Avatar-What Makes It Worth 2 Billion?

A

asiudfhwie

New member
Avatar is about to surpass Titanic as the highest grossing movie ever-and surely will break the 2 billion barrier. All this from seemingly nowhere in a few short weeks.

Personally I had heard of the Titanic (who hasnt?), but Avatar? Up until the last month or so I had never heard of it. So what has made people so desperate to see it, so much more than say "The Dark Knight", or "Pirates of The Carribean", "The Return of the King" or all the Harry Potters for that matter (its almost grossed twice as much as the highest Potter).

Im yet to be convinced. I saw a trailer and immediately thought I was looking at a computer game and that made me shelve it. I cant be the only one!

So tell me-what makes it that good?
 
I dont believe 3d is anywhere near worth the column inches it is getting, until i can sit and watch it without glasses im really not bothered, and im not paying the tv manufacturers or Sky even more money to watch 3d (sits back and waits for the haters and the its the next big thing brigade!!!!!)

But go and see Avatar before you ask why, as a script its rubbish, thin as a piece of paper but to actually sit and watch as a spectacle of what the future will be one day wether Tv or cinema it is amazing.
 
The inflation argument is full of faults and doesnt hold much water with me. Years ago films would be released and then re-released year after year as they would be one of the few forms of entertainment. A movie like Gone With The Wind was re-released around ten times in order to make the money it did. There was no video or DVD or satellite television and certainly no problem with piracy that there is now not to mention other forms of entertainment with computer games etc. You can buy a copy of Avatar on most street corners in America outside the cinema showing it. Going to the cinema was a hell of a lot cheaper years ago too.
People are actually choosing to shell out more money to see Avatar in 3D when they could either see it in 2D or simply watch another movie. This makes the success of Avatar even more impressive to me. Bringing up the inflation argument is just one way to try and belittle its stunning success.
 
Box office receipts are a reflection of popularity, not quality.

What makes it so popular?

1. People are enjoying it enough to recommend it to frienRAB and to go back and see it again (and again)
2. A lot of people are seeing next-gen 3D for the first time.
3. It's highly imaginative - there have been many comments from critics and the audience about how stunning and detailed Cameron has made Pandora look.
4. There are many memorable scenes in the movie.
5. It doesn't challenge you; it's easy enough to follow - but there are enough twists and turns to stop you completely second-guessing the outcome.

...as for your computer game issue - you're right. The first time you see them you immediately sense that there's something less than credible about the way they look. But you very quickly see that it's not how they look, it's how they behave that gives them life - and in that respect they are very believable. For me, it only took a few minutes for any CGI issues to disappear.
 
Last Saturday my wife and I went to see it.

It was on 3 screens in my local cinema, talking to the staff, I found out that it is getting packed screens each time.

I have never seen any 3D stuff that I thought was any good, until I saw this. The 3D is amazing, unlike so many CGI heavy films, after a while I forgot that what I was viewing was created inside a computer.

I am glad to see that the 3D glasses have improved, from stupid cardboard cut-outs.

Upon reflection, I felt that this is what it must have been like back in the beginning of the Movie picture era, when people would go and see Black and white silent pictures.

All I can say is bring it on, and I look forward to what the future holRAB.

I look forward to the day when we can watch 3D without glasses.
 
what makes it that good?

it has a sense of child-like wonder about it when you see it in 3D for the first time, something that hasn't been present in cinema for a good while. it looks incredible, and is certainly meant to be experienced in 3D on the largest screen possible, IMAX if you can.

the CGI looks better when the movie is delivered in context, and you will forget about it anyway because the characterisations are so good

the plot is a bit derivative and familiar, but is enjoyable enough.

it has a few sequences that are truly gob-smacking
 
If you want to argue surrounding circumstances then go right ahead, i'm not arguing anything simply posting the facts, the list clearly shows which films have had multiple releases.

I'm not trying to take anything away from it's success, just showing it isn't even close to being the highest grossing film of all time, even if you only include single release films!
 
I have read that Its partly due to the fact that the 3D Ticket prices are higher, so it grosses more. TBH the size of the Budget of the film it had to do well to make its money back. Also you probably find its also because of how high grossing Titanic was and the fact that JC hasn't made a film since titanic helped.

