Page 11 of 24
Re: Avatar (James Cameron, 2009)
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 6:01 pm
by Mr. Ned
JAKE
It's cool. I'm there.
If that's not the most romantic thing ever said post-coitus, I don't know what is.
Re: Avatar (James Cameron, 2009)
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 7:05 pm
by hearthesilence
JFC...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/201001 ... ost/420605" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Re: Avatar (James Cameron, 2009)
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 7:13 pm
by Jean-Luc Garbo
Wow, this reads like the Onion wrote it.
Re: Avatar (James Cameron, 2009)
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 12:01 am
by foofighters7
"I've tried so hard to dream about me being on Pandora but it hasn't worked."
HAHAHAHHAHHAHA
"Ever since I went to see 'Avatar' I have been depressed. Watching the wonderful world of Pandora and all the Na'vi made me want to be one of them. I can't stop thinking about all the things that happened in the film and all of the tears and shivers I got from it. I even contemplate suicide thinking that if I do it I will be rebirthed in a world similar to Pandora and the everything is the same as in 'Avatar.'"
yes...yes you WILL be rebirthed in Pandora...just..jump. please.
I hope for the sake of man that these are jokes.
Re: Avatar (James Cameron, 2009)
Posted: Sat Jan 16, 2010 5:14 am
by domino harvey
Re: Avatar (James Cameron, 2009)
Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 8:33 am
by Polybius
foofighters7 wrote:"Ever since I went to see 'Avatar' I have been depressed. Watching the wonderful world of Pandora and all the Na'vi made me want to be one of them. I can't stop thinking about all the things that happened in the film and all of the tears and shivers I got from it. I even contemplate suicide thinking that if I do it I will be rebirthed in a world similar to Pandora and the everything is the same as in 'Avatar.'"
If any of these people listen to
2112, they're done for.
(Just to anticipate...yes, there would be a certain justice in that.)
Re: Avatar (James Cameron, 2009)
Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 1:51 pm
by manicsounds
With the billions in ticket sales,
a death of a movie-goer was obviously bound to happen....
Re: Avatar (James Cameron, 2009)
Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 3:33 pm
by HarryLong
Here's a better idea. Cameron forgoes the next two installments in the trilogy & donates the projected budget ...
A billion $$$$ ought to pull Haiti out of Third World status...
Re: Avatar (James Cameron, 2009)
Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 3:35 pm
by foofighters7
It said it was the first death due to Avatar....
I would disagree. Part of me died after watching it, so, as a collective I think thousands have died.
As far as Tragedy goes Haiti is getting all the buzz.. I would say the collective deaths due to Avatar MAY rival it...
Re: Avatar (James Cameron, 2009)
Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:31 pm
by wattsup32
Is it safe to say Avatar will beat Titanic both domestically and world-wide? It'll run until the Oscars and then run a little after if it wins.
Re: Avatar (James Cameron, 2009)
Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:42 pm
by Jeff
wattsup32 wrote:Is it safe to say Avatar will beat Titanic both domestically and world-wide? It'll run until the Oscars and then run a little after if it wins.
It's pretty safe to say it will easily trump both the domestic and world-wide records now. It should beat
Titanic's world-wide record of $1.843 billion
within the next couple of days.
Re: Avatar (James Cameron, 2009)
Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 12:06 am
by swo17
It's official:
there is no God.
Re: Avatar (James Cameron, 2009)
Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 12:29 am
by domino harvey
It all came down to the repeat audiences and I think the lesson learned here is that in a fight between nerds and teenage girls, nerds will win. And no one can be faulted for thinking nerds would lose a fight
Re: Avatar (James Cameron, 2009)
Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 12:31 am
by Peacock
So when adjusted for inflation, how far ahead is Gone with the Wind?
Re: Avatar (James Cameron, 2009)
Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 12:36 am
by swo17
domino harvey wrote:It all came down to the repeat audiences
That, inflation, and most of all I think, the much higher cost of tickets to IMAX 3D theaters.
Re: Avatar (James Cameron, 2009)
Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 12:44 am
by domino harvey
Peacock wrote:So when adjusted for inflation, how far ahead is Gone with the Wind?
Someone posted something on ONTD yesterday that placed the estimate in the
trillions, if I remember correctly
Re: Avatar (James Cameron, 2009)
Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 12:45 am
by zedz
Well, I’m bored, and that news is fucking depressing, so here’s my Avatar rant. I succumbed and saw this last week in IMAX 3D. Like other IMAX 3D stuff I’ve seen, the effect is sort of cool for the first ten minutes then rapidly fades into the background and is neither here nor there. I’m sure there are undreamt of applications for the technology that will take cinema into new realms (hint: let Michel Gondry loose on it for some R&D and then see where we stand), or filmmakers who could make the technology artistically meaningful and aesthetically expressive, but this sure ain’t it.
