Cool News
Here's The AVATAR Piece That Ran On 60 MINUTES Last Night!!
Merrick here...
60 MINUTES featured a 12 minute(ish) report on AVATAR last night. CBS has been kind enough to provide the piece for all to see via miraculous embed. I haven't watched this yet, so I can't vouch for its coolness. Here ya go...
Watch CBS News Videos Online
Recently found out our local IMAX is booting out A CHRISTMAS CAROL in favor of AVATAR in a few weeks - which wasn't the theater's original plan. After the cluster fuck of not getting AVATAR Day in my neck of the woods, this news was most welcome.
Merrick on Twitter
Watch CBS News Videos Online
Merrick on Twitter
-
+ Expand All
-
...footage.In fact I wish I'd seen less.
-
Nov 23, 2009 11:06:04 AM CST
Goona get lasek just to watch this film without my glasses on
by kingoflight
true
-
Not going to happen they will never make this money back. There are only 2 films to ever cross 500. The odds are not in his favor.
-
...AVATAR to me so far in conversation. All of them had seen ads of TV and that's about it. None of them knew anything about eyeball fucking, rape, groping, molestation etc... None of them liked the look of the movie and all of them were dismissive...and these were all people who usually get pretty jazzed about the new shiny blockbuster of the day.Interesting. I was a little surprised.
-
of this Avatar crap (besides it bein Dances wit Smurfs in Ferngully) is that it took the Avatar name away from Avatar the Airbender, which looks cool as ish! say what u have to bout MNightchamonyeadingdongwitchisdead or whatever u guys call him, but that one teaser months back was hella NEAT... just imagine the fire nation usin those big ass ships and Ang and crew just throwin air balls, boulders, fire beams, etc at the opposin forces... that movie will be rapin your retinas!
-
Now that the effects are starting to show themselves and the scope of the story sinks in I think I can safely haul my $15 bucks (or whatever it will cost) out for when this opens.
I stopped watching after the first few minutes 'cause I've tried to stay away from too much info but I like the feel of what I saw. -
exactly how it is wit me and my non-geek friends... but they were a lil jazzed to see it... until the greatest show (or one of the greatest shows) ripped the movie a new asshole by callin it Dances wit Smurfs in Ferngully (actually I just added that "in Ferngully" part)
-
I watched the segment on TV last night, and I had one quibble: Safer claims "Titanic" is the "most profitable" movie ever made. If it cost $200 million-plus, is that really true? I always knew it was the highest-grossing movie of all time, but I could have sworn "Blair Witch Project," with its miniscule budget, was the most profitable movie of all time.
-
You are right it is not In fact i think Paranormal Activity is closely becoming the most profitable movie of all time.
-
...as a monthly allowance. SOUTH PARK, ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY, and others seem to reference talkback jokes quite a bit these days. Hell, THE NEW YORKER quoted a talkbacker (although a suspicious one).Point is, talkbacks seem to come up a lot. Articles not so much.
-
Most Profitable movie was blair witch for along time, not sure what that paranormal activity is up to so far but its only just getting released over here in the uk so its gonna go up even more.
I don't think this will be much of a hit but as far as making his money back i am sure it will. Just think of it as a demonstartion of the latest tech rather than a film i want to watch. -
Profit is cash in hand, boat-loads of which Titanic brought in. Return on investment (roi) is the percent of profit versus the cost to produce it. That is where low-budget, decent return movies rank high, but not in pure-and-simple profit.
-
Made 1.8billion worldwide. So yes it's the most profitable so far.
-
Nov 23, 2009 11:29:54 AM CST
Why would you post something you haven't watched?
by liesandpicturesofalsolies
I mean, I like Merrick, but in his own words: he can't vouch for its coolness. Not a big deal but I can explore on my own, I come here for the cool.
It's okay. -
Nov 23, 2009 11:30:50 AM CST
the story says Cameron is RICH and he made a fancy movie
by haterofcrap
its kind of a lame story. movie still looks interesting to me though.
-
He looks like a '90s douche with that flop-cut. Hugh Laurie is the model for all men's hairstyles. Cut it short, homey!!!!
-
It was the tweens who got him Titanic success but no way are they interested in Avatar.
-
There is more than one way to define a movie as the "most profitable" of all time. It could be either by total amount of money made (minus production costs), which would obviously see TITANIC in the lead; or it could be on the basis of the ratio of budget [cost] to box-office, in which case I believe BLAIR WITCH still holds the number one spot.Both are accurate statistics/observations, and neither is "wrong," you just have to specify exactly on what terms you are describing a movie as "most profitable" whenever it comes up in conversation.
-
Cameron wrote this movie and titled it before Avatar: the last Air Bender was a thought. If not, it would be Cameron who would be changing the name.
-
With double penetration with the tail. And did James Cameron's neck jowel assistant direct? I keed, I keed! Can't wait to download...er, see this movie in the theatre!
-
I remember reading somewhere that Deep Throat is the most profitable movie of all time...even though it's not "mainstream".
-
The thing is, calling Blair Witch the most profitable movie of all time would have been incredibly misleading without explaining that, for some reason that I don't know, Return on Investment has been redefined as profit for movies. I'm sure the Pet Rock had a fantastic ROI, but to rank it up with Microsoft doesn't really paint an accurate picture of the world. The studios use all kinds of weird accounting practices and until someone explains why ROI is better for film, Titanic is the most profitable movie of all time for me.
-
Nov 23, 2009 11:53:42 AM CST
But if a 200 million dollar movie makes a billion worldwide
by supercowbell5thecowbellhasspoken
It still wouldve made more money back than the blair witch. Obviously not in terms of percentage though. Either way dances with smurfs won't be that movie. I smell a flop!!!
