Avatar-What Makes It Worth 2 Billion?

Moony - You seem to think I have a problem with the idea of an inflation adjusted chart - I don't. It's an interesting way of trying to relate the past to the present. And...if all those years ago someone had had the presence of mind to say that they wanted the Box Office Chart to be based on actual tickets sold - as opposed to the value of tickets sold - you and would not be having this discussion right now.

However, that never happened. They decided that the chart was to be based on value; the amount of money generated in the cinemas by the movies. Nowadays, the National and International Box Office Charts are published, scrutinised and commented on not just in Hollywood, but by almost every newspaper, magazine, website, TV and Radio Station in the world that reports on the movies. Do any of these businesses ever lead with an inflation-adjusted All Time Box Office Chart? No - not one of them.

Did more people see Gone With The Wind at the cinema than Avatar? Unquestionably.

Did Avatar take more money at the cinema than Gone With The Wind. Yes, shedloaRAB more. And of course, there are many reasons why it did; inflation being just one- but those reasons do not change the result one iota.

I'm leaving it here - I'm done now (repeating myself, truth be told). You said you were an Aliens fan - me too. I also have a real fondness for The Abyss. I don't know where Avatar will sit for me in a couple of years time, but I suspect it'll be near the top of the Cameron Tree. It just depenRAB whether they can get the DVD sorted out.
 
RAB come on.
Its only been out for 40 days. And after adjustment, is the 26th highest grossing movie.
I would say well done. Keep up the good work.
Also in 1939 when GWTW was released you either had a 3 hour technicolor movie in the cinema or the radio which was continuously broadcasting depressing war news. I would have probably gone to see it 20 times if they were the only options available.
 
The "few short weeks" is due partly to it being released in all countries at once. 5 years ago it would have taken longer to reach the same total.

Indeed. It's success is all the more impressive for being due to word of mouth, rather than marketing.

I think there are a lot of people who only go to the cinema once or twice a year. Avatar is the film they are picking. Many of the things that make me dislike Avatar, such as its simplistic plot and characters, probably appeal to those people. They want an event, a spectacle, and it delivers that. As did Titanic. I'd rate Avatar above Titanic.
 
Avatar has now passed Titanic's record Avatar has reached $1,858,866,889 while Titanic earned $1,843,201,268 total.

(see http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=62697)

In all these comparisons between inflation adjusted and non-inflation adjusted figures it might be worth noting the social differences.

In the 1930's there was no TV, no computer games, no internet. Cinema was about the only escape people had and as such it was a more popular medium.

Not only that but the world was not long out of recession, and the rumblings of World War II had started - they needed that kind of escape.
 
I think you're right. It was an event, and it had all the hype it could ever want. I wasn't blown away by the film but credit where credit is due, and well done James Cameron.
 
I went to see Avatar over the weekend with my daughter (who had already seen it) and I really was blown away by everthing. I'm not usually a person to believe the hype surrounding films, but my daughter did beg me to go. And I'm so glad I did. It's a brand new experience and feel. Too see something float right in front of my eyes and make me flinch is well worth the money. The story was lovely and I cried twice (much to my daughters annoyance). I now understand why it's made so much at the box office. It's the sort of film you can only really appreciate on a large screen. A piddly 50 inch HD TV won't do the film any justice :)
Avatar is also so much better than the last 3D film I saw in a cinema, and that was Jaws 3
 
Could someone explain this-at the beginning the "Big Boss" says "Do this and Ill get your legs back" how would he have done this?
 
They have the technology to clone body parts, which can be transplanted. It's just very expensive. He had no hope of affording the procedure on his own, but the company can afford to have it done as payment for his services.
 
I think part of it's success is due to the fact that there isn't much competition about in the cinemas at the moment.

None of my frienRAB who have seen it are actually raving about the film and saying Avatar is 'a must see'.
 
I haven't seen Avatar, so I can't really comment on the film itself, but what interests me is will its reception and reviews change once it is released onto DVD/BluRay if the main thing people are raving about are the 3D effects?

I bought Coraline when it came out on DVD and you got free pairs of glasses so you could watch it in 3D from the comfort of your own home. However the quality of the glasses were poor and it was difficult to replicate the settings of the cinema in your own home.

If this is the case for some 3D films already placed on DVD for home viewing, then what will it be like for Avatar? Will more people have to watch it without the added effects and if so, by making them look deeper into the plot will it alter their perception of the film?
 
The Chances are that This particular film will be one of the inital releases for the new 3D Blu Rays that use the same technology to the cinema screens in conjunction with a 3D TV,so the 3D effects will transfer across favourably better than the old anaglyph system
 
According to Box Office Mojo it's now cracked $2 Billion. Currently standing at $2,039,222,000, and now only $6 million short of beating Titanic's all time US Domestic gross.
 
Oh my god. It's an amazing, beautiful film.

I didn't think I'd enjoy it, I just went to see it after all the hype. But my god, I can now see how good it is. Not just the 3d. EVERYTHING.

Such a nice story. I almost cried in a few parts.

One of my favourite films ever.
 
It's not just the 3D. It's the CGI generally. Although it's true people do rave about the 3D, sometimes they aren't really distinguishing and just mean the visuals generally. The film renders a whole fake world, plus it renders fake cat-like people and makes it all look real. Like Gollum in TLotR, only on a larger scale.

Some of the interest in 3D is because it's relatively new, and this film is being held up as a paradigm of how to use 3D "well". It's a technology demonstration. Viewed more objectively, although it does make the experience more vivid, it's not enough to turn a bad film into a good one, and the 2D CGI is probably enough to carry it onto DVD/Blu-Ray. I think Avatar would have been very successful even without 3D.

I expect that used the old technology. I doubt Avatar will be released like that at all; Cameron would have a fit. It'll be new 3D Blu-Ray or 2D. It'll need a bang up-to-day player and TV to see the 3D, stuff which is only just arriving now. The glasses cost around
 
I totally agree. It is so difficult to explain to people who havent seen it at the cinema. It is a true movie viewing experience. I sat with my face full of wonder for the whole film. 3D has come a long way. I very rarely go to the cinema these days but I urge everyone who hasnt seen this yet to go see it on the biggest screen possible.
 
Back
Top