The Shrine

I sincerely believe that Avatar is going to very soon pass Titanic, probably within a week and a half. This is cinematic history in the making.

1. Titanic was once thought to be insurmountable and we're watching a movie VERY quickly pass it.
2. Everyone thought James Cameron was crazy when he suggested that Avatar would break ground on special effects the same way Terminator 2 did, and have the same success that Titanic did. The Canadian director/producer has now proven his point.
3. Avatar will be the first film to pass 2 billion at the box office, and perhaps usher in a new era of Mega-blockbusters; Jackson/Spielberg's The Adventures of Tintin: Secret of the Unicorn, and The Hobbit volume 1 and 2 will perhaps be next on the list.


Now will Avatar take home lots of Academy Award gold? This would allow Cameron to declare "I'm King of the Universe!" =P

Rather than continuously topping the other thread, I'll just update this post without topping it (for you Kupek).

Julius Seeker wrote:2. Everyone thought James Cameron was crazy when he suggested that Avatar would break ground on special effects the same way Terminator 2 did, and have the same success that Titanic did. The Canadian director/producer has now proven his point.

Who said this? There was enormous hype about the special effects.

You mean to tell me that you have not come across anyone who has said thought he was crazy? People saying that they weren't impressed with the initial teaser and that the expectations were blown way out of proportion?

I'm pretty shocked. Titanic played in theaters forever to hit that dollar mark and Avatar is going to fly right by it. I didnt think anything short of another well known tragedy on screen would have this kind of mass appeal.

Cameron is the man, looks like everything he touches turns to gold. I still havnt seen the stupid gimmick movie in question, though.

Julius Seeker wrote:You mean to tell me that you have not come across anyone who has said thought he was crazy? People saying that they weren't impressed with the initial teaser and that the expectations were blown way out of proportion?

I wasn't impressed with the initial teaser - but I wanted to see it once I learned it was in 3D. I fell for the hype. I read two interesting articles about the making of the movie, both centered on Cameron.

The existence of some backlash is natural, but it does not in any way make this movie an underdog.

Flip wrote:I'm pretty shocked. Titanic played in theaters forever to hit that dollar mark and Avatar is going to fly right by it. I didnt think anything short of another well known tragedy on screen would have this kind of mass appeal.

Cameron is the man, looks like everything he touches turns to gold. I still havnt seen the stupid gimmick movie in question, though.

That's the difference in the type of film. Ones that cater to the 15-25 year-old male have the huge initial weekends then tail off whereas chick flicks (or ones that cater to women and older people) tend to have longer legs. Titanic kept selling for months on end relatively steadily but you often get flicks like I Am Legend having 2 good weekends then out of the top 10. Then you get the ones that seem to appeal both ways, like the original Batman and now Avatar

If you like Cameron's flicks not named Titanic, you should be happy with this one. None of his films have ever been about deep characters or complex storylines. Also, you MUST see it in 3D, it really is spectacular to watch.

The movie was always a big blockbuster, but there was quite a bit of skepticism and comments made regarding the cost and whether or not it would even break even. Even the biggest supporters who loved the flick had no idea if it would do well. I think that's what Seek used and twisted it into the underdog idea.

Avatar has made Cameron into an anti-American?

http://www.torontosun.com/entertainment ... 1-qmi.html

If this is true, I'd like to know what the motivation is behind the right-wing think tank to make up some bullshit like this. It really is insane

I'm going to see it today for the first time. In 3D...not sure if I want to see it in 3D but my girlfriend wants too...

Avatar is a stupid fucking movie, with stupid fucking characters, and stupid fucking fanboys who love its stupid fucking paper thin bullshit rip-off plot of Dances With Wolves.

Hi guyz I'm back.

Imakeholesinu wrote:I'm going to see it today for the first time. In 3D...not sure if I want to see it in 3D but my girlfriend wants too...

Watch in 3D or nothing. Even my bud, who disliked the film, concedes that it's worth watching it in 3D once 'cause of how nice it is as a technological landmark

RentCavalier wrote:Avatar is a stupid fucking movie, with stupid fucking characters, and stupid fucking fanboys who love its stupid fucking paper thin bullshit rip-off plot of Dances With Wolves.

Hi guyz I'm back.

