Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2019 19:08:32 GMT
At the World Wide Box Office.
It just goes to show you how impressive it is that a BRAND NEW Solo film made that much money 10 years Ago!
People say "it was the 3D tickets".
People have to want to see the film to even consider paying for the 3D to begin with.
How many films used the 3D gimmick? Lots.
The fact is, it took Marvel 10 YEARS of around 3 films per year of continuity, build up, and putting All of those characters in a finale. That film still didn't pass Avatar.
Avatar was one film, with no build up, original, not based on a comic, or nostalgia, or superheroes, etc..
Plus, the inflation of Tickets since 2009 more than makes up for the 3D tickets sold back then.
It's very impressive no matter how you slice it.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Jun 5, 2019 19:38:44 GMT
You're certain of this?
Kind of a stretch to call Avatar original. It just didn't credit its sources like Endgame did.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2019 19:47:11 GMT
You're certain of this? Kind of a stretch to call Avatar original. It just didn't credit its sources like Endgame did. What blue alien movie about lifestreams did it rip off?. I'm sure the dances with wolves and fern gully allegory is true, but the Na'Vi the planet, creatures, languages, the characters, etc... All original. |
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Jun 5, 2019 19:49:47 GMT
I don't put much weight into the box office numbers personally.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2019 20:05:50 GMT
I don't put much weight into the box office numbers personally. Me either, I'm just saying how impressive it really is. If you think about it. |
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Jun 5, 2019 20:08:48 GMT
You're certain of this? Kind of a stretch to call Avatar original. It just didn't credit its sources like Endgame did. What blue alien movie about lifestreams did it rip off?. I'm sure the dances with wolves and fern gully allegory is true, but the Na'Vi the planet, creatures, languages, the characters, etc... All original. Allegory is a nice way of putting it. I would have said ripoff. The Na'vi are basically just Nat ive Americans that are 10 foot and blue. The characters are stock stereotypes. Guess Pandora itself was original enough? Sidenote, I figured you leaned to the right. Avatar is one of the most hippie dippie liberal bullsh*t movies I've ever seen. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2019 20:19:56 GMT
What blue alien movie about lifestreams did it rip off?. I'm sure the dances with wolves and fern gully allegory is true, but the Na'Vi the planet, creatures, languages, the characters, etc... All original. Allegory is a nice way of putting it. I would have said ripoff. The Na'vi are basically just Nat ive Americans that are 10 foot and blue. The characters are stock stereotypes. Guess Pandora itself was original enough? Sidenote, I figured you leaned to the right. Avatar is one of the most hippie dippie liberal bullsh*t movies I've ever seen. Dude, the arc is a rip off, but the content, the characters, the world, the language, everything is original. |
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Jun 5, 2019 20:25:06 GMT
Allegory is a nice way of putting it. I would have said ripoff. The Na'vi are basically just Nat ive Americans that are 10 foot and blue. The characters are stock stereotypes. Guess Pandora itself was original enough? Sidenote, I figured you leaned to the right. Avatar is one of the most hippie dippie liberal bullsh*t movies I've ever seen. Dude, the arc is a rip off, but the content, the characters, the world, the language, everything is original. The arc? Bro, I'm talking about the entire plot. It's fine if JC hiring some linguistics guy to make a fake language for his generic aliens gets you off, dawg. I just don't think that's enough for me personally to call it original, homie. But you do you, cuz. |
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Jun 5, 2019 20:37:55 GMT
Definitely. I also don't really care about box-office with respect to what I think of a movie, but just looking at it as statistics, I still can't believe what Avatar pulled off. Only 2 movies in the box-office top 10 are non-franchise movies. Guess which ones? Avatar & Titanic. James Cameron sure knows how to make the people see his movies. Avatar also came out when social media (especially on phones) wasn't even close to what it is today. And that aspect of social media makes it possible to spread hype and information much faster than in 2009. So the fact that without the social media aspect, without being a franchise movie & with a relatively unknown actors (Sam Worthington & Zoe Saldana) in the lead roles it still make almost 2.8 billion dollars is truly a unique achievement. And that doesn't even take into account inflation, in which case Avatar is 2nd behind Gone With The Wind and it's more than 500 million clear of Endgame, which sits at a very impressive #5 spot. Then again, even taking into account inflation, movie tickets used to be cheaper relative to a person's average wage back in 1939 so even then it's not completely fair to compare Avatar & Gone With The Wind like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by jakesully on Jun 5, 2019 21:26:23 GMT
Yeah what James Cameron pulled off with Avatar was impressive as hell .
Plus, Endgame has a ton of star power in it (so many big name actors & actresses). Avatar didn't have that. The two leads were not known at the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by THawk on Jun 5, 2019 21:35:17 GMT
At the World Wide Box Office. It just goes to show you how impressive it is that a BRAND NEW Solo film made that much money 10 years Ago! People say "it was the 3D tickets". People have to want to see the film to even consider paying for the 3D to begin with. How many films used the 3D gimmick? Lots. The fact is, it took Marvel 10 YEARS of around 3 films per year of continuity, build up, and putting All of those characters in a finale. That film still didn't pass Avatar. Avatar was one film, with no build up, original, not based on a comic, or nostalgia, or superheroes, etc.. Plus, the inflation of Tickets since 2009 more than makes up for the 3D tickets sold back then. It's very impressive no matter how you slice it.
