Avatar and the Avatar Cadence (James Cameron, 2009-2031)

[Anhedionisiac]

Manohla's rave helped the box office immensely

Well, I did go see it just because La Manohla spoke well of it...

[tavernier]

she actually put it in her best 10 of the year

[Cde.]

$73 million opening weekend gross. Unless it gains next week (fat chance), this thing won't make much more than twice that in America. Whoops

That's actually a very impressive number considering 1) this is a non-established property that has received almost nothing but derision for months on end and 2) the snow kept people in a number of states at home. Had the weather been better, this would have easily taken the December opening weekend record. How is that an omen of doom?

CinemaScore research showed the average audience grade for this to be between A and A+. That's extremely rare, and indicates that it's not going to go away quickly.

[perkizitore]

There is so MUCH money put in marketing that it's unlikely not to get even, plus word of mouth is helping too! How much are the odds against Avatar reaching the 1$ billion mark according to the bookies? :-"

[patricio00]

I'm pretty puzzled by the reviews this has been getting. The majority of critics are giving Avatar a thumbs up or 4 stars, but still point out that the story is pretty corny, the characters paper thin and the dialogue risible.

I dunno, It depresses me a little bit. Home video has saved movies, you know, with a story, but mainstream cinema seems to be plunging itself into a wasteland of the animated, the 3D and the cool.

[perkizitore]

The effects are so real and dazzling, that you MUST see the film and the reason why it's getting rave reviews despite of its shortcomings!

[patricio00]

Couldn't the same argument be made for the Star Wars prequels of The Matrix sequels? So It's just 2.5 hrs of eyecandy?

[perkizitore]

No, the eye-candy is 60-80 minutes, the rest is crappy dialogue and unsuspenseful battle scenes. But, WETA really outdone themselves this time, i have never seen such an artificially materialized world worked with such detail and realism at the same time ever before.

[Noiretirc]

The main reason why I'm looking forward to this is that in an age of big, stupid, by the numbers blockbusters, here we have the prospect of something truly interesting, and a real visual marvel.

Indeed, to my ears and eyes, it sure sounds big and stupid, while looking marvellous. At least the dialogue in Aliens was amusing at times. "We're fucked, Man." I'd rather chew tinfoil than hear Titanic again. Fingers on a chalkboard sounds more appealing to me than some on the inane dialogue I have heard in Avatar, and I suppose I'm one of the few who just cannot get past that, no matter how it looks.

[Noiretirc]

Hitler hates it.

I haven't laughed this hard in a very long time. Thank you.

[Noiretirc]

Reports from the 15 minute preview screenings have been overwhelmingly positive, even from those who were extremely unimpressed by the trailer.

Uh

It's true. Even Ebert's column noted that he watched it twice, and both screenings concluded with applause.
Avatar may be terrible as a film (and judging by what people are saying about the dialogue and narrative, it's a strong possibility) but the reports about the '3D experience', and the quality and detail of the CG world have been extremely positive.

I don't think this is going to surpass Titanic (and I feel it will be a long time before that record is beaten), but I think we're going to see a similar case of negative buzz being turned around and the film becoming a word of mouth fueled phenomenon.

I do believe that your Aug 28th prediction has come to fruition.

[colinr0380]

The film does look incredibly corny but I must admit that I'm not full of hopes of failure for the film as I would be about a Michael Bay film, say. Cameron might have a broad stroke with dialogue and characterisation but he certainly knows how to craft a visceral and most importantly coherent action sequence and shows a good grasp of spatial awareness and keying an audience into that awareness that is especially important in action. My main objection to Titanic is not really that it was not successful in its aims or the way it was crafted in particular, but more that it legitimated a whole cycle of 'real events used as action film fodder' - though I could also sympathise with objections about the morality of spending so much money to make a piece of entertainment, and the way that the lengthy cinema engagement on multiple multiplex screens effectively monopolised theatres for months on end (the aspect that allowed those multiple repeat visits by teary eyed teenage girls!)

The latter two points might be repeated for Avatar, especially with the film being the pinnacle of 3D technology and perhaps being the best opportunity around at the moment for theatres to recoup some of their investment in upgrading the technology. At the very least I wouldn't expect it to be pulled from cinema screens any time soon.

Of course the costs of making the film dwarf even Titanic now, so the issues of whether it is morally 'correct' to spend so much money is even greater. Though of course for many the simple way to decide on whether it was a correct decision or not is whether the film returns its investment, not whether it was an ethical one.

I'll be interested to see if Avatar makes its money back. At this point it could go either way - I see the technological aspect drawing crowds, but I also do not see it having the, albeit limited and adolescent, romantic appeal to draw repeat viewers in the numbers of Titanic. In a reductive way of thinking it sort of depends on return visits from boys rather than girls this time, but would boys return to see a great film in the theatre three or four times with different groups of friends, unless it was something like the Star Wars films? Avatar seems like a much more limited in appeal film compared to the way that Titanic, almost accidentally, had something that broadly catered to almost everyone's tastes.