-
Nov 23, 2009 11:56:05 AM CST
Also, this is the one film I wouldn't pirate, ZombieHeathLedger.
by liesandpicturesofalsolies
You're way more likely to get sued for Avatar than those old Wire episodes, for example.
-
and then there's the whole adjusting for inflation aspect that some people point out.
-
if thats true... then he should change it due to the fact the cartoons came out... i write screenplays and say if I named one "Sesame Street" and somehow got it to become a movie, it would be ok if I kept that name even though a TV show has it? if so, watch out folks, in 2013 Sesame Street is comin to rape your kids anuses (hopefully your kids would be of legal raping age, cuz if not, it would just be a lil too weird)
-
cuz there's gonna be a lot of (eyeball) fuckin goin on
-
what happened to bulldog Mike Wallace, making crooked execs sweat on camera?
-
Nov 23, 2009 12:11:17 PM CST
The fact they they have so much control over how the film looks.
by ironhelix
...is precisely why CGI looks so sterile and lifeless. And as I have mentioned many times, the story seems to be the most unoriginal, uninteresting tripe possible. Oh, I'm sure I'll go see it for the sheer spectacle, but I have no hope that this is anything but another animated movie.
-
1.8 to be exact. Not 1 billion.
-
I found somewhat depressing the part where Cameron talked about how they had to wait days for just the right sunset to film the bow scene for "Titanic." Now, I'm not saying you have to go Dogma 95 to film a movie, but shouldn't the process be at least somewhat ... organic, I guess, is the right word. A control freak like Cameron can't appreciate that, I suppose. That said, "Avatar" looks like a $400 million cartoon. I'll still lay down my hard-earned $15 to see it, though.
-
For the 1st time, I can say that this movie, smurfs and all, has my total attention. The stuff they showed looked great. I went from a maybeye DVD rental to a wait in line ticket buyer...but not a sit in line for over 20 minute ticket buyer as thats my limit for ANY movie...unless they remake VALLEY OF THE GWANGI with a good cast, director and Fx! Then I'll geek out with the rest of the geeks...but then GWANGI would'nt have that kind of dedication, hence I'd get in earlier without the lines! Hooray!
-
I was talking about how much I was looking forward to Avatar the other day and a friend mentioned that she had seen a commercial for it but didn't know what it was. So then I tried to explain the basic plot and boom, she lost interest. I guess what I'm saying here is that unless this movie gets rave reviews as well as some seriously good word of mouth, it will probably be a flop. That said I doubt it will be a flop as I expect it to get rave reviews and crazy good word of mouth. Who knows though, maybe I'm delusional in regards to Avatar.
-
if it sucks, I'm sending James Cameron the optometrist's bill.
-
is a moot point with this movie, who gives a shit if it makes bank or whatever expression you kids use these days. James has his very own abyss filled with money, and he can't take it with him when he's absorb into the universe like the rest of us. Might as well pour it into a labor of love like this.
-
Couldn't you edit that shit out?
-
I am having a similar experience, even among my geek friends, no one is really pumped for Avatar. Everyone is gushing about Sherlock Holmes, The Princess and the Frog, and Invictus. They feel like they are required to see it more than they want to see it. I don't think many people are going to go back to see this multiple times and it'll open huge with an absolutely huge drop-off week two. I'm sure it'll turn a profit, soon enough, but I'm just saying that this has a moderately strong likelihood of being remembered as SPIRITS WITHIN 2... that is not remembered very well at all.
-
Oh, I think t's probably already been done. Rule 34# of the internet. If it exists, there is porn of it.
-
...That Cameron talks more like a CEO than a director (I'm thinking Scorcese as an example). Where's any mention of his influences? His favorite movies growing up? The people underneath him doing the grunt work?
Might just be a shortcoming of the interviewer (and Morley is competing with Larry King for most fossilized journalist on TV), but I had the same feeling after the NEW YORKER piece as well... -
that was a nice little interview.
-
Hearing Cameron say that about selecting his own sunset made it feel a little bit like cheating.
I'll still see Avatar in the theater, but I'm more excited to see Ninja Assassin this week. -
A subtle hint that our eyeballs will be fucked?
-
Nov 23, 2009 12:58:11 PM CST
i wasnt talking about titanic screenplay3
by supercowbell5thecowbellhasspoken
just making an expample of a big budget movie making a profit.
-
Cameron may have the legal rights to the name, but that doesn't mean that he should act like a popular animation series doesn't exist. Frankly, I'm surprised that he didn't call it Pandora instead, because it really seems to fit the movie... but I'm sure that name has been used many times already.
-
Or the biggest flop ever, we will have to wait until month, to find out.
-
People will still pay to see it at 'normal' theatres... they did for My Bloody Valentine 3-D, although I can't fathom why.
-
Nov 23, 2009 1:10:39 PM CST
How to spot the idiots at the cinemaplex this winter:
by anything but tangerines
Cheaping out for the 2D showing and loading up on $25 worth of corn products. Priorities of the misinformed.
-
Thanks for the Gwangi shout-out. That was the holy grail of movies when I was a kid, scanning the cable guide for it to show up on USA or TNT or some Saturday monster flick. Finally, after years of looking and waiting, caught it at 3am on a local UHF station. It was worth it.
-
We know you're white. Let it go.
-
I've got to drag the wife and kids and grandma, I can't afford this newfangled "3D". A movie is a movie." Happy Channukah.
-
In order to be deemed a success? I really can't see it breaking even at $400 million -- not within the first couple of years, anyway. I just don't think "Avatar" is going to have the incredibly broad appeal that "Titanic" did. At least half of the TV/Internet/movie viewers who see the trailer and/or ads are going to see those silly blue CGI creatures and instantly lose interest. Whereas "Titanic" was a movie even my grandparents (NOT big movie fans) might go to the theater to see, you couldn't pay them to see "Avatar."
