Avatar

[Smallc]

The Crown? Is this a monarchy?

I thought that was abundantly clear.

[DrGreenthumb]

Ummm...didn't this topic begin as Avatar?

I look forward to seeing Avatar eventually.Give me a good plot,CGI or not.

It has a GREAT plot and fantastic characters too. My whole family loved the movie. Even without being as visually spectacular as it is it would still be a great movie. You will really connect with the characters, and feel their pain and anguish as their planet is being destroyed and their loved ones are being slaughtered. It is a very emotionally moving film, even MY eyes started to well up at some points, and I rarely get that absorbed into a movie

[Pliny]

I thought that was abundantly clear.

We, are the subjects of a monarchy? We are not free? We are serfs(not to be confused with smurfs)?

[Smallc]

Yes, yes we are. Fortunately, they serve us, just as we serve them.

[Pliny]

Yes, yes we are. Fortunately, they serve us, just as we serve them.

Sounds kind of capitalistic to me!

[August1991]

I really don't care how much money Fox, or Cameron made, or even how much the theatre made off its overpriced popcorn and drinks. They charged what the free market would bear, and are entitled to their profits. I support the free market, and ethical corporations.

???

It has a GREAT plot and fantastic characters too. My whole family loved the movie. Even without being as visually spectacular as it is it would still be a great movie. You will really connect with the characters, and feel their pain and anguish as their planet is being destroyed and their loved ones are being slaughtered. It is a very emotionally moving film, even MY eyes started to well up at some points, and I rarely get that absorbed into a movie

???

Uh, Greenthumb, does Cameron pay for your weed?

----

Avatar is long and boring. No one will pay to see it a second time. It's not a rental. And it's not a DVD buy. Twentieth Century Fox will get its money now, and that's all. IOW, it's the 2009 version of 1963's Cleopatra.

The movie business, like airlines and hotels, is all about butts in seats. Where the movie business differs is that it must choose what product to promote.

Avatar's promotion took the place of other movies, that possibly could have put more butts in seats - and generated more post-cinema revenue.

Edited January 1, 2010 by August1991

[DrGreenthumb]

???

???

Uh, Greenthumb, does Cameron pay for your weed?

----

Avatar is long and boring. No one will pay to see it a second time. It's not a rental. And it's not a DVD buy. Twentieth Century Fox will get its money now, and that's all. IOW, it's the 2009 version of 1963's Cleopatra.

The movie business, like airlines and hotels, is all about butts in seats. Where the movie business differs is that it must choose what product to promote.

Avatar's promotion took the place of other movies, that possibly could have put more butts in seats - and generated more post-cinema revenue.

Long and boring?? You are so full of shit! It was 3 hours long, and it felt like it went by in an hour. My youngest didn't even get restless once, or even ask to go back to the concession for more junk food. If you didn't like the movie, fine, but boring it is definitely NOT!

[Smallc]

Avatar has made about $750M - so much for long and boring. At the same time, Sherlock Holmes has made over $110M. Seems like more than one movie at a time is doing pretty well.

[kimmy]

Avatar is long and boring. No one will pay to see it a second time. It's not a rental. And it's not a DVD buy. Twentieth Century Fox will get its money now, and that's all. IOW, it's the 2009 version of 1963's Cleopatra.

The movie business, like airlines and hotels, is all about butts in seats. Where the movie business differs is that it must choose what product to promote.

Avatar's promotion took the place of other movies, that possibly could have put more butts in seats - and generated more post-cinema revenue.

The discussion you're creating here sounds a lot like something I said a long time ago in another thread (here, specifically).

However, what I think you may have missed is that as far as making efficient use of the scarce resource of screens, Avatar has been a tremendous success. From a distribution point of view, the best thing that could happen would be if the movie makes a ton of money right away and then leaves the theatres right away. From that point of view, Avatar is succeeding like few other movies ever have.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

....Avatar's promotion took the place of other movies, that possibly could have put more butts in seats - and generated more post-cinema revenue.

