Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

"I just saw Avatar" Thread

How long before we see "Avatar" the ride at Disneyworld? "Pilot a gunship through the floating islands of Pandora".
I remember a ride in Las Vegas....I think it was in the Luxor.
A Capt. Nemo kinda of ride. It was motion with 3D combined. The feeling was very interesting.

"What do we do now?"

That question has been asked for hundreds of years.
And it will be one that anyone working in almost
any profession should always be asking.

I remember when BetaSP came on the scene and
my partner - looking at our extensive investment in 3/4" gear asked:
"What do we do now?"

I remember producers wondering what to do when their
investment in BetaSP equipment dropped in value when DV gear hit the street:
"What do we do now?"

I remember what producers said when the first wave of affordable HD cameras hit the shelves:
"What do we do now?"

I remember what DP's said when they saw RED footage for the first time:
"What do we do now?"
 
Tom L said:
It seems like the question is now coming down to, "Is it a game changer?"

I would argue, Yes, it is, but this can't be stated as a fact, only as a prediction. You have to look at how the film industry is reacting. What is Spielberg doing? He's been down in New Zealand with Peter Jackson making a digital 3D film called "Tintin." Another film series to watch is "The Hobbit." Del Toro has stated that the success or failure of AVATAR might determine whether "The Hobbit" goes 3D.

One of the most telling stories about the "game-changing" nature of AVATAR was a reported comment made by a director overheard leaving the AVATAR premiere: "What do we do now?" To me, comments like that are indicative of a ground-shift. Or look at Michael Mann, who now says he's going to jump into 3D. Mann on AVATAR: "There's before this movie and after this movie."

Let me ask this question: if you were a high-powered director or DP right now and you had a huge-budget upcoming sci-fi or fantasy project in the pipeline, are you going to ignore 3D? Are you going to ignore "performance capture"?

I guess, ultimately, that the long-term box office numbers for AVATAR will tell the final tale. As several people here have pointed out, watching this film almost feels like you "visited" this far-away planet, Pandora... it's nearly a physical experience. The thing to watch for is huge repeat business at IMAX 3D screens, as people try to relive that experience, and also as word of mouth spreads. The fact that my MOM is going to drive 50 miles to an IMAX 3D theater because all her friends are talking about "Avatar" is one indication! :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

I have mixed feelings about the movie, but overall it was stunning. I was surprised that the narrative is so slow-moving and episodic and that it takes place on one planet; this is in stark contrast to the "Star Wars" school of thought, which shuttles you quickly between locations with a more broad, figurative approach to each (i.e. each planet foremost represents an emotional state or specific narrative archetype). Instead, Avatar offers a kind of comprehensive anthropology of a specific (imaginary) place out of which the story is born. To this extent, the film recalls Malick or Herzog in a weird way (particularly Aguirre or The New World), and specifically because Cameron "built" a world and then explored it from a physical and spiritual dimension with then a diegetic story of exploration taking precedence over monomything, etc. The contrast between a muted aesthetic in the space station (and in the burned forest) versus bright colors in the rainforest evokes Wizard of Oz and the other films inspired by it, particularly Lynch's work. The "fairytale"/parable aspects of the story are there, too, and this type of storytelling is familiar to Malick's work and Del Toro's (to a lesser extent Lynch's or even von Trier's--in a cynical, academic way), wherein we have this contrast between two worlds (one of wonder/one of civilization) and then those two worlds meet in some sort of horrible violence. Of course, Cameron's movie is different to the extent that it ends in an action showpiece and has a straight "happy" ending, one substantially different from Days of Heaven, New World, or Pan's Labyrinth, films in which the beauty of the fairytale world is intrinsically linked with its transience. Cameron's shot choice is serviceable if on-the-nose, but I really do appreciate his willingness to hold on a shot and to edit less disjunctively than in most modern blockbusters; Cameron is a master action director even if his coverage is otherwise cursory, but he's not a visual savant like Spielberg or even Bay.