-
... or lack thereof. Cameron is my hero.
-
That's my world wide prediction.
-
By the way, the budget is $180 million, NOT $400 million. I'm looking at you, "erichaislar".
-
Nov 23, 2009 1:37:06 PM CST
Does anyone really think this will fail? Honestly?
by anything but tangerines
Titanic all over again. Fooled twice, shame on you.
-
Why didn't people freak out when Spider-man 3 or Pirates of the Caribbean 3 cost in excess of 250-300.
-
HMFIC FTW!
-
Gordo, thank you for agreein and I also agree Pandora would been a better title... I mean, they are on a different planet (but then i guess pandora website would be mad)
3bagenema...Im white? cuz I swore I was a minority... actually I swore I was of two diff minorities... huh, guess I can go around and not be pulled over for racial profilin... -
Did you see Lara Logan's story on Afghanistan about a month ago? That ain't "fluff".
It was TV journalism at its best. -
ruins your ability to see 3-d. Don't do it, unless you don't give a shit about that sort of thing.
-
I thought Harry was getting lasik just for Avatar.
-
AVATAR will bring in $372 Million domestically. Since the film will ultimately cost about $300 to make and market, this is still a box office success...but not at a TITANIC level. I agree that the tweens will not be as fixated with Sam Worthington as they were with Leonardo DiCaprio. So, I think that the repeat viewings will be limited to the same "fanboy" crowd that watched REVENGE OF THE SITH three or four times.
-
Nov 23, 2009 2:09:18 PM CST
IF 2012 CAN DO 449 MILLION WORLDWIDE IN 10 DAYS......
by tehcreepythinman
I don't think Avatar has much to worry about.
-
Holy fucking Christ. I have no idea how well this movie will do in the box-office. I'd be surprised if it beat Transformers.
-
With lots of (spoiler) footage:
http://edition.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/showbiz/2009/11/22/int.cameron.carroll.long.cnn.html
Epic. -
Creeps.
-
So will it eventually make it's money back?
-
I was dissapointed with the 60mins one
-
I mean, I'm sure lasik is cool and everything, but who the hell would take such drastic measures for viewing a movie when they could easily buy some contact lenses instead...
-
You just don't know with women, though.
Once a commercial hits with JUST the right amount of 'feeling', with the Leona Lewis' pop love ballad playing in the background, and you may instantly have 100 million women aching to see the film.
That may not happen, but it very well may. Women are frustrating like that. And I'm not sure why I put 'feelings' in quotes... is it because I, as a man, don't really think they exist? -
I'm near-sighted, and I find that when I'm not wearing contact lenses or glasses, I can take my fingers and pull back on the outside corners of my eyes -- kind of like a racist impersonation of an Asian person -- and have near-perfect vision. So if you don't mind pulling your eyes back for two-plus hours, you can save yourself the cost of contacts or Lasik while having your eyeballs fucked by "Avatar."
-
I'm sure this will, but even if it merely broke even, it will have been a success.
The studio was trying to do more than just make a movie. Avatar is like a loss leader to push 3d cinema into the mainstream. Without Avatar, I bet there would only be half as many 3d-capable theaters out there. In addition, Cameron is kind of establishing much of the tech that will we'll see in future 3d movies. So, although it has a 300-400 million dollar budget, I think 100-200 million of that should be considered an investment in R&D. -
I don't understand how any of you can say "I just don't see this having a broad appeal" or " this will be a huge flop", yet many of you do. Who would have thought a movie about skeletal robot assassin from the future with a German accent would have mass appeal, or a bio mechanical insect alien thing terrorizing people in space or any of the many movies James Cameron has made for that matter (Titanic being the exception)? I'm no expert, but I think you have all seriously underestimated the average American movie goer. They are not geeks like you or me, they just want to get out of the house for a few hours and see a cool-ass movie. So your douchebag co-worker has no interest in it? Big fuckin surprise! They're not scouring the internet at 4 in the morning looking for any kind of movie news either. That doesn't mean they're ass won't be in the theatre the weekend this comes out! Of course this movie has potential to be every bit the blockbuster you people seem to think it won't be, and given James Cameron's track record, y'all might want to reconsider your statements.
-
Nov 23, 2009 3:18:27 PM CST
Here's hoping O.J. Simpson won't sue Jim Cameron for libel...
by badwaldo s revenge
...while O.J. rots in prison in Las Vegas. I agree wholeheartedly with Jim's opinion, although he should have corrected himself and said "killed his EX-wife and a J-dude". He has titanium balls to say this openly in the televised interview unlike uptight PC Southern California pussies. Most of the information about Jim is already said in New Yorker and that December 2009 Playboy interview. I didn't know he WAS a bus mechanic, sounds like a fanciful word for a former truck driver. He held up an extended middle finger to the cynical naysayers who wanted to see Titanic movie sink as a box office bomb and should do the same for bashers of AVATAR as "Dances with Wolves + The Smurfs + Ferngully: The Last Rainforest x Call Me Joe - Harlan Ellison's "lawyer up" crap = AVATAR," assuming improved 3-D technology and damn good story meet or exceed expectation. Next, Alita, maybe. Natalie Portman would make a perfect Alita in sassy mannerism and flexible body, but advanced CG has rendered her human service obsolete. Better luck for CLOSER Part Deux: Electric Boogaloo.
-
this is a disaster of Watchmen size.
-
Nov 23, 2009 3:31:36 PM CST
doesnt half the ticket sales go to the film company?
by supercowbell5thecowbellhasspoken
and the other half to the theaters?
-
Right?
-
Strange that most other movies will give budget estimates but, not marketing. By this yardstick "The Dark Knight" would have cost over $350 + million dollars and "Spider-Man 3" would have cost $400 + million.
