Avatar

[Guest TrueMetis]

So, what explains Avatar's commercial success? IMV, it was marketing. The idea to raise ticket prices was genius. The 3D glasses helped.

In 50 years, people will rent "Witness for the Prosecution", "Rebecca" or "It's a Wonderful Life" to watch with their kids. Avatar will be just another King Kong, Gorgon or Poseidon Adventure. Comical, and known as a blockbuster in its time.

I hope this is a joke. You think Avatar is stupid and is just another King Kong. I haven't seen Avatar but King Kong is an icon. King Kong is 70+ years old and still hugely popular. You've lost any credibility you had in criticizing movies.

[August1991]

You think Avatar is stupid and is just another King Kong.

Precisely. For its time, Avatar is another version of King Kong. A blockbuster. Heck, they may even make another version of Avatar, but I somehow doubt it.

Blockbusters are so 1930s - like Avatar.

[Smallc]

August, it's official, you have no idea what you're talking about.

[GostHacked]

I don't buy into this whole 3D thing myself. It's marketing.

Some of the movies that were not shot in 3D won't get the benefit of being 3D if that is decided post production. I wear glasses to read and stuff, but I don't want to wear glasses on my glasses ect.

August

The story is a rehashed old one, revamped time and time again. It is nothing new. But it's like pop songs, they are all the same, but sometimes one stands out over all the rest. Being as generic as it is in story.

I'd like to see it in 3D but I am not happy with the quality of the picture on the big screens. It's still a little fuzzy and out of focus. The other thing I can't stand is the image jumping on the screen. It bothered my eyes when I saw District 9. It was not the stuff moving in the film, it was the whole screen kind of oscillating up and down. The bigger the screen the more you notice it.

[M.Dancer]

Still no interest in seeing it...

[bloodyminded]

Precisely. For its time, Avatar is another version of King Kong. A blockbuster. Heck, they may even make another version of Avatar, but I somehow doubt it.

Blockbusters are so 1930s - like Avatar.

King Kong is a classic.

And "blockbusters" as we know them are a phenomenon that began in the '70s.

Edited April 19, 2010 by bloodyminded

[ToadBrother]

King Kong is a classic.

And "blockbusters" as we know them are a phenomenon that began in the '70s.

It certainly could apply to some earlier movies. For instance, how else would you describe Gone With The Wind, which in adjusted dollars, still ranks as the top grossing movie in US history?

[M.Dancer]

It certainly could apply to some earlier movies. For instance, how else would you describe Gone With The Wind, which in adjusted dollars, still ranks as the top grossing movie in US history?

The 10 commandments....Ben Hur..The longest Day...Sound of Music

The use of the term "block buster" became common in the 60s...

[bush_cheney2004]

Still no interest in seeing it...

I agree...no interest in seeing 3D smurfs waging war. I'd rather watch Transformers drek if I must...at least it has Megan Fox. Nobody in my immediate family has seen Avatar either....guess we're too old.

King Kong (1933) on the other hand, always packs them in. Now that was a movie!

[ToadBrother]

I agree...no interest in seeing 3D smurfs waging war. I'd rather watch Transformers drek if I must...at least it has Megan Fox. Nobody in my immediate family has seen Avatar either....guess we're too old.

I'm always amused by people who condemn a movie they've never seen.

I don't think Avatar is the best movie ever made, to be sure. It's storyline is pretty derivative, and was done much better in Dancing With Wolves. Heck, I didn't even see it in 3D (mainly because I've got pretty crappy vision and all I get from 3D is double-vision and a headache), so I saw it at my local low-tech 2D theater. But you know what, apart from its acting and plotting flaws, the visuals were probably the most stunning I've ever seen in a film. It is, in my opinion, one of the most beautiful films ever made.

[M.Dancer]

I agree...no interest in seeing 3D smurfs waging war. I'd rather watch Transformers drek if I must...at least it has Megan Fox. Nobody in my immediate family has seen Avatar either....guess we're too old.

King Kong (1933) on the other hand, always packs them in. Now that was a movie!

I did not have control of the controller last night....so they (Les Filles) were flipping between the Junos and the Country Music Awards...my almost 11 year old daughter made a few derogatory comments, about accents, wardrobes and awarding NOT Taylor Swift the statue in every category....when I realized and said, "you have never seen a cowboy movie..." (She said she saw the Hannah Montanna movie).

