[Spheric Harlot]

Sounds like an excited golfer.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Yes, much bellow par

Well to tell you the truth even with the bad script it is more exciting then the MacNN forums.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

Well to tell you the truth even with the bad script it is more exciting then the MacNN forums.

That hurts.

[downinflames68]

Yeah these things are dragging.

[Sealobo]

YouTube - Avatar Makeup Tutorial

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

Well to tell you the truth even with the bad script it is more exciting then the MacNN forums.

Sadly enough I have to differ... what can I say, I lurve you guys

[andreas_g4]

Avatar is so last year…

[Rumor]

Just got back from seeing it. Visually it was stunning and very well done. The plot was mediocre, but I already knew it from seeing the commercials.

[Eug]

Well, that's impressive. As of last week, Avatar has taken in $760 million worldwide, making it top 30 of all time so far despite the fact it only came out 2 weeks ago.

It's well on its way to surpass $300 million US domestic, and $500 million international... and that would be getting into the territory of Spider-Man and Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. It's already long passed the first Transformers by over $50 million.

It's also the #2 3D domestic release in history, with Up being #1. However, Up's lead isn't going to last long, since the lead is less than $10 million.

[downinflames68]

Eug, it's very fitting that it be next to transformers, somehow. Both relied on effects to cover up a horrible story.

[exca1ibur]

Being it's all about the money, I'm sure they will get over it. History is starting to prove that you will ALWAYS make more money paying ILM than you will a writer, huh? LOL

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by downinflames68 

Eug, it's very fitting that it be next to transformers, somehow. Both relied on effects to cover up a horrible story.

I wouldn't call the story horrible. Predictable and mediocre, but not horrible.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by downinflames68 

Eug, it's very fitting that it be next to transformers, somehow. Both relied on effects to cover up a horrible story.

The story was reasonable, and well-crafted. It was a basically a well-written mainstream Disney movie, just not a super deep cutting edge drama.

Originally Posted by exca1ibur 

Being it's all about the money, I'm sure they will get over it. History is starting to prove that you will ALWAYS make more money paying ILM than you will a writer, huh? LOL

Terminator Salvation. GI Joe.

[exca1ibur]

Terminator Budget - $200 million
Terminator Box Office Gross - $372,046,055
Link

G.I. Joe Budget - $175 million
G.I. Joe Box Office Gross - $301,543,074
Link

[Eug]

Originally Posted by exca1ibur 

Terminator Budget - $200 million
Terminator Box Office Gross - $372,046,055
Link

G.I. Joe Budget - $175 million
G.I. Joe Box Office Gross - $301,543,074
Link

Indeed. Both movies were hoped to make much more than that. There weren't failures financially, but with a better plotline, direction, and flow would probably have done better.

Terminator Salvation made $125 mil. domestic. GI Joe made $150 mil. domestic. That's pretty mediocre for PG-13 movies of those budgets. Hell, even District 9 with no-name actors and an R-rating made $115 million domestic, and it had a production budget of $30 million. It "only" made $200 million worldwide though.

[exca1ibur]

Everyone HOPES to make more and more money with every film they do. They made double their budget, hard to sit there moping about it. I understand what you are saying but its not like they lost money on the project.

For the record, I thought G.I.Joe was garbage, and am glad I didn't pay to see it. Once I saw the cast it pretty much was DOA.

Terminator I actually liked though.

[besson3c]

Why does a story have to be brand new for it to be good? There are many, many, many stories that we have enjoyed for years that have been based on other stories - e.g. Romeo and Juliet. Sometimes simply telling an old story in slightly new ways, or in a new medium can carry the weight.

I don't necessarily think that Avatar really tells the story in profoundly new ways, but it was a satisfying retelling of this classic story. It could have been a little more subtle, but I just don't think that the movie should be condemned to the extent in which some of you are.

[imitchellg5]

I don't enjoy Romeo and Juliet at all. Nothing is appealing about an emo chick and an emo dude falling in love and killing themselves.
Except for when it's Twilight.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why does a story have to be brand new for it to be good? There are many, many, many stories that we have enjoyed for years that have been based on other stories - e.g. Romeo and Juliet. Sometimes simply telling an old story in slightly new ways, or in a new medium can carry the weight.

I don't necessarily think that Avatar really tells the story in profoundly new ways, but it was a satisfying retelling of this classic story. It could have been a little more subtle, but I just don't think that the movie should be condemned to the extent in which some of you are.