Of course I have to see the film some time simply because of my love for Aliens and Sigourney Weaver in general, but it will be unlikely to be in the cinema!

Perhaps I should finish on an interesting but apropos of nothing note with a quotation from Robert McKee when he introduced a television screening of The Terminator: that the only real difference between a hero and a villain in an action film (or western) in the morally ambivalent era where both parties can act aggressively, unethically and even brutally, is that eventually at the end of a gunfight the hero throws the gun away and says something to the person that he is protecting along the lines of "Come with me if you want to live!"

In other words a hero keeps their violence focused and their weapons remain in their control while a villain's violence consumes them and destroys everyone whether friend or foe.

[mfunk9786]

Colin, you have a way of writing a super-long post that takes me until halfway through until I realize that you didn't even see the film in question.

[jojo]

It made about 200 million outside of the U.S this weekend. I'd say it has a good shot at making its money back.

[Jeff]

Had the weather been better, this would have easily taken the December opening weekend record.

It performed much better than expected on Sunday, and did indeed take the December record.

[colinr0380]

Colin, you have a way of writing a super-long post that takes me until halfway through until I realize that you didn't even see the film in question.

That's just what I do!

[zedz]

I'm not at all enthusiastic about this film, but I'll probably go and see it. Yes, I'm one of those people (shakes fist) - I went and saw Antichrist too, which I consider the arthouse equivalent.

The reports on the effectiveness of the Weta stuff is interesting. I was talking to Richard Taylor about five years ago (they were still in the middle of King Kong) and he was already very excited about this project. He couldn't go into any detail whatsoever, but he was raving about its possibilities and calling it the most exciting project he'd ever heard of, let alone the most exciting he'd been involved with (and Richard Taylor's capacity for excitement is probably infinite). Plus all the standard stuff about 'changing movies'.

[foofighters7]

What I do NOT understand is this;

IF your going to make it rain on the computer nerds, why not drop some bills toward a writer who MIGHT decide he wants to be original in SOME way, or at least decide against simply transplanting 'Dances With Wolves' into an Alien landscape.

I seen it. It wasn't anything to rave about. Sure, the CGI were quite detailed and somewhat interesting, but you know what...I wasn't creaming my pants over it. It was nice, that's it. It looked good, yeah great. It didn't make me think "wow, I cannot believe how amazing this is, it totally makes up for the terrible writing and de ja vu story".

I couldn't recommend this film even for the CGI. I just don't think it is enough.

[kaujot]

As an aside -and I think kaujot would appreciate this- the font for the subtitles looked incredibly cheesy.

Don't even get me started on this. He used Papyrus, a font that's included on just about every PC/Mac ever made. It's the go-to font when someone wants their product/writing to look "earthy" or "tribal." So, he has someone invent a working language of like 3000 words, but he can't be bothered to make his subtitles look a little classier?

[Caged Horse]

Avatar: the stick-figure, PG-13-rated, furry parody (SPOILERS -- and furries -- AHEAD)

http://www.furaffinity.net/full/3159270/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(Hey, you think I'm going to feel shame for linking to a 'furry' site, when there are people on these very boards who openly defend Southland Tales?!)

[MyNameCriterionForum]

Are there any "Swimming Horses" in the world of Avatar? I can think of the perfect cover artist for the eventual DVD.

[perkizitore]

:-#

[Cde.]

There are land-based sea-horses, so that sort of fits.

[Arrow]

What I do NOT understand is this;

IF your going to make it rain on the computer nerds, why not drop some bills toward a writer who MIGHT decide he wants to be original in SOME way, or at least decide against simply transplanting 'Dances With Wolves' into an Alien landscape.

Studios don't want to risk originality. It is safer to regurgitate.

I imagine the money invested in the CGI special effects was marketable enough to warrant, especially with Cameron's name attached.

[exte]

I'll post my honest thoughts and reactions...

This movie was just amazing. I was so stunned. I gasped more times in this film than maybe the last 4-10 years at the movies, combined. I was moved to tears. I was (extremely) elated, swept away by some of the sequences. I thought there were a lot of good laughs, too. The two times I saw it, the audience clapped at the end. I know there's a great hipness in distancing from the common audience here, but I was there opening night at Titanic. And the audience was brought to tears - the experience was just overwhelming and very moving. It was not a "total piece of shit." I think James Cameron is an amazing filmmaker for our time, for all time, really - but we're very lucky to have him alive and innovating in our time.

PS - Am I the only one who can't wait to get his hands on the latest Cinefex issue for this?

PPS - Final worldwide gross estimate: between 1 and 1.4 billion.