-
Nov 23, 2009 3:45:59 PM CST
Badwaldo, OJ was convicted of murder in a CIVIL court
by zombieheathledger
Cameron and anyone else can say OJ murdered his wife all they want.
-
...those of us who are capable of doing so, anyway. I have a few serious question for all the naysayers:
Why are you so convinced this movie will be horrible? What about Cameron's track record has you so sure he dropped the ball with this one? Of course there's no guarantee it will be good, but given his filmography the odds are certainly in his favor.
And let's just say it IS bad and/or DOES flop...why do some of you seem so gleeful over that prospect? Don't you understand that there is a lot more riding on this movie than just its final box offie tally? This is an original story (by that I mean not an adaptation or remake) in which a filmmaker was given a tremendous amount of freedom and control by the powers that be. Shouldn't we all be hoping for success, simply because failure will "prove" to the Hollywood suits that they are right to make "safe" bets on remakes and reimaginings and sequels instead of taking a chance on something new and original?
This might not be the next STAR WARS: A NEW HOPE, but perhaps if it is successful some filmmaker out there who IS sitting on the next SW will get a chance to bring his/her vision to life. If it flops, all we might have to look forward to for the next several years is shit like 2012 and TWILIGHT. I mean, I think this film has ALREADY had a positive influence on Hollywood: I don't think A PRINCESS OF MARS would finally actually be happening if it weren't for AVATAR. I think Disney is hoping this will be a mega-hit for Fox, and that the John Carter film will be the "next" AVATAR. -
check your fb dude (cool twoface shot btw).
-
People said he was crazy when he made Titanic.
-
BubbaDestructo's link didn't work. Here it is. This interview is better.
http://edition.cnn.com/video/d ata/2.0/video/showbiz/2009/11/ 22/int.cameron.carroll.long.cn n.html -
Still not working. Go to CNN.com, do a search for "james cameron jason carroll" and watch the "Avatar Director Speaks" video
-
in so tired of lookingat cgi graphics. its like toy story for adults. wish i could see a non-cgi movie in 3D
-
Nov 23, 2009 4:09:36 PM CST
Why do you people care so much about how much money this makes?
by black jesus
Shouldn't your number one concern be, as fans of cinema, whether or not the movie is good? Who gives a shit if it doesn't make a profit? It's not like James Fucking Cameron won't be able to make another movie if it does. Just chill the fuck out and go see the movie and then bitch about it if it sucks. I miss the pre-internet days when we didn't know every goddamn thing about a movie and hadn't already decided if we liked it or not before we had seen it. You guys suck.
-
...while that guy is at the doctor's getting erectile dysfunction tips, he might wanna have him look at that schizophrenia problem too.
-
Web Extra 1: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5736838n&tag=api
Web Extra 2: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5736840n&tag=api
Web Extra 3: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5736762n&tag=api
-
2012 Worldwide: $449,321,000. People shouldn't expect Titanic box office numbers for Avatar but they'll still compare the box office and call Avatar a failure.
-
FULL interview:
http://us.cnn.com/video/?/video/showbiz/2009/11/22/int.cameron.carroll.long.cnn
-
I think expectations are too high because this is, really, Cameron's singular vision. So, yeah, it might make $500 million-plus and more than earn back its cost. But the real litmus test will be whether it's actually GOOD. I read the original script some 10 or 11 years ago and thought it was pretty awesome. But the bits of the film I've seen so far just aren't living up to what I had imagined. It really is too cartoon-looking, which I think is why a lot of other fanboys aren't sort of rooting for this to fail. It looks nothing like what we've come to expect from Cameron and more like the multitude of animated crapfests the studios keep pumping out.
-
Well said! When/if this does fail, the naysayers and so-called movie geeks just wanna be able to say "see I told ya". That's all this is.
-
I thought by now I'd be in the long line of you who are just dying to see this movie. But I'm not, and I can't really say why. I'm a huge advocate of movies that push the technological boundaries, but everything I've seen of this movie makes me think it will be one of those movies like Transformers and the Star Wars prequels where I sit there for 2+ hours going, "this is beautiful, stunning stuff. but I can barely keep my fucking eyes open." no matter how amazing CGI technology gets, I'll never be able to tolerate these quasi-live action films that are 95% CGI. It just gets boring. Filmmaking is an organic process... the "happy accidents" of practical filming, the naturalistic approach to garnering sound effects, the reactionary performances of actors bouncing off of eachother... all of that seems to be lacking from these CGI-heavy fantasy epics, and Avatar looks no different. I feel a little bit empty watching a beautiful film, only to realize that every single frame's cinematography was tinkered with digitally; that all the sound effects were made on frooty loops and then plastered on in the sound mixing; that the majority of the performances are from a series of takes of an actor standing alone in their street clothes with 300 green dots on their face, reading off of a cue card. Its just hollow. I hope Cameron can change my mind, but in addition to all my sentiments above, I don't find the story to be very inclusive either. At this point, I really don't see myself seeing this in the theatres. sigh
-
judging by the amount of anti-hype that this film has received lately it's got a better chance of actually living up to the hype. I'm expecting a very fun time at the movies.
-
Nov 23, 2009 5:11:36 PM CST
If it doesn't have a ridiculously huge opening, it doesn't mean
by whatupsummmmmmbitch
You know that James Cameron movie with the big-ass sinking boat? I forget the name...
Well, anyway, highest-grossing film of all time.... opening weekend $28.6 MILLION.
Roland Emmerich's "10,000 B.C." had a bigger opening weekend!!!
I can't understand why so many people want this movie to fail. It's not like he's Brett Ratner or McG or anything.