I generally agree with you. But i have the complete opposite opinion of this movie than you do(i think).

Lets just assume that the story itself is irrelevant. The movies that come to my mind are Dances With Wolves and Atlantis that have very similar stories to Avatar.

Dances of Wolves is in my all-time top 5, the quality of the fundamentals (script, characters, direction, acting, pacing, etc) were all awesome. They all contributed to an amazing emotional experience.

With Avatar..... the 'feeling' i got was similar to what i felt when i watched those new star wars movies.... a genuine lack of love(from the creators).... with a lot of special effects to woo the target audience. The lack in quality of the fundamentals cannot be covered up with great special effects.

So two movies, almost identical plot lines at two different ends of the spectrum of quality(to me).

Some could argue that District 9 had a very similar story as well(with the exception of the love interest), yet the execution and quality of the fundamentals were complete opposite imo (D9 actually delivered something refreshing, a new angle, a great format, and better(imo) special effects etc)

I think Titanic(despite the opinions of the academy) bastardized a story and a history with a poor script, bad acting and cliche' love story, but with amazing special effects. Just as that movie was catering to a specific demographic(people who like 'love stories'/'chick flicks'), so too does Avatar do the same except the target demographic is the 'sci-fi-fan', who is primarily wooed by(imo) space themes and special effects.

I'll hand it to Cameron, he knows how to milk his target demographic and push all their right buttons(at least in Titanic and Avatar).... i just wish he did it with a quality product as opposed to a crap product masquerading in pretty special effects.

[Chuckit]

Hawkeye, disregarding the story and characters (as you said you were), what grave failings did you find in the movie?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by andreas_g4 

Avatar is so last year…

But your D9 BlueRay that's gotten fumbled by the post office is from 2010 ?

-t

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

But your D9 BlueRay that's gotten fumbled by the post office is from 2010 ?

-t

What is it with ze Chermans and their inability to recognize irony and lighthearted banter?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

What is it with ze Chermans and their inability to recognize irony and lighthearted banter?

Same could be said about you. Did you even get what I was referring to ?

-t

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Hawkeye, disregarding the story and characters (as you said you were), what grave failings did you find in the movie?

I said disregard the story, cause its been a cut-n-past story as mentioned before. The characters cannot be ignored imo. For example if D9 and Avatar have the save story arches, compare the main dude from Avatar to the main dude from D9. The characters from Avatar seemed like they were taken from a clip-art-gallery of characters and put into the movie.... the military dude, the scientist, the 'unlikely hero'(handicapped in this case), the beautiful 'savage' princess, her family, etc.... it wasnt any of them specifically, but despite the story being familiar, these characters were too familiar(to me), and the actors/director didnt even do a good job of giving them any depth.

As far as the other 'failings' of Avatar, the script sucked...... reminded me of that line "I don't like sand, sand is coarse n rough..."(or whatever from that Star Wars movie).

It was entertaining in theater, but im not impressed by special effects if the fundamentals are so poor, (new star wars movies, matrix 2 & 3, etc)

[besson3c]

I'm assuming you mean the 2nd and 3rd Matrix movies? The first, IMHO, was easily the best of the lot.

[olePigeon]

[Goldfinger]

Finally saw it yesterday after a failed attempt last week (completely sold out).
As others have said, visually VERY impressive. Weak story but entertaining nonetheless.
Didn't really get the "3D headache" that I did get with Ice Age in 3D. But there were 2 things that were VERY annoying. First one is the subtitles: you need to actually refocus your eyes to read them. (and Papyrus wtf?)
Secondly, and most importantly: they REALLY need to up the framerate for 3D movies. Even relatively slow movements have motion blur.
Oh and one more thing, those glasses do make the movie pretty dim. But not annoyingly. I think they did make the movie pretty bright to compensate for the glasses.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm assuming you mean the 2nd and 3rd Matrix movies? The first, IMHO, was easily the best of the lot.

Yup that was a typo. And yeah i really liked the first Matrix, despite the comparatively lesser emphasis on special effects. the characters had depth, the story was original and the script didnt suck.

Great/amazing special effects cannot make up for poor fundamentals imo. but if there are good fundamentals, and the special effects are less than amazing it would still be a good movie in my book.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger 

Secondly, and most importantly: they REALLY need to up the framerate for 3D movies. Even relatively slow movements have motion blur.

That really annoyed the crap out of me too. Avatar was the first 3D movie I've seen since I was a kid, and that was the first thing I noticed.