No doubt about that....they promoted the hell out of that movie...to the point of campaign ad annoyance. Must have cost many millions. Looks like a Netflix streamer for us on the PS3 when available, if only because it is easier to do 3 hours at home.

[kimmy]

I finally saw the big movie yesterday, and I feel like I got my $12 worth.

As a story, it's mediocre and been done before. If it was intended to be social commentary, it failed in that respect. But as a spectacle, it was amazing.

This was my first experience with the "new" 3d technology, although I once saw a crappy 1950s blue-red-horror cheesefest at a crappy 1950s movie festival playing at a local arthouse theatre. It took a while for me to get used to it. We originally started near the very front of the theatre, and that was just too intense and I had to move back. It took my eyes a while to get used to it (a sensation of blurring and having trouble focusing that went away after a while). I was in an aisle seat and the floor exit lighting was reflecting off the inside of my 3d glasses which distracted me as well; I spent the whole movie with my hand by my ear to block the reflection. But once I got comfortable with the 3d, I was really impressed with it. A few times I found it a little distracting, but for the most part it was used in a way that added to the sense of immersion.

And I did feel a sense of immersion in the fantasy environment they had created. I think that's what the movie offers... not a social commentary or a profound story, just 2.7 hours immersed in a completely different world. To me, that aspect of it alone makes it an impressive piece of art.

-k

[Tawasakm]

Well, I saw Avatar this week-end and enjoyed it as pure entertainment. Unfortunately, the story and the message were old and hackneyed. There is a surprise element in the film that Cameron attempts to make credible which is unusual for Hollywood in this day and age.

I don't want to comment further and spoil the film for anyone. For pure entertainment I felt I got my money's worth. I saw the 3D version. Apparently, it's a different 3D technology than that of old so maybe those people, as someone mentioned on the thread, with visual impairment that haven't been able to enjoy 3D will be able to enjoy this one.

I really doubt it. I can't watch 3d movies because I have a lazy eye. Most people achieve depth perception through retinal disparity (which means your brain takes the two images you are receiving from both eyes and performs calculations based on the differences). When I judge depth its through monocular (not binocular) depth perception. Which means that my brain is performing a bunch of calculations based on lighting differences, changes in size, angles etc etc based on input through one eye. Because the eyes don't line up properly the brain will discard what the non dominant eye is seeing. In my case my right eye is dominant (although I can conciously change my dominant eye) so if I am looking straight ahead my brain automatically deletes whatever my left eye is seeing that has crossover with my dominant eye's field of vision - I do get full peripheral vision however. Which is due to various exercises I had to do as a kid and to being forced to wear an eye patch to prevent me seeing out of my right eye at all for periods of time. All of which meant my brain learned to use my left eye and to edit out only the crossover part (apparently I would have gone blind in my left eye without this). I remember at uni we were once shown some little visual tricks (various stuff which appeared to be doing odd things if you had one eye shut) and I was the only one there who would see exactly the same thing regardless of whether I had both eyes open or one. The whole point of this being, of course, that any 3d movie experience is based on both eyes receiving input. No matter how much they improve their technique its just not going to work for folks with lazy eyes. Its a shame but c'est la vi.

[August1991]

Long and boring?? You are so full of shit! It was 3 hours long, and it felt like it went by in an hour. My youngest didn't even get restless once, or even ask to go back to the concession for more junk food. If you didn't like the movie, fine, but boring it is definitely NOT!

À chacun son goût. I saw this movie with an 18 year old and a 15 year old. The 15 year old described it as "long and boring". I found it "blue".

Avatar has made about $750M - so much for long and boring. At the same time, Sherlock Holmes has made over $110M. Seems like more than one movie at a time is doing pretty well.

Various sources claim that it cost $200 million to make and $300 million to promote. The usual rule of thumb is that if US/Canada box office exceeds cost, then the movie is "profitable".

OTOH, all of these numbers are now part of the marketing machine and so I'm suspicious. (Hollywood is in the business of getting people to suspend disbelief and I have no doubt whatsoever that producers would manipulate numbers if it meant better PR.)