I have some background in 3d animation and I honestly feel this is a "game changer" but the problem is Avatar may be the only movie playing that game. The CGI here is far beyond anything before it, but most movies don't take place on alien planets or star humanoid non-humans and I think motion capture isn't up (in terms of economics or verisimilitude) to the task of rendering humans realistically in familiar locations. That said, Terminator 2 and Titanic were to some extent "game changers" in very broad ways (so Cameron's technology has caught on in the past), more so that even Jurassic Park or the hugely overrated LoTR films--so hopefully the movie will do well and the technology will become less expensive. The stereoscopic effects were superb, too, but I felt they worked much better on IMAX (unmatted) than on widescreen, because the cropping substantially eliminates depth while and the smaller screen is less immersive. I'd love to see more bigger 3d screens for movies like this.
 
Last edited:
Matt W. said:
The contrast between a muted aesthetic in the space station (and in the burned forest) versus bright colors in the rainforest evokes Wizard of Oz and the other films inspired by it, particularly Lynch's work.
Click to expand...

Great post, Matt W. Of course, what is really being explored here is what Malick's character John Smith gave voice to as living a "false" life versus a "real" life. This is perhaps the ultimate philosophical question of our time (which is why Malick dealt with it), brought to our attention in the last century by Heidegger, but which has roots dating back to Lao Tzu and Zen Buddhism.

Both Malick and Cameron have their characters literally voice this question. When Jake wakes up in the human compound after an experience in the woods with the Navi, he says something about "The real world" being outside, in the Pandoran jungle. In "The New World," Smith considers (and foolishly rejects) the idea to "...give up the name Smith.... exchange this false life for a true on."

The stark, lifeless, high-tech compound Jake returns to after each Avatar journey is very similar to the dead, lifeless, ugly, "high-tech" fort Smith returns to in "The New World" after his adventures with the indigenous people.

2eqgod2.png

28ji0bb.jpg


I think people are concentrating on what they see as a "standard" plot, and this is true. But what they are missing (at least consciously), IMO, is something much deeper and more important running under the surface of "Avatar."
 
Tom L said:
Both Malick and Cameron have their characters literally voice this question. When Jake wakes up in the human compound after an experience in the woods with the Navi, he says something about "The real world" being outside, in the Pandoran jungle. In "The New World," Smith considers (and foolishly rejects) the idea to "...give up the name Smith.... exchange this false life for a true on."
Click to expand...

That's a very interesting (and almost certainly true) point re: New World, which those frame grabs support. I haven't read any philosophy, unfortunately, so I've got nothing to add; I hope someday to overcome my horrible attention span and start reading, though....

I agree that most complaints regarding Avatar's plot miss the point; but I don't think the plot is faultless. There are real pacing and tonal issues with the first 2/3rds of the film (our introduction to the native's culture is too plot-point linear to feel experientially "real" but too slow-moving to be engaging on pure narrative terms; the inciting incident comes too late, leading to a disjointed narrative flow), but it's really the last act that bugs me. The action scenes are phenomenal on visual terms, but they're not entirely congruous with the rest of the film and particularly the arrival of the animal hordes feels contrived and disingenuous, as does Jake's status as "savior" among an egalitarian/communal society. The film's clean morality and too-convenient happy ending bother me, too; I know Cameron's not one for subtlety or restraint, but even Titanic and Terminator 2 are stronger for their focus on heroic sacrifice and the tragic overtones they impart on technological hubris (rather than a simple "imperialism is bad" message or something along those lines). Whereas films like Pan's Labyrinth and even Wall•E (which I just love) offer some sort of uneasy redemption to a damaged human race, Avatar seems merely to reify escapism into a contemporary white man's version of a "native"/"primitive" paradise--a troubling conceit. That said, the movie is gorgeous, fascinating and daring and of course I'd rather have a flawed movie that's so breathtaking than a more neatly-constructed one that's stymied by its own need to please a jaded audience. Cameron's a brave man and I wish the best for him and his breathtaking film, which I really like, even if I take issue with elements of it.
 
Last edited:
It was an experience and I was engaged for the 161 minutes.

I couldn’t help but compare the experience to that of watching Apocalypto in the cinema and for me the hunting sequences in Gibson’s films had me more on edge.

