's a "b". $29 / $601 / 20.98
Those seven are the only films EVER to open to over $20 million and meet or exceed a 7.8 multiplier. Only two of them opened this decade, and only one opened within the last nine years. None of them opened to more than $30 million.
So... I'm not saying Avatar definitely won't top Titanic, just that it's super, SUPER unlikely.
You are now making arguments against stuff no one said. No one said Avatar was ground breaking for "narratives" - but rather for where those narratives can be set and how convincing those settings can be as a result. No one said directors never set their movies in fictional settings before.duckroll said:
Lucas created "an entire alien world" by shooting in the middle of the Tunisian desert, while Cameron created an entire world that does not exist from scratch, and populated it with convincing characters that would have been difficult to impossible too pull of using other methods.
The point being, the limitations on what kind of world can be created have been lifted. You don't have to find somewhere for reference; and moreover, the limitations on what kind of characters have likewise been lifted.
Avatar has unquestionably expanded the bounds on what's possible in terms of generating new worlds and characters in film. Surely, you don't disagree on this point.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Sharp said:
You realize that people are talking about worldwide numbers, right? Avatar won't touch Titanic's domestic, but it has a legitimate shot at #1 wordwide.
You have done some good analysis based on historical precedent, but what you are not doing is looking at the box office data coming in - which does not have a precedent. Opening weekend means little if the movie goes UP from there.
The Friday-Tuesday take last week was $109.5m. The Friday-Tuesday take this week was $113.3m.
You should probably hold off on all the trajectory crunching until Avatar starts dropping, rather than going up. It's in uncharted waters (harhar).
Right. Which was groundbreaking at the time. And Cameron has expanded that capability significantly. Honestly, if you can't see a significant step forward in Avatar's tech and output from the Star Wars movies - or from the LotR movies, etc. - I can't help you.Forkball said:
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Sharp said:
Yeah man it's about worldwide not domestic.
Avatar in an extremely important leap forward because of it's ability to capture facial animations and eye movement of the actors onto a CG body.
It's a critical step forward in being able to convey emotion on characters that are not real.
Star Wars is one of the most important films ever made when it comes to special effects and pushing movies forward.
I think Avatar is the most important movie from a technical standpoint since the Last Starfighter or Young Sherlock Holmes.
That might be going to far. Jurrasic Park, T2, and Total Recall were obviously important 3d pionners as well.
Fact is Avatar is one of those 5-10 really important SFX films of the last 20 years.
It's a critical step forward in being able to convey emotion on characters that are not real.
Star Wars is one of the most important films ever made when it comes to special effects and pushing movies forward.
I think Avatar is the most important movie from a technical standpoint since the Last Starfighter or Young Sherlock Holmes.
That might be going to far. Jurrasic Park, T2, and Total Recall were obviously important 3d pionners as well.
Fact is Avatar is one of those 5-10 really important SFX films of the last 20 years.
Does it really, though? Titanic did something like 1.2 billion overseas to complement its $600 million domestic gross. If Avatar stalls at, say, $500 million domestic, it will have to do $1.3 billion overseas to make up for that. That doesn't seem particularly likely to me at all, especially since it has already opened in every major market but China.Snowman Prophet of Doom said:
Count Dookkake
Member
Even if we pretend for a moment that Avatar and Bayformers share every other quality 
lol , excuse me), the thing that should immediately distinguish the films is that Cameron knows how to stage action scenes; Bay does not.
lol , excuse me), the thing that should immediately distinguish the films is that Cameron knows how to stage action scenes; Bay does not.duckroll said:
Even still, I think Star Wars was much more groundbreaking in special effects. They did all that shit in 1977. It still doesn't look dated, I'd imagine how people felt walking into the theater 30 years ago.
I asked my dad, who watched Star Wars when it came out, what he thought of the special effects, and, to paraphrase, it "blew his fucking mind". We just watched Avatar yesterday, and I asked him it it gave him that same feeling he had when he just watched Star Wars. He told me that it was incredible, but just not the same.
Star Wars is too good
GhaleonEB said:
The limitations, as always, is about money though. You are always referencing from somewhere, whether it is from memory or location.
The question is, if Cameron did not make Avatar, would we never get mo-cap characters at the Na'vi standard? Would CG standards not keep improving? Star Wars built up ILM, I'm not sure if Avatar would have that kind of legacy.
It's not uncharted waters, that's my point. In fact, these waters are fairly well-charted, especially for Christmas releases. Even in the '90s, when long legs were the rule rather than the exception, only a few blockbusters managed to achieve the kind of multiplier Avatar would require to top Titanic. Again, I'm not saying it couldn't happen--just that it would have to out-leg every movie in that first list to do it.GhaleonEB said:
So basically, if Cameron didn't push the tech forwrad, would progress still be made?Timbuktu said:
What do you think? Is this a rhetorical question?
No movie with anywhere near the size of Avatar's opening has ever had such a small week-week drop, nor gone up in the subsequent week. I might be wrong, but nothing in your data set shows this, and nothing in BoxoffceMojo's database either, that I can find.Sharp said:
Again, you are focusing on multipliers and not 1) current trend combined with 2) the size of the daily box office take. It is this combination that has Avatar on a course that is difficult to predict by looking to past movies, because no movie has pulled this off yet.