You jus jealous, cause 3D Na'vi girls like me.

3D was sold out. Will probably go back some time and watch it again in 3D. I thought it was pretty good.

Well, Avatar won big at the Golden Globes taking home both best picture and best director awards.

Julius Seeker wrote:Well, Avatar won big at the Golden Globes taking home both best picture and best director awards.

FUCK HOLLYWOOD.

RentCavalier wrote:

Julius Seeker wrote:Well, Avatar won big at the Golden Globes taking home both best picture and best director awards.

FUCK HOLLYWOOD.

Who jizzed in your cornflakes?

I am just utterly gobsmacked by how obsessed the world seems to be by Avatar. It's a stupid movie--why on Earth does everyone treat it like it's some kind of fine art masterpiece?

RentCavalier wrote:I am just utterly gobsmacked by how obsessed the world seems to be by Avatar. It's a stupid movie--why on Earth does everyone treat it like it's some kind of fine art masterpiece?

Because even if you don't like the storyline, it's a wonderful experience to watch it in 3D

Zeus wrote:

RentCavalier wrote:I am just utterly gobsmacked by how obsessed the world seems to be by Avatar. It's a stupid movie--why on Earth does everyone treat it like it's some kind of fine art masterpiece?

Because even if you don't like the storyline, it's a wonderful experience to watch it in 3D

I guess that's it. I guess I HAVE to see it in 3-D to get the picture, because in 2-D, the movie is just flat-out stupid.

The appreciation of the masses is not the problem, though the lack of appreciation seems to be a problem for you that is clearly effecting your anger levels. Fact is there are a huge amount of people who love the movie. Professionals have recognized the excellence of the work put into this great movie as well. I think the vast majority of people would consider your declarations a bit crazy =P

I guess so, but nobody has managed to adequately explain WHY this movie, with its 2-dimensional characters and its bland, unoriginal story and its idiotic levels of self-importance deserves all this hype!

RentCavalier wrote:I guess so, but nobody has managed to adequately explain WHY this movie, with its 2-dimensional characters and its bland, unoriginal story and its idiotic levels of self-importance deserves all this hype!

You see, films are a form of entertainment. And this particular film, much like everything else Cameron's done (exclude Titanic if you wish), succeeds greatly in being entertaining. By extension, this means it succeeds quite well as a film. Not every film has to be complex, original, have excellent, 3-D characters to be a good film. It's OK to just be a fun film as well (look back at all of Cameron's flicks, they all have 2-D characters and relatively non-complex storylines yet I never hear anyone complain about Aliens or Terminator 2).

The strong entertainment value of the film coupled with the unprecedented success has caused people to pay attention to and discuss the film, hence the hype[/b]

Well, there you have it. The question is, how far will it go ahead from here?

I agree that Avatar is entertaining, but Best Picture at the Golden Globes? That surprises me. I didn't see all of the movies I wanted to last year, but most of them were better movies (in the artistic and entertainment sense) than Avatar. (Looking at a list, this include Star Trek, The Fantastic Mr. Fox, District 9 and Watchmen. I really want to see The Hurt Locker, so I can't say that it's better than Avatar, but I bet it is. Edit: also, Up in the Air. Haven't seen it, want to, bet it's better than Avatar.)

Yes, it's disappointing that yet another James Cameron film fucks up the whole mess for the Oscars. I guess when you're making billions of dollars, you can afford to give some of that money to the Oscar judges.

Note that the Golden Globes are not the Oscars. And I think this is explainable without more conspiracy theories.

I'm shocked that this movie will soar past $2billion. Thats a heck of a lot of money so quickly. Maybe better international distribution nowadays and higher ticket prices helped more than people thought it would?

Kupek wrote:Note that the Golden Globes are not the Oscars. And I think this is explainable without more conspiracy theories.

Oh, the Oscars will come soon enough. And yes, they probably aren't directly paying the judges.

However, consider that the hype surrounding the movie, both commercially generated and by word of mouth, that's going to weigh heavily into their decision making process. They may give them the award as some symbolic "appeal to the audience" type deal, instead of actually basing it on real substance like story.

Remember, this is the same organization that awarded Best Picture to Titanic. Not L.A. Confidential. Not Gattaca. Not Amistad. Not As Good as it Gets. Not Good Will Hunting.