Something else that is relevant to this thread. Avatar is designed to be seen on the huge cinema screen. Moreover, there is no trick in the story (unlike, say, The Matrix). Most people will see Avatar once and that will be all. Hence, its after-release revenues will be smaller. To be honest, who will watch Avatar on a small touchscreen during a trans-continental flight?

However, what I think you may have missed is that as far as making efficient use of the scarce resource of screens, Avatar has been a tremendous success. From a distribution point of view, the best thing that could happen would be if the movie makes a ton of money right away and then leaves the theatres right away. From that point of view, Avatar is succeeding like few other movies ever have.

I think that in modern times, "butts in seats" is just the start of the movie process. If a movie grosses well at the box office, then that usually signals to DVD renters that it's a movie to consider. If the Avatar bluray comes with polaroid glasses, then the hype might work.

When I judge depth its through monocular (not binocular) depth perception. Which means that my brain is performing a bunch of calculations based on lighting differences, changes in size, angles etc etc based on input through one eye.

I have a friend who lost vision in one eye because of an accident. As she once explained to me, she used similar techniques to pour milk into coffee.

----

IMV, the CGI/3D thing is driven in part because people now have home cinemas. I am reminded of the 1950s when Hollywood struggled with TV. This explains my comparison of Cleopatra (1963, widescreen, Elizabeth Taylor) and Avatar. Both movies are spectacle and they are designed to get people into the cinema, since the spectacle can be seen nowhere else.

In the late 19th century, prior to cinema, cycloramas were popular. Only a few remain today.

[Smallc]

I think the times are changing and you don't like it. Maybe instead of fighting things, you should just accept and embrace them.

[August1991]

I think the times are changing and you don't like it. Maybe instead of fighting things, you should just accept and embrace them.

Smallc, is that comment addressed to me?

If so, my point is that Hollywood now, as in the 1950s, is not adapting to change. As in the 1950s when it tried to create movies that defied TV, it is now attempting to create movies that defy pirating and home cinema. The 1950s gave us Panavision which I consider a plus. It also gave us 3D cinema which didn't work then (and won't work now).

I think Hollywood should see home cinemas as a positive development, just like Hollywood eventually saw TV as a positive development. But whadda I know?

[Smallc]

3D today is quite different than 3D in the past. It's even coming to your home. Like I said, I think it's you that's stuck in the past.

[DrGreenthumb]

3D today is quite different than 3D in the past. It's even coming to your home. Like I said, I think it's you that's stuck in the past.

We will probably go to this movie again when it comes to our local IMAX. Also it will probably be added to our home DVD collection, or downloaded in HD via the xbox360. I'm sure the DVD will come with a home 3D version and glasses as well. The home 3D actually works pretty well, and has for a few years already. Journey to the centre of the earth, Hannah Montana and even sharkboy and Lavagirl from like 10 years ago look pretty decent on our 54" home theatre. They are even coming out with new 3D TV sets now that will eventually replace all the LCD/Plasma sets everyone has.

Cameron has already stated that he has sequels in the works, and if ever a movie has begged merchandising of toys, etc it is Avatar. This movie will be my kids generation's Star Wars. The far righties just don't like the message that complete unfettered capitalism at any cost is immorral. The other stated reasons for disliking the movie are obvious BS.

[kimmy]

Various sources claim that it cost $200 million to make and $300 million to promote. The usual rule of thumb is that if US/Canada box office exceeds cost, then the movie is "profitable".

One estimate I read placed production costs at $290-320 million, and marketting expenses at $120-150 million. I tend to find that the most believable, because it jives with all the varying figures that we've been hearing. It jives with the $300m production cost that was widely quoted earlier, but also explains the $400-500m figures that have appeared in some stories.

OTOH, all of these numbers are now part of the marketing machine and so I'm suspicious. (Hollywood is in the business of getting people to suspend disbelief and I have no doubt whatsoever that producers would manipulate numbers if it meant better PR.)