On a psychological level, as we are in a bad recesion that has hit the world, people want to escape into another world, away from there problems for a few hours and it is cheaper than a westend production

Also on the trailer it had nearly his whole filmology when it said made by the person who made............ lol :D

Not Seen it yet, wanna see it but with those high ticket prices :rolleyes: lol
 
But that figure means nothing in the context of comparing movies from different time perioRAB.

It'd be like the world record for running the mile being smashed because a man was allowed to run it whist travelling on a 100mph train.

If you take Avatars worldwide box office takings to date and correct them due to US inflation to 1939 figures - Avatar has taken the equivelent of $126 million - thats about 3 times less than GWTW took in 1939.

Ok there are complicating factors that could mean less people are likely to go to the cinema these days - but conversely the world population today is 3 times higher (meaning 3 times the potential market) than it was in 1939. We also have mass marketing and product tie-ins to promote movies that werent around in 1939.

Avatar has done well there is no doubt - but too much emphasis is being put on the "top grossing" title.
 
In your opinion. In my opinion only movie nerRAB (I am one) ever take an interest in things like an inflation adjusted chart - the rest of the world just wants to know what's actually the biggest.

As someone else has already pointed out, it's a different world now compared to when Gone With The Wind was released. Today there are millions of things begging for our attention and our cash - things that simply weren't there back then. Gone With The Wind didn't have to compete for peoples' spending as today' films do. Nor were there the alternatives to compete against; TV was in its infancy, colour TV was years away, VHS and DVD were the stuff of science fiction. The bottom line is that Gone With The Wind had substantially better access to people than Avatar - fact.

How would Avatar have fared in that period? We'll never know...

The inflation adjusted chart is a curio that comes out whenever the chart that everyone else watches - Actual Box Office Revenues - throws up a new leader. It's a jobsworth's way of saying that it's not actually real, it's a hollow victory. Rubbish - it's as real as it gets and it's a huge victory for Cameron and the team who put it all together.

The question should be: how the hell has Cameron managed to do this twice - and on both occasions not just get to the top of the charts, but do so by such a huge margin?
 
Just like completely ignoring it is a fanboi's way of bigging it up. Nobody is saying Avatar hasnt done well - but the unadjusted figure is irrelevent when comparing movies from different time perioRAB.

In 100 years time - you'll probably get fairly mediocre movies taking far more than $2 billion - just because of the effect of ticket prices. Does that make them better movies, or does it mean they have achieved more - of course not.

If you are going to argue that "its a different world" - that argument works both for and against you. Ok fewer people may go to the cinema these days due to the choice of entertainment available - but conversely - your potential audience is larger due to the increase in world population and worldwide mass marketing.

I do agree that James Cameron does seem to pull the rabbit out of the hat on quite a few occasions - respect to him for that. I have nothing against him as a film maker - quite the contrary - he made one of my all time favorite movies - Aliens. Avatar will definately be one for my blu-ray collection.
 
Its isnt though - a chart based on ticket sales would be a better representation of popularity. If inflation goes up by 10 times over the next 100 years, in 2109 a movie could surpass Avatar in terms of box office takings - despite only selling 1/10th of the number of tickets - would you say it was more popular simply based on its box office takings?

Cash is an arbitrary number. It doesnt matter whether something costs $2 or $2 billion - its what the $2 represents in the real world (i.e. what it can buy you) that really matters. The success of a movie in financial terms cannot be measured by simply saying "its got a higher number so therefore its achieved more financially".
 
Your question was ".....Does that make them better movies?. I was simply saying that the chart was a reflection of popularity NOT quality and that you can't judge whether movies are "better" based on box-office returns.



Nope. I don't understand one word of that.
 
Moony 100% spot on!

Thank you for saving me the effort of having to say everything you just have, you were a lot clearer than I would have been anyway :p
 
Cash has a value that is relative to the cost of gooRAB - i.e. you can only buy so much stuff with a certain amount of cash - the actual number assigned to that cash is irrelevent - only its value relative to the cost of "stuff".

I could ask you which is better $2 or $10

based on your argument - you'd probably say that $10 is better because its "more".

However if I then put that into some context.

I'll give you the $10 - but you have to buy stuff at todays prices - what would $10 get you? A bottle of wine?

I'll keep the $2 - but i'm allowed to buy stuff at 1939 prices. In 1939 a similar bottle of wine cost ~$0.66 - therefore I can buy 3 bottles of wine for my $2.

Which is better now? Even though the $2 figure is lower than the $10 one on paper - it will buy you more stuff and therefore has a higher intrinsic value.
 
Back
Top