And, okay, maybe a lot of you didn't like Titanic... but none of you liked Terminator 2?... Aliens?... True Lies?... -
because that is way more interesting to me than the proposed plot of this film.
-
but wishing failure on Cameron is sad because he doesn't really deserve failure while McG and Bay are getting movies tossed at them. Even if this movie is a pile of shit (Which I doubt it will be, it sounds very fun) I hope it does good just for his sake.
-
... the Last Airbender. The avatar: tla series was horrid, and I really don't see Shamalamadingdong working magic with it unless he dumps its shitty story.
-
All the people who say "Titanic was a slow burner" or "Titanic was going to be a flop" are forgetting one big thing: Leonardo DiCaprio. It may not have been what got the asses in seats, but he's what got them coming back. I'm sorry, but Titanic didn't make $600 million based on Cameron fans. It made it based on teenage girls. It's that simple.
-
But I just don't like Cameron. He reduces everything in movies to technology. He's like Lucas at his worst, wanting to replace ALL the actors with CGI. It drives me nuts that he's considered a cinematic genius when guys like Gilliam can barely get funding.
-
Gilliam is more talented than Bay but Bay makes money, lots of money for the studios. Some directors will make a big studio film and so they can makes their smaller films. Soderberg comes to mind.
-
Nov 23, 2009 5:43:24 PM CST
60 Minutes did stories on all 3 SW prequels as well
by fa_tass_dinomolester
And the show is 99% pap now. So really, who cares...?
-
Back in 1999, The Phantom Menace was the most eagerly anticipated film of the decade. Everyone was expecting TPM to be a sweeping adventure that would transport them to a fantasy universe they would fall in love with. What we got was a squalid digital soulless overhyped overindulgent piece of crap. Then, two years later, the Fellowship of The Ring came along and gave us everything we thought TPM would give us. Now we have Avatar around the corner. Like TPM, it is the most anticipated film of the decade and, like TPM, the disappointment will be beyond belief. And lo and behold, in two years time The Hobbit will be released and will give us everything we thought Avatar would. Yep folks, history is about to repeat itself.
-
The promotion is just beginning. Star Wars anticipation was on another level. You can't compare them.
-
Star Wars did. Eveybody and their grandma new Star Wars coming out and wanted to see it. They don't compare.
-
20 years? Funny, the designs look like something you'd see in the 80's. He should've done something else other than blue cat people. Not paying for this shit.
-
"I didn't know that he was going to murder his wife and become the real terminator." ROFLMAO!!!!!!
-
this piece was terrible. it's like morley is too old to even have an angle about the movie for this piece. it's just footage over a couple of years with a halfass piece on Cameron's life. there's literally less than 10 things said about Avatar with no word on any of the controversy surrounding the movie. didn't even talk about the controversy over titanic. terrible piece, depressing really showing what a toilet mainstream journalism has become
-
and I'm in a harness. I'M THE NEXT BRANDO! it's the future of film making.
-
Thanks for the links guys, much appreciated.
-
Really don't know what to make of this, but I might check it out if I have time this December (freaking Xmas shopping...)
-
even titanic. this should be really cool.
-
Nov 23, 2009 7:18:48 PM CST
I love all these ridiculous Phantom Menace comparisons
by turd_has_risen_from_the_grave
Based on exactly what? About the most tenuous, vaguest comaprisons imaginable? Lots of CGI and a director that's been away a long time? Sterling analysis there!Got to love the joker above also, who states he's not interested in Avatar becuase South Park 'made fun of it'. Damn, that's certainly convinced me as well! Good cinema is wasted on some of you folks.P.S. anyone who uses the same old tiresome, vacuous and completely unoriginal Thundersmurfs/Ferngully shtick again, should be ground down into weed fertilizer.
-
wow, you must be right, and i feel strangely compelled to agree with you. there's just this wonderfully 'wiser than thou' scent on your words that makes me think you have it all figured out.and the phantom menace was part of a fantasy universe i was already in love with but i hadn't seen in a long time. sure she might be trying too hard to dress younger, flashier...but i still love her.
-
Nov 23, 2009 7:38:42 PM CST
I think the Phantom Menace comparisons are hardly ridiculous
by liesandpicturesofalsolies
I can agree that there are big difference, but what else can we compare Avatar to? Avatar is an unique event so, if there's comparing to be done, you could worse than films by entertainment titans who have forged modern fx techniques. Both are sci-fi event films that have a huge built in geek base and a revolutionary use of CGI.
Ridiculous would be comparing the film to, say, flatulent chicken. Ridiculous but hilarious. -
Nov 23, 2009 7:42:47 PM CST
man that female navi is so hot her body is like gaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
by darthblart
-
He's making this too easy.
-
Nov 23, 2009 8:06:25 PM CST
"Avatar is an unique event" um in the movie geek world maybe.
by snakecharmer
The rest of the public has no history on this film. Most of them are just becoming aware of Avatar and they wont have your baggage when they watch the promos/film. Film geeks like us only make up 10-15% of the people who go to movies. New Moon made a ton of money eventhough most of think it's garbage.
-
I was just saying how I don't think the Star Wars/Avatar comparison deserves derision. I said earlier in the talkback that I thought it would make a ton of money, just that it would have a huge drop off week two or three. Sure, Star Wars was much more heavily anticipated by the world than Avatar is, but I think regardless of who knew about it when: the sheer amount of money it cost, the amount of time an entertainment heavy-hitter, and how it has hedged its own bets by saying it will change movies gets it a "unique" tag. Honestly, I don't even think that many movie geeks give too much of a shit about it, it's a much more exciting debate point than actual movie, in my humble estimation. My only baggage is that I've watched the trailers and promos everyone else has and I don't think it looks that great. I sincerely hope to be proven wrong.