[Eug]

Not motion blur. Motion blur is intentional and has little to do with the the frame rate. Motion blur has to do with the shutter speed. ie. You can have a 24 fps movie with minimal motion blur, by increasing the shutter speed to say 1/125. What you'll have is a succession of very crisp images with no motion blur, but at 24 fps. This is actually much worse. They use this for zombie movies, etc.

For example, if you watch Pixar movies, you'll notice they have tons of motion blur. They do that on purpose, because it looks real. If you don't put motion blur in the motion scenes, they look fake. One of the big advances in CG animation was incorporation of motion blur algorithms.

I suspect what you're describing is what James Cameron describes as strobing, which seems to be more obvious in 3D. Unfortunately, our digital theatres are equipped to display movies filmed for 48 fps in 3D. They can in 2D, but not 3D. They don't bother with 48 fps in 2D either though, because it's more expensive and more of a hassle, and most people don't complain for 2D anyway.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Dances of Wolves is in my all-time top 5, the quality of the fundamentals (script, characters, direction, acting, pacing, etc) were all awesome. They all contributed to an amazing emotional experience.

With Avatar..... the 'feeling' i got was similar to what i felt when i watched those new star wars movies.... a genuine lack of love(from the creators).... with a lot of special effects to woo the target audience. The lack in quality of the fundamentals cannot be covered up with great special effects.

So two movies, almost identical plot lines at two different ends of the spectrum of quality(to me).

Yep. It seemed like Avatar just moved through a list of things that needed to be checked off in order to tell that story. Here's the reason we have an unlikely hero. Here's the person that really cares about the natives. Here's the guy that hates them and wants to kill them. Here's the guy that just wants money. Here's the reason the natives accept the hero. Etc. It didn't flow well, and you instantly recognized each person or situation for what it was - it was extremely transparent and thin.

[Eug]

I agree it was transparent but I thought it flowed well.

[Goldfinger]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Not motion blur. Motion blur is intentional and has little to do with the the frame rate. Motion blur has to do with the shutter speed. ie. You can have a 24 fps movie with minimal motion blur, by increasing the shutter speed to say 1/125. What you'll have is a succession of very crisp images with no motion blur, but at 24 fps. This is actually much worse. They use this for zombie movies, etc.

For example, if you watch Pixar movies, you'll notice they have tons of motion blur. They do that on purpose, because it looks real. If you don't put motion blur in the motion scenes, they look fake. One of the big advances in CG animation was incorporation of motion blur algorithms.

I suspect what you're describing is what James Cameron describes as strobing, which seems to be more obvious in 3D. Unfortunately, our digital theatres are equipped to display movies filmed for 48 fps in 3D. They can in 2D, but not 3D. They don't bother with 48 fps in 2D either though, because it's more expensive and more of a hassle, and most people don't complain for 2D anyway.

Yeah well you know what I mean I'm a photographer, so for me it looked like motion blur. As if they couldn't keep the camera stable. Maybe motion blur isn't the correct technical term so strobing it is! It was the first word that came up when trying to give it a name.

Point is: it's very annoying and distracting sometimes.

[starman]

Avatar is now #4 of all time.

All Time Worldwide Box Office Grosses

[Sealobo]

Originally Posted by starman 

Avatar is now #4 of all time.

All Time Worldwide Box Office Grosses

Is this list inflationary adjusted?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Sealobo 

Is this list inflationary adjusted?

No. It's a worthless statistic.

You can check the Top100 in Waybachmachine, going back to 2001.
All Time Worldwide Box Office

The numbers have only changed slightly (< 1%), which could not be inflation adjustments.

-t

[Eriamjh]

Saw it in IMAX 3D and was impressed. No story comments. The movie really opened up what is possible. Who cares about 3D? It would be amazing in 2D!

Except for the fact that there wasn't an original concept in the whole movie, I though that this is what Lucas' Star Wars Prequels should have looked like, except they didn't.

I'm not sure if this is going to spawn a whole bunch of copy-cats. Unless the process starts getting cheaper really quickly, it will mean that there will only be a movie here and there for a while. Costs too much.

There might be some cheap-ass rip-off on sci-fi, er... I mean, SyFy, that looks like a cheap video game. Er... OK. Never mind.

[Eug]

Yeah, $1 billion in three weeks. Truly remarkable.