If they could make movies a "success" by claiming big box-office receipts, why does this metric show that so many movies flop at the box office?

I don't believe the movie studios are in charge of the theatre chains, or in charge of the weekly box office figures we receive.

I also believe that the distribution companies and theatre chains are publicly traded companies and that they are required to release audited information in their reports to shareholders, so if the weekly figures are lies, they'd get caught in it.

I don't know how these estimates are derived, but they are widely considered credible. I think there's no doubt at all that Avatar is a hit of immense proportions.

Something else that is relevant to this thread. Avatar is designed to be seen on the huge cinema screen. Moreover, there is no trick in the story (unlike, say, The Matrix). Most people will see Avatar once and that will be all. Hence, its after-release revenues will be smaller. To be honest, who will watch Avatar on a small touchscreen during a trans-continental flight?

Probably not. It's not going to work on a 7" seat-back. It might work pretty well on a hi-def 50" plasma, though. It's beautiful to look at. It'll sound great.

I think that in modern times, "butts in seats" is just the start of the movie process. If a movie grosses well at the box office, then that usually signals to DVD renters that it's a movie to consider. If the Avatar bluray comes with polaroid glasses, then the hype might work.

What you're getting at is an important part of the equation for movie studios. Ask people to name box-office bombs, and one they'll often mention is Waterworld. But Waterworld ultimately made money, by the time home video sales and broadcast rights and so-on were included.

I don't think the premise you're working under is super strong, though. "Blockbuster" type movies have had extremely strong home video sales. From the Star Wars saga right through to The Dark Knight and the Transformers movies, these "you have to see it in the theatre!" movies seem to do tremendously well on home video too.

The Matrix was the first DVD I ever purchased. I didn't have a real DVD player except for the one in my computer. And I had the nice speakers in my computer. I bought The Matrix because I wanted to hear the high-quality sound. I think Avatar will have the same sort of appeal for people looking for stuff that will make the most of their expensive TVs and sound systems.

I have an incredible home theatre setup. I want incredible stuff to put on it.

IMV, the CGI/3D thing is driven in part because people now have home cinemas. I am reminded of the 1950s when Hollywood struggled with TV. This explains my comparison of Cleopatra (1963, widescreen, Elizabeth Taylor) and Avatar. Both movies are spectacle and they are designed to get people into the cinema, since the spectacle can be seen nowhere else.

As I said earlier, there's nothing new going on here. There have been movies designed to deliver that "you just HAVE to see it in the theatre!" sensation for years. The home viewing experience may have improved tremendously over time, but the danger to movie theatres is about the same.

25 years ago dad had a VCR and a 27" CRT TV, which I imagine was considered pretty swank at the time. I have a 50" plasma widescreen, a blu-ray player, and a bitchen 5.1 channel surround sound system. If 1985 dad could see 2010 kimmy's home theatre, he'd probably regard it as Star Trek technology.

But really, the difference is just qualitative. 1985 dad could go down to the store and rent a movie with the expectation of seeing a good quality reproduction of the original. 2010 kimmy can do the same. What's really changed? The expectation of what constitutes a good quality reproduction. That's about it.

The threat to theatres, the "I think I'll just wait until it comes out on rental" or "I think I'll just wait until it comes out on the movie channel" or "maybe I'll watch it on network TV some time in the future" is about the same.

I think that while the quality of the home movie experience has improved dramatically, the attitude that there are movies that you just have to see in the theatre to get the full experience remains the same.

It's not the 1950s anymore. People are entirely used to the idea that you can have moving pictures right in your living room. The movies have survived that.

One of the box office reports I linked to earlier contained the following remarks:

2009 still has several days to go, but the year is already a record for domestic ticket sales with more than $10 billion at the box office. That surpassed the $9.7 billion mark of 2007.

While some of the credit has to go the recession (movies historically do well in hard times when a trip to the movie theater is a relatively cheap form of entertainment and escapism), there was a feeling Sunday that Hollywood had put forth a better product this Christmas.