For the record, I still think it's unlikely that it will top Titanic (domestically). But there are serious flaws in comparing Avatar's performance to date with previous movies and drawing the conclusion that it can't.
I don't know if people expet it to top Titantic or not. I think people expect it to get alteast a billion. Avatar needs 1.2 billion worldwide for the number 2 position under Titantic. That's 600 million domestic and 600 million foreign if it was split equally. It already has ~38% of what it needs domestically and ~68% of what it needs in foreign countries after just 11 days. Foreign countries will probably hold more slack in the end.Sharp said:
So.. so far so good IMO...
True, and if I'd restricted things to movies with Avatar-sized openings that would be an issue. However, plenty of movies with smaller openings (in some cases significantly smaller) that were released during the same weekend are tracking very, very close to Avatar in terms of drops and raises. None of those movies got to a 7.80x multiplier, as you can see by the fact that they aren't in the second (exhaustive) list. That was my point.GhaleonEB said:
Um, what? Titanic was number one for like 50+ days :lol. The film you are thinking of is in fact My Big Fat Greek Wedding.Tater Tot said:
Oh, number two worldwide is I think is very likely, even probable. It's number one that I don't see happening.DeathNote said:
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Sharp said:
It's already made $660 million wordwide, and it hasn't even been out for two weeks. It also is not showing any signs of slowing down; it's second Monday was higher than its first. It's on track to become #2 of all time within a week or so, and if it continues to have crazy legs (there's nothing that will really challenge it for a few weeks), there's no reason why it couldn't at least come close.
TrAcEr_x90
Member
taylor910 said:
BOTH!!! Everything, even from the cameras, the mocap tech, the cg, the 3D stereo.
The 3D is pretty mind blowing. You can nitpick a few parts, but overall, it all comes together as a whole, and looks amazing.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Anth0ny said:
Did you dad know that the whole planet was CG? And did you guys see it in 3D?
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Timbuktu said:
You can't make that kind of statement right now. Nobody know that ILM would be what it is today back then.
It is a valid point - but not a salient one in predicting Avatar's total haul, since how much it's making is ultimately what is being projected.Sharp said:
The approach I've taken is to look at what the likely trends are for Avatar's current trajectory - take what we have now, and project forward, rather than look to other movies in the past.
One scenario: let's say Wednesday and Thursday box office hold steady at Tuesday's number. They'll probably average out to about that, give or take a couple million.
That would mean in the first seven days (Friday-Thursday) Avatar brought in $137m. In its second seven, the take would be $149m.
Now we've gotta guess what happens from there. Let's say Avatar starts dropping 25% per week here on out. In seven weeks - five weeks from now - it tops Titanic, at $630m, and is still making $35m the week it does. Drop that to a 30% week over week drops from here on out and it happens in nine weeks total - in late February.
So, it's going to have to drop at something like 40% per week, starting with this weekend, to get on a trajectory NOT to hit Titanic's haul in the next two months. And a 40% drop is a NORMAL drop for a blockbuster like this after the first couple of weeks. And Avatar to date is not behaving normally.
See what I'm saying?
Crap, I just convinced myself Avatar has a much better chance than I thought. :lol
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
GhaleonEB said:
Damn man you just convinced me too that it "COULD" happen. :lol
I think after this week we could be on Titanic domestic #1 to go down watch.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=18970660&postcount=104
My prediction from 12/20 is looking pretty darn good right about now.
My prediction from 12/20 is looking pretty darn good right about now.
ryutaro's mama
Member
The other thing to keep in mind is that AVATAR is getting lots of repeat business, which in the age of quick Blu-Ray and DVD turnaround, is pretty unheard of. It's also getting that repeat business at a premium price.
Also, keep in mind that, outside of not having a lot of general competition at the BO, it will have virtually zero 3D competition for months.
Jimmy's in a GREAT position.
Also, keep in mind that, outside of not having a lot of general competition at the BO, it will have virtually zero 3D competition for months.
Jimmy's in a GREAT position.
PrivateWHudson
Member
GhaleonEB said:
Is that estimated or actuals?
For Titanic, he got a director's fee, a screewriter's fee, and a producers fee in addition to an undisclosed percentage of the gross. I watched the Charlie Rose interview with Cameron last week and he said his final take home was "north" of $100m from Titanic.ToxicAdam said:
I haven't read anything about his earnings this time around, but since it's the same studio, I'm guessing the fee structure was similar.
On that note, Fox learned from last time around. they split international distribution rights with Paramount because they were nervous about making their money back. They did the distribution themselves this time around.
Fox and Cameron are going to make a ridiculous amount of money.
Actual.PrivateWHudson said:
http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=daily&id=avatar.htm
Up to #39 on the all-time charts, ahead of Ice Age: The Meltdown and behind New Moon.
International box office hasn't updated since the weekend though (nothing from Monday or Tuesday yet). It's made ~$55-$60m more.
- Status