And I thought, at her age, without the VCR of the DVD, I had seen Shane, The Man Who Shot Liberty Vallance, The War Wagon, Oklahoma!, The Big Country, The Horse Soldiers....and dozens more...

I guess pop culture and gender might be factors...

Edited April 19, 2010 by M.Dancer

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm always amused by people who condemn a movie they've never seen.

If I saw it then I couldn't condemn it.

I don't think Avatar is the best movie ever made, to be sure. It's storyline is pretty derivative, and was done much better in Dancing With Wolves.

Dancing With Wolves grew very tedious as well.

Heck, I didn't even see it in 3D (mainly because I've got pretty crappy vision and all I get from 3D is double-vision and a headache), so I saw it at my local low-tech 2D theater. But you know what, apart from its acting and plotting flaws, the visuals were probably the most stunning I've ever seen in a film. It is, in my opinion, one of the most beautiful films ever made.

And in 1933, King Kong would go you one better, with "stunning" stop-motion photography, a very interesting storyline, and excellent character development. Canadian Fay Wray and Kong will be remembered long after the characters in Avatar. Technology alone does not carry a film.

Everybody with gray hair say it together:

Police Lieutenant: Well, Denham, the airplanes got him.

Carl Denham: Oh no, it wasn't the airplanes. It was beauty killed the beast. ...

Edited April 19, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[ToadBrother]

If I saw it then I couldn't condemn it.

I would more likely take your criticisms seriously.

Let's put it this way. My grandmother once told me that Huckleberry Finn was a rude book, and was very nasty to blacks. I asked if her if she had read the book, and she told me quite proudly that she wouldn't read such vulgar rubbish. Do you think the criticisms of someone who has never opened the book, but only formulated opinions based on the reports of others, really carries that much weight?

I feel the objections to Avatar resemble heavily the objections to Monty Python's Life of Brian. There seems a certain group, more for philosophical reasons, who rejected both movies based on what they thought it was about. For Life of Brian, the issue was blasphemy, for Avatar, the issue is corporatism.

I'll repeat that I don't think Avatar, as a story, is all that good. It's derivative and pretty cliched. But, regardless of all of that, the spectacle itself is pretty bloody glorious. The detail and artistry is extraordinary (even if some of the biology doesn't make sense, why would egg-layers have breasts?)

Edited April 19, 2010 by ToadBrother

[bush_cheney2004]

I would more likely take your criticisms seriously.

It's not even criticism...just a choice to spend my time on something else. There are many films I haven't seen for lots of different reasons, and Avatar just isn't that compelling (to me).

Let's put it this way. My grandmother once told me that Huckleberry Finn was a rude book, and was very nasty to blacks. I asked if her if she had read the book, and she told me quite proudly that she wouldn't read such vulgar rubbish. Do you think the criticisms of someone who has never opened the book, but only formulated opinions based on the reports of others, really carries that much weight?

Frankly, neither carry that much weight with me.

I feel the objections to Avatar resemble heavily the objections to Monty Python's Life of Brian. There seems a certain group, more for philosophical reasons, who rejected both movies based on what they thought it was about. For Life of Brian, the issue was blasphemy, for Avatar, the issue is corporatism.

For me, it is the creeping cartoonish CGI that does not substitute for other aspects of great film making. Look at the positively awful 2012 with CGI run amok.

I'll repeat that I don't think Avatar, as a story, is all that good. It's derivative and pretty cliched. But, regardless of all of that, the spectacle itself is pretty bloody glorious. The detail and artistry is extraordinary (even if some of the biology doesn't make sense, why would egg-layers have breasts?)

Then please enjoy...the DVD and Blu Ray push for Avatar is now upon us.

Edited April 19, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[bloodyminded]

It certainly could apply to some earlier movies. For instance, how else would you describe Gone With The Wind, which in adjusted dollars, still ranks as the top grossing movie in US history?

Sure, there were lots of movies that we could (retroactively) affirm as "blockbusters."

But the phenomenon as we know it really began with movies like Jaws" and "Star Wars" and a few others.

Whereas a few older films would qualify for the term, we now have many each year.

This is directly contrary to the false claim to which I was responding, stating declaratively that blockbusters are a sort of 1930s phenomenon. Not so.

Edited April 19, 2010 by bloodyminded