I thought Cameron’s vision was fantastic and beautifully executed. However I’m not sure im interested in ‘the chosen one’ concept anymore. I understand films of such budgets need universal appeal but let’s figure out another way.
 
Shawn, remember, it took FIVE WEEKS for Titanic to reach its box office peak.
 
Tom L said:
Shawn, remember, it took FIVE WEEKS for Titanic to reach its box office peak.
Click to expand...

I do recall the insane longevity. It's rare for a movie to go UP in box office for more than a single week.

I abhor this modern beancounter idea that a movie can't build its audience. So i'm certainly not supporting the notion in any way, just pointing out that sadly it almost always holds true.

Titanic did well because it appealed to a broad 4 quadrant market well while also strongly appealing to the young woman quadrant which drove incredible amounts of repeat business. It's this same market that's driving New Moon. Funny that the stereotypical exec wants to appeal to teenage boys, but it seems that if you can appeal to teenage girls that they are a more loyal customer base.

What quadrant to you imagine would go see Avatar 3 or more times?
 
Shawn Nelson said:
I do recall the insane longevity. It's rare for a movie to go UP in box office for more than a single week.

I abhor this modern beancounter idea that a movie can't build its audience. So i'm certainly not supporting the notion in any way, just pointing out that sadly it almost always holds true.

Titanic did well because it appealed to a broad 4 quadrant market well while also strongly appealing to the young woman quadrant which drove incredible amounts of repeat business. It's this same market that's driving New Moon. Funny that the stereotypical exec wants to appeal to teenage boys, but it seems that if you can appeal to teenage girls that they are a more loyal customer base.

What quadrant to you imagine would go see Avatar 3 or more times?
Click to expand...

Well remember that younger men drive the insane numbers behind POS films like Transformers, but you're right in saying that female tennie-boppers, under the right circumstances, can lower the boom at the box office.

I've been paying attention to the AVATAR chatter at Twitter. Very, very interesting. Of course, Twitter skews young vs general population, but still, I see a wide spectrum of people going apeshit over AVATAR there. Everything from teenage girls to SOCCCER MOMS. Titanic was amazing in its ability to get older filmgoers to come out of the woodworks. My grandma went to see it -- the only film she has seen at a theater in the last 20 years. I don't think AVATAR will be nearly as successful with very old people, but it could make up for that with massive sales of marked-up 3D and IMAX 3D tickets. I paid $18.50 for my IMAX ticket. Back when I saw TITANIC, the price was like 7 bucks.

I read a statement recently about Cameron saying that he is a genius because he "makes films for women disguised as films for men." Maybe true. It reminded me of the advice Tupac gave to Biggie Smalls when he first got into major-label recording. Tupac said, "Rap for the b#tches, because the n#ggas are gonna buy the CD anyway." :coolgleamA:

Edit... HAHHAHAHA!!!! Jarred.. lol. Try typing SOCCCER MOMS in, spelled correctly.
 
Shawn Nelson said:
BO is out, $73 mil domestic weekend take, roughly half what New Moon or Dark Knight took in their openings. Now the question is what's its longevity. Does word of mouth and repeat viewings take over or does it do the typical sharp blockbuster decline from here?
http://movies.yahoo.com/news/movies.reuters.com/avatar-earns-73-million-box-office-reuters
Click to expand...



Hey you did forget the 150 millions USD that the movie made domestic.
thats total of 230 000 0000 USD

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=avatar.htm


but i dont think that avatar will come near titanic, but it already made its money back considering this weekend, dvd and blueray sales, and world wide pay TV and TV rights.

guess it will top 2012
 
Hoochie Mamas? lol
 
Cüneyt Kaya said:
Hey you did forget the 150 millions USD that the movie made domestic.
thats total of 230 000 0000 USD

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=avatar.htm


but i dont think that avatar will come near titanic, but it already made its money back considering this weekend, dvd and blueray sales, and world wide pay TV and TV rights.

guess it will top 2012
Click to expand...

$73 mil domestic vs the like $140mil domestic of New Moon.