Technology aside, as cinema this is pretty feeble. The plot and characters are so generic and predictable it actually resembles a Saturday morning cartoon more than most other modern action cinema, even of the lowest common denominator kind. Even those tend nowadays to a pretense of complication, desperately hoping the tides of fanboys will mistake it for complexity. In this film every character is absolutely stock and every plot development is telegraphed at least a half hour ahead. Even the individual ‘beats’ of each sequence arrive with thudding predictability.
All the film has going for it is its look, and though this is technically impressive, I suppose, in that it’s really detailed and in goshwow 3D, the lack of imagination behind it is stultifying. The visuals are straight out of the mass-market fantasy posters that you’d find in an adolescent’s bedroom in the 1970s, and the plot, with all its puerile ‘transformation and mastery’ clichés, come directly from the accompanying wet dreams. The only iota of interest is in what all these generic vistas would look like in 3D. SPOILER: They look exactly how you expect they would.
As a fantasy world it’s not even half-realised. Apart from the general staleness of it, it’s all so undifferentiated: the characters travel for hundreds of miles but never leave the same jungle, like an old Tarzan programmer, and the same flora and fauna laboriously introduced early on come back right on schedule for the denouement . I known this kind of mechanical narrative efficiency is considered the ne plus ultra of ‘good scriptwriting’ in Hollywood, but it’s always been bullshit. The film would like to think it’s all about wonder and discovery, but it’s as mired in dull functionality as its accountant’s spreadsheet.
If I had to find something nice to say about it, I’d note that Cameron can construct action sequences that have a modicum of coherence. But just because that’s a dying skill doesn’t make it much of an achievement: he never manages to construct one with a modicum of surprise, interest or wit.
Re: Avatar (James Cameron, 2009)
Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 1:42 am
by reno dakota
Peacock wrote:So when adjusted for inflation, how far ahead is Gone with the Wind?
I cannot find the worldwide adjusted figures, but here is a
domestic adjusted chart.
More like PUPular, amirite
Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 1:44 am
by domino harvey
Am I the only one who didn't realize how popular 101 Dalmations was?
Re: Avatar (James Cameron, 2009)
Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 2:14 am
by Peacock
It seems GOTW made $400 million (nice round number huh..) which seemingly becomes 6 billion today
Re: More like PUPular, amirite
Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 2:29 am
by Jeff
domino harvey wrote:Am I the only one who didn't realize how popular 101 Dalmations was?
When I was a kid (before home video was widespread), the Disney classics were re-released to theaters every few years. Not just a handful of theaters, but major wide releases with national ad campaigns. I first saw
101 Dalmatians and most of the other Disney classics on the big screen not realizing that they were from decades earlier. Those figures for
101 Dalmatians and
Snow White are the totals from maybe five or six different releases. Of course major live action films got their share of re-issues too;
Gone with the Wind had many, and
Star Wars had at least one that I remember before the 1997 redux version (which is also included in its total).
Re: Avatar (James Cameron, 2009)
Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 2:32 am
by reno dakota
Peacock wrote:It seems GOTW made $400 million (nice round number huh..)
Sorry to stay off-topic, but Box Office Mojo puts the figure at $400,176,459. Seems reasonable, given all of its re-releases, but maybe it's an estimate. I don't know.
Re: Avatar (James Cameron, 2009)
Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 2:45 am
by Peacock
Oh no I just read the 400 mill figure online somewhere, i'm sure your correct
Re: Avatar (James Cameron, 2009)
Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 2:45 am
by zedz
david hare wrote:Zeddo, you haven't said anything about the dialogue!
If only the dialogue was the only problem! It had the same dull pre-packaged functionality of everything else, so I guess it fit Cameron's (banal) 'vision'. It wasn't even bad enough to be enjoyably campy, just dull, dull tone-deaf verbal sewage, dragging us by the neck from plot point to plot point.
I did get one genuine laugh from the film: when naked Sigourney appears in a custom-fabricated fern bikini (!) that serves no purpose whatsoever except to preserve the delicate sensibilities of the acned moppets seeing it for the umpteenth time (and, of course, in order to give the same boys something to whack off to that night). More really silly moments like that might have salvaged the film.
Re: Avatar (James Cameron, 2009)
Posted: Sat Jan 30, 2010 2:19 pm
by SoyCuba