Fucking.
Titanic.

I think the recency effect has a lot to do with it. And studios try to take advantage of it by putting some movies late in the eligibility period rather than early for next year's consideration.

I also don't hate Titanic, but LA Confidential and Good Will Hunting are world's better. I also thought Saving Private Ryan was robbed when Shakespeare in Love won.

Good Will Hunting? Seriously? Fucking HATED that flick. "How 'bout them apples?" Without exaggeration, my dog could have written better dialogue. Almost, but not quite, as bad as Garden State :-)

Were there better flicks than Avatar? That's a matter of opinion. But from a pure entertainment point of view? It really is one of those flicks that is an experience to watch in 3D. That really makes its entertainment value quite high.

Sine, it's simple: Titanic was far superior to those flicks. Gattaca? Not bad but nothing close to Oscar-worthy. Amistad? One of the few films I actually walked out on it was so utterly boring. As Good As It Gets was awesome and did get recognized well (Hunt won Best Actress). I wouldn't have minded that one winning that year, it's still one of my fav Nicholson flicks. But at the end of the day, whether you like the love story or not, Titanic was an incredibly well-made flick and was one of the few in the last 20 years that actually deserved the accolades (you wanna sit there and tell me it was less deserving that fucking Erin Brockovich? Or English Patient? Or Chicago? Or Beautiful Mind? Or Crash? And as much as I enjoyed the flicks, Gladiator and Braveheart aren't exactly my idea of "best picture"). And, at the end of the day, the Oscars have become a popularity contest (unless you're talking about pure action or genre flicks) so expect Avatar to be a big part of the show this year.

Flip, I think the whole "new 3D, come see it" was just as much an effect across the world as it was here. IMAX is reporting absolutely shattered records all over the world, so I think that might be a big draw.

Zeus wrote:Good Will Hunting? Seriously? Fucking HATED that flick. "How 'bout them apples?" Without exaggeration, my dog could have written better dialogue. Almost, but not quite, as bad as Garden State :-)

*sigh*

Zeus wrote:Without exaggeration, my dog could have written better dialogue.

You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I never said Titanic was bad. I eventually saw it on tv many years after it came out, and I kinda liked it. I'm a sucker for love stories. I don't have to hate a movie to think it doesn't deserve Best Picture.

I distinguish between good movies and merely entertaining movies. In order for a movie to transcend entertaining in my eyes, it has to have artistic merit. The technical accomplishments (such as those in Titanic and Avatar, which are both considerable and impressive) don't change how I view the literary, artistic merits of a movie. I think Transformers is an entertaining movie. I think Michael Clayton is a good movie.

I am a Star Trek fan, and I think I liked the movie more than anyone else here. That said, Avatar really blew that one out of the water in terms of quality on almost every front. There is nothing I can think of about Star Trek that was better. Avatar also didn't have a well established license with a strong number of existing fans.

So... Do you like Apples?!

OK, because there's bags of like 30 of them on for 2 bucks at most grocery stores this week.

Kupek wrote:I distinguish between good movies and merely entertaining movies. In order for a movie to transcend entertaining in my eyes, it has to have artistic merit. The technical accomplishments (such as those in Titanic and Avatar, which are both considerable and impressive) don't change how I view the literary, artistic merits of a movie. I think Transformers is an entertaining movie. I think Michael Clayton is a good movie.

What about the insane historical detail and pretty neat retelling of the events of the evening in Titanic? Doesn't that warrant a pretty good amount of artistic merit?

And Good Will Hunting was a bad, bad movie. I was shocked how much people liked that one

Julius Seeker wrote:I am a Star Trek fan, and I think I liked the movie more than anyone else here. That said, Avatar really blew that one out of the water in terms of quality on almost every front. There is nothing I can think of about Star Trek that was better. Avatar also didn't have a well established license with a strong number of existing fans.

So... Do you like Apples?!

OK, because there's bags of like 30 of them on for 2 bucks at most grocery stores this week.

I really liked Star Trek, too, and it is a good comparison to Avatar because both are flashy and full of fluff. What was the Star Trek story? A guy gets really peeved and goes on a rampage because Spock, who was coming to save his planet, arrived too late in spite his best efforts? C'mon.