...and I think that a lot of it boils down to just that: people want to go out, and movies provide pretty good value. For $12, you could have 3 forgettable beers, two forgettable hamburgers, or 1 memorable movie.

Unnoticed amid all the blue aliens, the Sandra Bullock movie "The Blind Side", about an adopted boy who becomes a football star, has drawn huge audiences. Women are apparently flocking to the new Meryl Streep show. Both are, I imagine, not 3d and lacking in CGI creatures. Both films would probably be just fine on a 50" plasma and blu-ray, or even a 27" CRT and VCR. People have been going anyway, in large numbers. A spectacle like Avatar might get a lot of people to the theatres, but people still go to theatres to see movies with more traditional appeal.

If so, my point is that Hollywood now, as in the 1950s, is not adapting to change. As in the 1950s when it tried to create movies that defied TV, it is now attempting to create movies that defy pirating and home cinema. The 1950s gave us Panavision which I consider a plus. It also gave us 3D cinema which didn't work then (and won't work now).

I think Hollywood should see home cinemas as a positive development, just like Hollywood eventually saw TV as a positive development. But whadda I know?

I see little reason to think they don't. I don't think that the existence of large spectacle like Avatar, which seems designed to get people to go to an actual movie theatre, is evidence to suggest otherwise.

They create extra material right at the time of production, specifically intended to buff out their home releases. Short films, extra scenes, commentary.

And of course the "direct to video" distribution model has been around for a long time. I think that in the future, downloadable features geared specifically for home theatre will become more common (TV is already exploring this...) but somehow I doubt it will take the place of a real movie theatre.

-k

[Smallc]

We will probably go to this movie again when it comes to our local IMAX.

Is it coming to IMAX in 3D? IMAX 3D is something amazing (at least, on the IMAX movies it is).

[Tawasakm]

They are even coming out with new 3D TV sets now that will eventually replace all the LCD/Plasma sets everyone has.

I hope not. I would be excluded from any viewing experience.

[DrGreenthumb]

Is it coming to IMAX in 3D? IMAX 3D is something amazing (at least, on the IMAX movies it is).

Its coming to imax in 3D but its not like the "IMAX 3D" you see in Monsters of the deep, or other made for imax 3D movies. It would probably be kind of like beowulf was in 3d at imax, but better cuz its a much better movie.

Edited January 4, 2010 by DrGreenthumb

[DrGreenthumb]

I hope not. I would be excluded from any viewing experience.

Well it wouldn't make much sense for you to buy a set like that then. I can't wait to get a 3D set myself.

[Shakeyhands]

Of course...because your world is dominated by "America".

I swear you just troll this forum to find opportunities to try to convince yourself how great the US is. and to try to convince us as well I suppose... sad.

I saw Avatar and thought it was ok, the effects were mid blowing, it sure ain't your grand pappys 3D! $80 was a wee bit steep though for 6 of us.

[bush_cheney2004]

I swear you just troll this forum to find opportunities to try to convince yourself how great the US is. and to try to convince us as well I suppose... sad.

So why do you troll this forum?

I saw Avatar and thought it was ok, the effects were mid blowing, it sure ain't your grand pappys 3D! $80 was a wee bit steep though for 6 of us.

Now that's sad!

[Shwa]

We saw it this weekend and WOW! And we'll go back this week to see it again with the kids.

Story? No worse than the original Star Wars that I have seen many, many times. I suspect Avatar will be bought for the DVD collection.

Special effects? As kimmy said, it is an immersive experience in 3D that is hard to explain, but it is something else in the WOW category. Pandora is indeed an alien world.

Length? 3 hours is long, but the experience makes it worthwhile. But try not to drink too much pop or you'll end up missing the banshee part for 2 minutes.

Political messages? 'Bad people get their just desserts' and 'think of others.' Kind of like Star Wars. There wasn't any corporation-bashing at all, but there was bashing of a certain type of person who cause problems when they rise to power positions in corporations with the means to do large amounts of damage.

Go see it, worth the 11$.