-
Nov 23, 2009 8:34:17 PM CST
the amount of time an entertainment heavy-hitter spent on it rat
by liesandpicturesofalsolies
-
I'd divorce him to.
-
it's a sad sad state of affair in geekdom when a potentially cool film is coming out and all you geeks talk about is the opening box office gross. why must you care that much? it's the same thing every single time a big movie is coming out. no matter how big a budget a movie has, it still costs you the same ticket price to see it. and no matter whether your lame girlfriends or rednecks friends have no interest in seeing it, it still wont affect the quality of the film any less. seen the gross for 'new moon' lately? what does that say about the sheer lack of taste of the general public when it comes to selecting their films?
if avatar comes and it turns out to be a really great film, then that should satify you ENOUGH! let the studio accountants worry about the gross. if you're a lover of film, only the FILM ITSELF should matter to you. you talk about how much movie can make, you're a geek and no more. dont mistake yourself for a film buff because you're not one. -
"I can agree that there are big difference, but what else can we compare Avatar to? Avatar is an unique event so, if there's comparing to be done, you could worse than films by entertainment titans who have forged modern fx techniques. Both are sci-fi event films that have a huge built in geek base and a revolutionary use of CGI."
Based on your criteria, you could just as easily compare AVATAR to JURASSIC PARK or TERMINATOR 2. Both of those films fit the description you provided. The reason people are comparing AVATAR to PHANTOM MENACE is because for some reason they are hoping AVATAR also sucks balls. So, sure, comparisons are valid, but you could also compare it to many films that were not hugely disappointing. -
That was most definitely the singular event that caused so many geeks to become so jaded.
-
HMFIC. Perfect.
Because he is.
He doesn't fuck around with Michael Bay douchebaggery or "New Moon" fagvampism. He writes original stories and shoots them beautifully.
I can't wait for "Avatar." I'll probably see it a few times, maybe more, in the theater. -
could collectively move on from the disaster that is the new SW trilogy. There's been plenty to appease us since then...BATMAN BEGINS & TDK, SPIDEY 1 & 2, the first PIRATES, IRON MAN, DISTRICT 9, LOTR TRILOGY, PAN'S LABYRINTH, and many many more...
-
You are correct, and I hope it is like Jurassic Park and/or T2! I just didn't think that it was the most "tenuous comparison imaginable" and responded to Turd with my thoughts on the matter. In my totally subjective and singular opinion, I don't think Avatar will be Phantom Menace bad, at all, but I can understand why someone would go there.
-
how about the opening weekend gross of clockwork orange? or the total gross of taxi driver? or 8 1/2? or seven samurai? or citizen kane?
quality lasts forever. box office gross is just talk of the week. unless it's called titanic, of course, for obvious reason. -
year. Not two yrs later to Lord of the Rings. Matrix came out two or three months before PM did and the brothers outLucased Lucas.
-
fucking better than the Matrix movies, and The Two Towers.
-
None of this is really about grosses. I don't know why a bunch of people on a site for movie geeks consistently act like they don't like any movies...I really don't.
You should have been in some of the other AVATAR talkbacks where a solid number of these people were trying to rewrite history and convince those of us who are looking forward to this thing how stupid and shitty TERMINATOR 2 was and how overrated Cameron is.
I don't know when it became "reasonable" to judge a movie before even seeing it, and decide based on a few trailers that is was going to A: suck and B: bomb.
Maybe trolling is their idea of a good time, or maybe they're just joyless losers.
It is a little weird that a site full of "movie lovers" is actually populated by a bunch of people who don't seem to have ever loved any movie, and aren't willing to ever give one a chance.
Even DISTRICT 9, which seemed to be almost universally anticipated on this site, has been the victim of some revisionist history lately. More and more I am seeing people denigrating it in talkbacks, when it was widely applauded here upon release.
The whole thing is actually pretty fucking pathetic if you ask me. -
one was making a $100 million film from a hugely popular brand. the other is banking a $300 million on a new tech, new story, cgi lead charaters.
you see clearly the difference between the 2 men. one is playing it safe, the other is a madman. who else would have thought of making a chick flick about a familiar sinking boat, cast no stars, and had it budgeted at $200 million.
now 12 years later, cameron is still as ambitious, still as crazy and as egotistical as ever. for that alone, the guy deserves our goodwill. and after the 6 solid films he's given us, he's absofuckinglutely has earned our faith. shame on you the unbelievers! -
Nov 23, 2009 9:16:11 PM CST
I don't understand why box office is unworthy of discussion by f
by liesandpicturesofalsolies
Yes yes yes. Quality is awesome. What fool is going to argue that? I've never met someone (outside of LA) that went to go see a movie simply because it made a lot of money. I think box office is worthy of discussion, though, because it influences which films are going to get made with big budgets and wide releases. It felt like after Scream did well, we were subjected to a stream of similar crappy slasher films. After Blair Witch, it felt like there were more thoughtful and awesome horror films getting distribution. I want Avatar to do well (even if I think the premise is a fairly generic one and the I think the CG looks plastic)! I'd rather have more giant sci-fi films that are somewhat original than another slew of young adult novel adaptations.
-
I disagree, lockesbrokenleg, with your assessment of the Star Wars prequels. You love them, great. Cool. I think that says a lot about you.
But I fucking hate them. Along with everything Lucas has made and done after "Return of the Jedi."
In all honesty, I think it's incredibly insulting to compare any "Star Wars" film to "Avatar." I think far better comparisons can be made to classic science fiction "gone native" stories by Dan Simmons and John Scalzi. They aren't movies, I realize, but I think "Avatar" will be far more complex and far-reaching than people are expecting.
And if you think the "Star Wars" films are better than the "Matrix" films, lockesbrokenleg... you've already hung yourself with your own words. I can't add anything. -
...to some degree.