The 3D was the money-maker, no ifs or butts about it. It was this brand new invention that was going to/maybe in some ways did change movie-making in a way that it hadn't been changed since the invention of color.
I really don't know how anyone can argue it was something else. What was it otherwise, the story? Does anyone even remember the story? With the visuals/3D component aside, at the very best the story was run-of-the-mill fare. If it was released today it would make average business at best, it would be James Cameron's name that would carry it. The story doesn't even come close to comparing to JC's masterpieces like Titanic or Terminator or even The Abyss.
None of this is really a knock on Avatar - it deserves its success for JC's innovation. But to pretend that the box office was not almost entirely due to the 3D glasses element is crazy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2019 22:19:39 GMT
At the World Wide Box Office. It just goes to show you how impressive it is that a BRAND NEW Solo film made that much money 10 years Ago! People say "it was the 3D tickets". People have to want to see the film to even consider paying for the 3D to begin with. How many films used the 3D gimmick? Lots. The fact is, it took Marvel 10 YEARS of around 3 films per year of continuity, build up, and putting All of those characters in a finale. That film still didn't pass Avatar. Avatar was one film, with no build up, original, not based on a comic, or nostalgia, or superheroes, etc.. Plus, the inflation of Tickets since 2009 more than makes up for the 3D tickets sold back then. It's very impressive no matter how you slice it.
The 3D was the money-maker, no ifs or butts about it. It was this brand new invention that was going to/maybe in some ways did change movie-making in a way that it hadn't been changed since the invention of color.
I really don't know how anyone can argue it was something else. What was it otherwise, the story? Does anyone even remember the story? With the visuals/3D component aside, at the very best the story was run-of-the-mill fare. If it was released today it would make average business at best, it would be James Cameron's name that would carry it. The story doesn't even come close to comparing to JC's masterpieces like Titanic or Terminator or even The Abyss.
None of this is really a knock on Avatar - it deserves its success for JC's innovation. But to pretend that the box office was not almost entirely due to the 3D glasses element is crazy.
But isn't the "Shared Universe" a gimmick too? It's never been done to this level. Tons of A listers, 60+ Superheros well known by fans, based on popular characters, the end of an era 10 years building up. Avatar had one major star in Sigourney Weaver, and she's not exactly tearing up the box office today. All I'm saying is, it's amazing. Even with a 3D gimmick, that's a Sh** ton of money. Are you saying a crappy movie with a terrible plot and story would have made the same money in 3D, as long as it was first? |
|
|
|
Post by THawk on Jun 5, 2019 22:28:46 GMT
The 3D was the money-maker, no ifs or butts about it. It was this brand new invention that was going to/maybe in some ways did change movie-making in a way that it hadn't been changed since the invention of color.
I really don't know how anyone can argue it was something else. What was it otherwise, the story? Does anyone even remember the story? With the visuals/3D component aside, at the very best the story was run-of-the-mill fare. If it was released today it would make average business at best, it would be James Cameron's name that would carry it. The story doesn't even come close to comparing to JC's masterpieces like Titanic or Terminator or even The Abyss.
None of this is really a knock on Avatar - it deserves its success for JC's innovation. But to pretend that the box office was not almost entirely due to the 3D glasses element is crazy.
But isn't the "Shared Universe" a gimmick too? It's never been done to this level. Tons of A listers, 60+ Superheros well known by fans, based on popular characters, the end of an era 10 years building up. Avatar had one major star in Sigourney Weaver, and she's not exactly tearing up the box office today. All I'm saying is, it's amazing. Even with a 3D gimmick, that's a Sh** ton of money. Are you saying a crappy movie with a terrible plot and story would have made the same money in 3D, as long as it was first? Nothing wrong with either Avenger's multicast/multiverse giving it a unique bump, nor with Avatar's 3D appeal. Yes Avatar's achievement is amazing and it deserves it, not arguing at all otherwise. And the story - it wasn't crappy, but it was at most OK, nothing really that sits with you or you remember for the plot itself. If it was just plain crap, would it have made less money? I think it still would have had a massive opening, but yeah likely it wouldn't have had great legs. So it would not have done as good. If the story was as brilliant as the visuals, could it have made even more money? That's not impossible either.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 5, 2019 22:48:51 GMT
Dude, the arc is a rip off, but the content, the characters, the world, the language, everything is original. The arc? Bro, I'm talking about the entire plot. It's fine if JC hiring some linguistics guy to make a fake language for his generic aliens gets you off, dawg. I just don't think that's enough for me personally to call it original, homie. But you do you, cuz. Come on, you know what he means. Don't play dumb. Any movie not directly based on something else is technically an original movie. I wouldn't say it is original either, but at the same time it technically is. Sorry for butting in here, but I really can't let this slide. Plus, nobody went to see it because it sounded like Dances with Wolves, they went to see it because it was about giant blue 3D aliens doing cgi action on a fictional colorful planet in space and because it is James Cameron.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 5, 2019 22:52:40 GMT
At the World Wide Box Office. It just goes to show you how impressive it is that a BRAND NEW Solo film made that much money 10 years Ago! People say "it was the 3D tickets". People have to want to see the film to even consider paying for the 3D to begin with. How many films used the 3D gimmick? Lots. The fact is, it took Marvel 10 YEARS of around 3 films per year of continuity, build up, and putting All of those characters in a finale. That film still didn't pass Avatar. Avatar was one film, with no build up, original, not based on a comic, or nostalgia, or superheroes, etc.. Plus, the inflation of Tickets since 2009 more than makes up for the 3D tickets sold back then. It's very impressive no matter how you slice it.