Zeus wrote:What about the insane historical detail and pretty neat retelling of the events of the evening in Titanic? Doesn't that warrant a pretty good amount of artistic merit?

That's technical accomplishment, not artistic merit.

Star Trek was far better written and acted than Avatar.

See, i thought that the new Star Trek had one of the flimsiest stories out of all the Star Trek movies. They are usually a little deeper than one guy simply being irrationally mad at Spock.

Maybe it cam be well written but with a shit story?... Possibly.

Kupek wrote:

Zeus wrote:What about the insane historical detail and pretty neat retelling of the events of the evening in Titanic? Doesn't that warrant a pretty good amount of artistic merit?

That's technical accomplishment, not artistic merit.

I'll give you the historical detail but the way the events of the Titanic were told through a love story is technical merit? No chance. That was pure art in every way. There's nothing technical about that.

Zeus wrote:

Kupek wrote:

Zeus wrote:What about the insane historical detail and pretty neat retelling of the events of the evening in Titanic? Doesn't that warrant a pretty good amount of artistic merit?

That's technical accomplishment, not artistic merit.

I'll give you the historical detail but the way the events of the Titanic were told through a love story is technical merit? No chance. That was pure art in every way. There's nothing technical about that.

Titanic is a very, very good movie. It's like a really good Jane Austen story (if you're into that sort of thing.)

It's not better than Good Will Hunting though. However, I've actually reversed my long-held opinion on its shittiness after a more recent viewing. It's a real fine movie, a little predictable, a little cheesy, a little melodramatic (the whole "shoot-out" part was blah, as were ALL the chase scenes actually). But it's a fine film AND a great technical achievement. James Cameron resunk the Titanic ON FILM, and we bought it. Kudos to him.

...BUT AVATAR IS STILL A PILE OF SHIT.

Flip wrote:What was the Star Trek story? A guy gets really peeved and goes on a rampage because Spock, who was coming to save his planet, arrived too late in spite his best efforts? C'mon.

That's not the story, that's the device used to cause the story to happen. The story is all of the character interactions and some of the major events. So, yes, I think the story in Star Trek is much better than the story in Avatar. Star Trek managed to surprise me, for one: I didn't think they would implode Vulcan.

Zeus, yes, there is some artistic merit to the love story in Titanic. And, as I said, I am a sucker for a love story. But there's not much artistic merit to it. It's a typical Romeo and Juliet type story which is done better elsewhere (specifically, Romeo and Juliet). Titanic did not make me think. All of the other movies from that year made me think, and the love story in Good Will Hunting is not typical, and actually made me think about relationships.

Kupek wrote:Zeus, yes, there is some artistic merit to the love story in Titanic. And, as I said, I am a sucker for a love story. But there's not much artistic merit to it. It's a typical Romeo and Juliet type story which is done better elsewhere (specifically, Romeo and Juliet). Titanic did not make me think. All of the other movies from that year made me think, and the love story in Good Will Hunting is not typical, and actually made me think about relationships.

I will give you that Titanic was a simple and formulaic love story. But the point I'm trying to make is that the intertwining of the telling of the events of the evening into that storyline is what's really good art. The love story itself is nothing, it's the way the historical events were portrayed using the love story that was excellent and full of artistic merit. And it was extremely well done

Star Trek's story FAR better than Avatar? Haha, no, that's a laughable claim =P

Star Trek was not very plot driven, it was a movie that focused mainly on action and introducing characters. Everything was fairly simple to appeal more towards a mass audience. Sci-Fi elements were VERY limited. The blowing up of a planet was taken right out of Starwars, just exchange Alderan with Vulcan. The story was dumbed down from previous Star Trek movies; this was actually done on purpose according to interviews with Abrams. Not that it was necessarily a bad thing, as the movie did turn out to be very entertaining in the end.

Avatar had a lot more going for it storywise. It was not just action, but also with strong Sci-Fi, romance, and adventure themes. Cameron created an entirely new world with a new type of ecosystem that is tied directly into the culture of the intelligent lifeforms. It explores how these savages are actually considerably more advanced than humanity gives them credit for, and their ecosystem (an assumed regular mess of life) is actually has a unique altruistic existence; and that the planet itself might actually be a lifeform in itself. It takes this new world, and explores it through the eyes of a human in an Avatar; where he meets a Na'Vi woman, and has a romance with her. This movie also pits a capitalist hungry earth civilization against this; mirroring what happened in Africa during the 1800's with Cecil Rhodes, the British Empire, and Diamonds (and also in South Africa and the Gold to an extent).