This has been a truly awesome year for movies. Better than 2007 and 1999 even, though I have been debating that heavily, and Oscar-bait season is only just beginning. -
my comment was not directed at you. but looking at this thread from the top down, as in most threads for big budget films, seems like that's most geeks like to talk about. zero passion for films, and constant upping of dick size. 'wawawa!!! my movie makes this much amount, so i have bigger dick since i like this film, and you have limp dick because your film make less! wawawawa!!!'
it'd be hilarious if it wast so pathetic. -
You can watch a full scene on the Avatar sight. A chase scene. Very cool!
-
nice to see j.c. still taking credit for thinking up the ideal for The Terminator!
-
because it influences which films are going to get made?? how have the geeks discussing about the grosses all these years prevent 'new moon' from becoming a super duper mega hit this past weekend?
let's be honest, discussion of box office gross is as useful as talking about the movie stars's love lives. it's all worthless junks for us. if we want better movies made, we improve our filmic knowledge, talk about the art and craft, get a better taste, watch better movie. be more selective. dont just line up for a new michael bay movie soon as it hits the screens. that's HOW better films will get made! -
To be fair, I know not everyone on here hates, or pretends to hate, every movie...but the sad truth is that there are more and more every day. As for this year being better than 1999...I don't know. Lots of good movies this year, and maybe when all is said and done it will be on that level, but I still need to see a few before I can render a final verdict. THE ROAD, NINJA ASSASSIN, and AVATAR are all on my must-see list, and I still haven't seen THE MESSENGER. I just wish they hadn't pushed SHUTTER ISLAND and THE WOLFMAN into 2010.
-
IGN has it! You can download it in HD too! tinyurl.com/ykfvtgc
And as for all the trolling and big questions, Cameron answers all of it in the CNN interview which is a hell of a lot better than the 60 minutes piece! -
successful, that we would be treater to a slew of original cool sci-fi films? for every auteur, there are dozens and dozens of hacks. if avatar is a hit, what we'll get are many many lame wannabes. just look at the market soon after pulp fiction became a hit, or titanic, or starwars.
dont just predict about grosses, be more proactive. if you really give a damn, then watch a good film. vote with your dollars. but of course, i have ZERO DOUBT 90% of you here will watch transformers 3 the day it came out. that's just the nature of geeks - talk big, know nothing, do nothing. -
It is true that our talkback discussions on box office have no impact on the actual box office itself, which wasn't my point. My point is that the box office itself has influence on the world of film, so it is worthy of discussion, even if that discussion, like most geek talk, doesn't matter in and of itself. I agree that when people turn the box office into a pissing contest (like the Dark Knight vs. New Moon explosion that occurred last weekend) it is pretty silly.
-
are a cock measuring contest by the studio executives who use sports analogies to define success. The don't necessarily have a connection to the quality of the film. "2001" and "Blade Runner" are the clearest examples of that. Both deemed box office "failures" at the time of release; both redefined the SF genre in ways that are still being appreciated and imitated.The talk of box office as the ONLY useful measure of a films worth, completely negates the craftsmanship and the vision of the filmmakers. Films are often rediscovered years after their original release ("Carnival of Souls," the forthcoming directors cut of "Metropolis") and finding a boost to their reputation as the films gain further support. How about films like Edgar G. Ulmer's "Detour"? Or Leone's movies (ever read the reviews of "The Good, The Bad, The Ugly" when it came out? Brutal.) or again look at Kubrick? Even now there is a re-evaluation of his last movie "Eyes Wide Shut" going on.Discussion of the box office and the obsession that follows it is another example of the 'gossip culture' that is a substitute for real news and information; it's Wall Street Journal culture grafted onto the 'entertainment industry'— a way of thinking that is more attuned to investment portfolios than nuanced performances.The number crunching philosophy absolutely has it's place, but if that's the criteria to judge creative work by "…we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."
-
I don't know if there will be a slew of original and cool sci-fi films post-Avatar success. I will settle for studios seeing that an original sci-fi idea with a competent director and trying to do another original sci-fi idea with a competent director. Hopefully this next movie won't waste hundreds of millions of dollars on a level of detail that doesn't really affect the quality of the film too much and requires that the film be such a monster hit to succeed. Also, I haven't seen any of the Transformers films or GI Joe for the exact reason you discussed. I only want to give my bucks to a film that I deem worthy, though I know you weren't talking to me directly on that front.
-
I'm so sick of people saying Watchmen was this huge flop. The movie made 185 million!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmen_%28film%29
That's 55 mil over it's budget. Why is it that if a movie isn't making over 200 mil it's a bock office flot? For an R rate 2 and a half hour film that is not too bad. -
not talking to you directly with my last post. just venting to geeks in general. i think any geek is who hasnt fallen prey to the transformers marketing hype is a much more evolved kind of geeks.:)
@blakindigo - exactly! word for word, that's the truth. -
I think Watchmen was a flop because they really hyped this movie up, and it failed to deliver. It made that amount worldwide, which isn't even Batman Begins money. It did terrible box office.
-
I think the if the 3-D is as cool as they say, this'll bring ppl to the cinema alone, not to mention lots and lots of kids are going to want to see this (which is OKAY). But of all the filmmakers out there...J.C. is one of the only ones who still has the passion he had years ago. The guy's a madman and that makes him awesome in my book.
-
Nov 23, 2009 10:31:40 PM CST
James Cameron = Great filmmaker, completely shit writer
by glory_fades_immaxfischer
-
Nov 23, 2009 10:33:12 PM CST
Actually Lockes, if you're going by box office for 'Watchmen'
by blakindigo
You have to look at the rating AND the running time. The film was rated 'R' or '18'. That severely limits a wider demographic, in addition to the running time of 2 hours and thirty-two minutes. That cuts the amount of showings on a given screen by a third.For the film to make the money it did was actually quite impressive, considering there were no 'stars' or media tie-ins.The film can be considered a 'disappointment' to Warner Brothers because they had to share their distribution revenue with Fox after they lost the lawsuit.The film performed quite well in spite of those limitations.