For inflation adjusted, it ($352 million) probably wouldn't make the top 100 for domestic... yet. It will definitely make the list though eventually.

The top 10 domestic are:

Gone With The Wind
Star Wars
The Sound Of Music
ET: The Extraterrestrial
The Ten Commandments
Titanic
Jaws
Dr. Zhivago
The Exorcist
Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs

[ghporter]

Just a tiny nit to pick, Eug-US or Canadian "domestic?" I think they'll track pretty closely to each other, but the order might be different.

[Eug]

I believe "domestic" means US + Canada (although it could be US-only - not 100% sure).

---

Top 10 movie budgets of all time

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End
Titanic
Spider-Man 3
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest
King Kong
The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
Quantum of Solace
Superman Returns
Spider-Man 2

Note that Avatar wasn't mentioned. I'm not sure where it would fit on that list, since the budget estimates for that movie are all over the map. However, it is definitely on the top ten list somewhere.

I predict that Avatar will become the second highest grossing movie (not adjusted for inflation) of all time. When that prediction comes true, that will mean that James Cameron will have directed the two top grossers of all time, with two of the top 10 budgets of all time too.

BTW, my favourite James Cameron movie is The Terminator, which ironically had a production budget of just $6.4 million.

[phantomdragonz]

Just watched it in 3D....

I walked in not knowing what to expect, I had not read anything about the story... nothing...

I knew it would be a retelling of all the stories we have heard in the past... honestly, which movie isn't?

I LOVED it... it was visually AMAZING, WELL WORTH THE 3D PRICE!

however, if you expect some amazing storyline you will be disappointed... but it is a truely amazing way to tell that particular story...

and I can't believe no one has mentioned this... but THIS IS FERNGULLY in the future... in space... with aliens... the scene with the doser really made that clear...

I want to watch it in IMAX 3D...

-Zach

[Atheist]

I was in Santo Domingo over the weekend and was surprised to see they were showing it in 3D. The theater was packed and I ended up sitting a little closer to the screen than I like but it didn't prove to be a problem. Although I went in expecting to be disappointed I have to say I really enjoyed the movie. It was my first 3D movie (I'm still trying to figure out how at 46 years of age I've never seen a 3D movie). Suffered none of the eye strain/headache issues that have been mentioned. Found it very easy to watch. (This was with the 3D glasses over my regular glasses). Yes the story was predictable but I was in awe from beginning to end at the visuals. Totally worth the $7.50. I think that's one thing you have to put into the equation when reviewing a movie. It's pretty cheap entertainment.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

Totally worth the $7.50. I think that's one thing you have to put into the equation when reviewing a movie. It's pretty cheap entertainment.

$29 for two tickets to see it in 3D here in the US. Ridiculous.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

$29 for two tickets to see it in 3D here in the US. Ridiculous.

So about $5.75/hr or so? Still seems like pretty cheap entertainment to me.

[turtle777]

While I don't think that $15 per tiecket is cheap, it's also not very expensive for 3 hours of entertainment.

Compare it to sports events or entertainment like musicals or theater, where you easily pay multiple times as much.

-t

[pooka]

I chuckled.

'Avatar': 'Pocahontas' With Blue People [PIC]

[downinflames68]

Avatard - CollegeHumor video

[downinflames68]

Originally Posted by Eug 

I believe "domestic" means US + Canada (although it could be US-only - not 100% sure).

---

Top 10 movie budgets of all time

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End
Titanic
Spider-Man 3
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest
King Kong
The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
Quantum of Solace
Superman Returns
Spider-Man 2

Note that Avatar wasn't mentioned. I'm not sure where it would fit on that list, since the budget estimates for that movie are all over the map. However, it is definitely on the top ten list somewhere.

I predict that Avatar will become the second highest grossing movie (not adjusted for inflation) of all time. When that prediction comes true, that will mean that James Cameron will have directed the two top grossers of all time, with two of the top 10 budgets of all time too.

BTW, my favourite James Cameron movie is The Terminator, which ironically had a production budget of just $6.4 million.

Man, really?! Most of those movies are garbage, and also very recent. Does this mean that our culture is a sinking ship, that more people are going to movies to escape their own realities? I would have thought E.T. and a few others would be on there... but titanic?! Ugh.

[ort888]

Inflation? ...ever heard of it?

Not only that, but these costs are way inflated by the studios for various reasons.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by pooka 

I chuckled.

'Avatar': 'Pocahontas' With Blue People [PIC]

Nice.