That $159mil is foreign
 
Tom L said:
Well remember that younger men drive the insane numbers behind POS films like Transformers, but you're right in saying that female tennie-boppers, under the right circumstances, can lower the boom at the box office.

I've been paying attention to the AVATAR chatter at Twitter. Very, very interesting. Of course, Twitter skews young vs general population, but still, I see a wide spectrum of people going apeshit over AVATAR there. Everything from teenage girls to SOCCCER MOMS. Titanic was amazing in its ability to get older filmgoers to come out of the woodworks. My grandma went to see it -- the only film she has seen at a theater in the last 20 years. I don't think AVATAR will be nearly as successful with very old people, but it could make up for that with massive sales of marked-up 3D and IMAX 3D tickets. I paid $18.50 for my IMAX ticket. Back when I saw TITANIC, the price was like 7 bucks.

I read a statement recently about Cameron saying that he is a genius because he "makes films for women disguised as films for men." Maybe true. It reminded me of the advice Tupac gave to Biggie Smalls when he first got into major-label recording. Tupac said, "Rap for the b#tches, because the n#ggas are gonna buy the CD anyway." :coolgleamA:

Edit... HAHHAHAHA!!!! Jarred.. lol. Try typing SOCCCER MOMS in, spelled correctly.
Click to expand...

That's a good point about Titanic, I remember seeing the lines of people and being surprised how many upper middle age and older couples were there. It was a big event film and not just for the young crowd. How many couples in their 60s or 70s felt a need to go watch Transformers 2?
 
Shawn Nelson said:
Now the question is what's its longevity. Does word of mouth and repeat viewings take over or does it do the typical sharp blockbuster decline from here?
Click to expand...

I am sure it's going to increase. The shear number of people out there screaming from the rooftops for everyone else to see it can't be ignored.

There is a huge group who understood what this was going to be and anticipated seeing it.

There is a group 20x that size that thought it was just another movie and wouldn't plan to see it.

I suggest that a large number of that big group will now see it, simply because of what their friends are saying.

I know there are several people I know who have now seen it simply because of my reaction. Multiply that by a few million and I think we will see longevity.
 
Shawn Nelson said:
$73 mil domestic vs the like $140mil domestic of New Moon.

That $159mil is foreign
Click to expand...

1st- i mixed domestic and foreign...who cares.
2nd- new moon is a sequel...and honestly just sucks.
3rd- avatar is an experience (dont think about the story...could have been more subtle imho)
4rd- wtf are we talking about the millions other people make :)
 
I agree with Mr Mullen and some of the others, It was visually stunning but fell short in many other area's that it should not have.

Aside from personal opinions on the movie my one issue is that I have a medical condition where I am more inclined to get migraines than most people, and after half the movie my head was throbbing. now aside from the blurry edges of the screen and what seemed like out of focus shots the visuals were not noticeably disturbing me. I know that movies shouldn't be geared to a small population but I would be very upset if due to my condition I can not see any 3d movies. I loved JC's concepts he's got great ideas I just hope that the technology to display these movies will drastically improve otherwise I sadly will not be able to take part in them.

As a side note the other movies mentioned The Fountain (one of my favorite movies), 2001, Solaris, even Moon are far better pieces of art than these type of movies and I would love if the were pushed for more, though I know that's not the case seeing as most people are in the business to make money and not do what they love and are passionate about (or like many other have just lost their passion or severly dulled it down)

Mah either way I paid for my whole group and despite my headache and the story I still thoroughly enjoyed the movie and don't regret the decision.
 
Paolo Tinari said:
And the blizzard on the E coast
Click to expand...

I think there may be some truth to this. I'm in N. VA, and my buddy here saw it opening night at nidnite and the theater was packed.

We saw it yesterday afternoon after 16" of snow had hit the ground, and we were one of only a handful of cars on the relatively unplowed roads... the theater was maybe half full, if that.

By this morning, 24" of snow had fallen since Friday nite, and from our trip to the mall, it again looks like travel was way down.

I suspect this might have been a $125mil opening if it weren't for the weather.

-sc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top