The 3D was the money-maker, no ifs or butts about it. It was this brand new invention that was going to/maybe in some ways did change movie-making in a way that it hadn't been changed since the invention of color.
I really don't know how anyone can argue it was something else. What was it otherwise, the story? Does anyone even remember the story? With the visuals/3D component aside, at the very best the story was run-of-the-mill fare. If it was released today it would make average business at best, it would be James Cameron's name that would carry it. The story doesn't even come close to comparing to JC's masterpieces like Titanic or Terminator or even The Abyss.
None of this is really a knock on Avatar - it deserves its success for JC's innovation. But to pretend that the box office was not almost entirely due to the 3D glasses element is crazy.
You're right, but it still did it without 21 movies building it up. Isn't that the main point of the OP?
|
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Jun 5, 2019 23:04:09 GMT
The arc? Bro, I'm talking about the entire plot. It's fine if JC hiring some linguistics guy to make a fake language for his generic aliens gets you off, dawg. I just don't think that's enough for me personally to call it original, homie. But you do you, cuz. Come on, you know what he means. Don't play dumb. Any movie not directly based on something else is technically an original movie. I wouldn't say it is original either, but it is selling itself as original. Sorry for butting in here, but I really can't let this slide. Plus, nobody went to see it because it sounded like Dances with Wolves, they went to see it because it was about giant blue 3D aliens doing cgi action on a fictional colorful planet in space and because it is James Cameron. I'm not going to blow James Cameron for remaking Ferngully and not crediting its writers. Sorry if this offends you guys. If we're gonna blow him, let's blow him for Titanic, which was also "original" and made more money than either of these minus inflation. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 5, 2019 23:13:39 GMT
Come on, you know what he means. Don't play dumb. Any movie not directly based on something else is technically an original movie. I wouldn't say it is original either, but it is selling itself as original. Sorry for butting in here, but I really can't let this slide. Plus, nobody went to see it because it sounded like Dances with Wolves, they went to see it because it was about giant blue 3D aliens doing cgi action on a fictional colorful planet in space and because it is James Cameron. I'm not going to blow James Cameron for remaking Ferngully and not crediting its writers. Sorry if this offends you guys. If we're gonna blow him, let's blow him for Titanic, which was also "original" and made more money than either of these minus inflation. I'm not blowing him and it doesn't offend me. The fact of the matter is that it just doesn't bother me that he did what he did because I still really like the movie because it is visually stunning and awesome. The movie's purpose was basically just the cgi, the 3-D and the colors. And of course I think Titanic is the better movie, but it is basically just Romeo and Juliet on the Titanic. If I hated Avatar I would still be saying the same thing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2019 0:35:31 GMT
Come on, you know what he means. Don't play dumb. Any movie not directly based on something else is technically an original movie. I wouldn't say it is original either, but it is selling itself as original. Sorry for butting in here, but I really can't let this slide. Plus, nobody went to see it because it sounded like Dances with Wolves, they went to see it because it was about giant blue 3D aliens doing cgi action on a fictional colorful planet in space and because it is James Cameron. I'm not going to blow James Cameron for remaking Ferngully and not crediting its writers. Sorry if this offends you guys. If we're gonna blow him, let's blow him for Titanic, which was also "original" and made more money than either of these minus inflation. Titanic is less original. It's "A Night to Remember" (1958) crossed with Romeo and Juliet. Avatar is completely new. Na'Vi and Pandora didn't exist until that film. |
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Jun 6, 2019 2:47:08 GMT
In re-releases it will pass Avatar. I’m not sure which one I want to be number one though. I’m not real high on either of them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2019 4:32:47 GMT
In re-releases it will pass Avatar. I’m not sure which one I want to be number one though. I’m not real high on either of them. Then Cameron will re-release Avatar in some new 4D 8K technology. In fact, he claims Avatar 2 will have the 3D depth without the glasses and he's using some special new technology to film it. I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't re-release the first film a few weeks ahead of Avatar 2, or do "double feature" days at certain theaters with the original remasted. |
|