Avatar has a much richer story than Star Trek overall. I can't see how even being surprised by a planet blowing up can change that.

An enormous amount of time and effort went into creating the world in Avatar, from linguists coming up with the Na'vi's language to biologists designing the plants and animals. That is an impressive achievement. But that's not what makes a movie good. Star Trek made me care. Avatar didn't.

Kupek wrote:An enormous amount of time and effort went into creating the world in Avatar, from linguists coming up with the Na'vi's language to biologists designing the plants and animals. That is an impressive achievement. But that's not what makes a movie good. Star Trek made me care. Avatar didn't.

Not necessarily "good", no, that's a matter of opinion. But that certainly does increase the artistic value of the film.

Kupek wrote:An enormous amount of time and effort went into creating the world in Avatar, from linguists coming up with the Na'vi's language to biologists designing the plants and animals. That is an impressive achievement. But that's not what makes a movie good. Star Trek made me care. Avatar didn't.

That's merely a commentary on your own taste, not what determines the actual quality of each film.

PS. Avatar just dried the cement on its Milestone status by being the first film in history to break the 2 billion dollar barrier.

Rawr, it passed Titanic domestically.

1. Avatar, $601.1 million
2. Titanic, $600.8 million
3. The Dark Knight, $533 million
4. Star Wars, $461 million
5. Shrek 2, $441 million
6. E.T., $435 million
7. Star Wars: Episode I—The Phantom Menace, $431 million
8. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, $423 million
9. Spider-Man, $404 million
10. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, $402 million

9 Oscar nominations. Not Titanic level, but still at the top of the pile this year for nominations.

Julius Seeker wrote:PS. Avatar just dried the cement on its Milestone status by being the first film in history to break the 2 billion dollar barrier.

And yet, Michael Bay makes more money than James. Sales don't reflect a movie's quality, but if you're going to make a $2B movie, you should get more than $50 million for it.

SineSwiper wrote:

Julius Seeker wrote:PS. Avatar just dried the cement on its Milestone status by being the first film in history to break the 2 billion dollar barrier.

And yet, Michael Bay makes more money than James. Sales don't reflect a movie's quality, but if you're going to make a $2B movie, you should get more than $50 million for it.

Amazing what a simple Internet search can pop up:

Bay's lifetime gross = $1.496B (http://boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/? ... aelbay.htm)

Cameron's lifetime gross = $1.762B (http://boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/? ... ameron.htm)

And these are US-only numbers. I think it's safe to say that with Avatar and Titanic each netting over $1.2B worldwide that he beats Bay to oblivion in worldwide gross

Zeus wrote:

SineSwiper wrote:

Julius Seeker wrote:PS. Avatar just dried the cement on its Milestone status by being the first film in history to break the 2 billion dollar barrier.

And yet, Michael Bay makes more money than James. Sales don't reflect a movie's quality, but if you're going to make a $2B movie, you should get more than $50 million for it.

Amazing what a simple Internet search can pop up:

Bay's lifetime gross = $1.496B (http://boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/? ... aelbay.htm)

Cameron's lifetime gross = $1.762B (http://boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/? ... ameron.htm)

And these are US-only numbers. I think it's safe to say that with Avatar and Titanic each netting over $1.2B worldwide that he beats Bay to oblivion in worldwide gross

Funny that I heard from E! this morning that he got $50m compared to Bay's $150m.

SineSwiper wrote:Funny that I heard from E! this morning that he got $50m compared to Bay's $150m.

My apologies, didn't realize you jumped to salary from gross

Well, again, simple IMDB search comes up with the following:

Titanic = $115M for Cameron (and that's after he originally forfeited his salary)

Pearl Harbour = $25M for Bay

I'm trying to find more on Avatar and Transformers salaries each got but I doubt Bay would end up with more than $115M for anything. That would be well over 15% of worldwide gross for anything he's made. And I imagine he'll likely end up with even more for Avatar since he basically works on salary + gross now and Avatar just keeps raking it in