-
...was part of the 16 minute Imax 3D preview from "Avatar Day". It ended with the monster knocking Jake down. Seeing that shit at the 80 foot Navy Pier Imax in Chicago was pretty fucking incredible.
-
Do we have to go through the Aliens quotes again? Where's Yanks?
-
were just as long, as was the second and third Pirates of the Caribbean movies, and those fuckers made HUGE amounts of money.
-
I don't give two fucks what the haters think...This movie is going to rock big time...Go..Big Jim..Show'em how its really done..
-
Also, 2 of those movies are a known "brand" that are almost 70 years old, with a number of references in pop culture. Numerous books, live-action and animated TV series, movies and videos are sold with "Superman" and "Batman". They are household names and part of the mainstream culture."Pirates of the Caribbean" is sold on the star power of Johnny Depp, and the power of Jerry Bruckheimer's marketing brilliance, not to mention the Disney brand/theme park ride "Pirates of the Caribbean."None of the films you mentioned are rated 'R' or '18' and all are based on proven, recognizable brands that have existed for over 40 years at a minimum."Watchmen" is based on a graphic novel that was a 'cult phenomenon' in the late 80's — Violent, sexual and philosophically dense. The movie doesn't have movie stars, nor is it suitable for all ages. The film was NEVER going to make "Batman Begins" or "Superman Returns" or "PotC" level revenue. It's not made for the same audience and doesn't have the legacy of cultural acceptance. It's become more popular BECAUSE of the movie.
-
just like they did before."
-
Nov 23, 2009 11:54:14 PM CST
What the Fuck is with this $400 million price tag
by hermestrismestigus
Thats a fucking lie...and done only for marketing purposes...assuming James Cameron gets a 20 plus million dollar paycheck for writing, producing, and directing, and a cast of no names, and has beens...and shooting in New Zealand or Australia or whatever warehouse he's renting with a bunch of blue screen minimal sets etc..its essentially an animated movie....for 20 million bucks he can hire 100 plus of the best animators and house them for 5 years of work...the marketing will probably cost more than the movie and you still probably won't get anywhere near 100 million bucks. And there is nothing animation wise we haven't seen before in the star wars prequels.
-
...and they're gonna come in here AND THEY'RE GONNA GET US!"
-
Nov 23, 2009 11:59:09 PM CST
I see the majority of Idiots of AICN are still here...
by --- emperor ---
Idiots galore...
People comparing Cameron to Lucas. Than in itself is proof that this site is littered with idiots rather than genuine film geeks...
Since when is there a comparison between Lucas and Cameron? Most people don't actually know either of them or their backgrounds. Allow me: Lucas is an ideas man, but not much more. He is incapable of writing (the original Star Wars had extensive re-writes from uncredited friends of Lucas, and the films that Lucas did not obtain help with, are the worst ones)...Lucas is a good director of special effects, but he is a medicore director overall at best. He neither has Spielberg's story telling ability, nor Cameron's attention to heart and soul. So comparing the release of Phantom Menace to Avatar is not only incredibly ignorant, but also downright pretentious and hollow. Lucas never was and never will be a visionary. He is an ideas man, but a visionary is far more than that. Lucas may have changed the way special effects are created in Hollywood, but he never had an input into how stories are told. Cameron has. Cameron always was and always will be about the heart and soul of a story, far more than the special effects. All of Cameron's films pushed special effects but they also all had a credible substance to its characters and story. None of Lucas's films have that, not even the original Star Wars films. They are good entertainment, but not much more, and you monkeys keep forgetting that for the sake of adding your assinine 2 cents worth here, time and time again. Fuck off already and let the grown ups talk. -
Nov 24, 2009 12:00:01 AM CST
I see the majority of Idiots of AICN are still here...
by --- emperor ---
Idiots galore... People comparing Cameron to Lucas. That in itself is proof that this site is littered with idiots rather than genuine film geeks... Since when is there a comparison between Lucas and Cameron? Most people don't actually know either of them or their backgrounds. Allow me: Lucas is an ideas man, but not much more. He is incapable of writing (the original Star Wars had extensive re-writes from uncredited friends of Lucas, and the films that Lucas did not obtain help with, are the worst ones)...Lucas is a good director of special effects, but he is a medicore director overall at best. He neither has Spielberg's story telling ability, nor Cameron's attention to heart and soul. So comparing the release of Phantom Menace to Avatar is not only incredibly ignorant, but also downright pretentious and hollow. Lucas never was and never will be a visionary. He is an ideas man, but a visionary is far more than that. Lucas may have changed the way special effects are created in Hollywood, but he never had an input into how stories are told. Cameron has. Cameron always was and always will be about the heart and soul of a story, far more than the special effects. All of Cameron's films pushed special effects but they also all had a credible substance to its characters and story. None of Lucas's films have that, not even the original Star Wars films. They are good entertainment, but not much more, and you monkeys keep forgetting that for the sake of adding your assinine 2 cents worth here, time and time again. Fuck off already and let the grown ups talk.
-
you said it twice. I agree with --Emperor--. Nice to hear someone with a little perspective.
-
Ripley: Well, somebody's gonna have to go out there. Take a portable terminal, go out there and patch in manually.
Hudson: Oh yeah, sure! With those things runnin' around? You can count me out.
Hicks: Yeah I guess we can just count you out of everything, Hudson.
Bishop: [speaking under Hicks] I'll go.
Hudson: That's right, man.
Bishop: I'll go.
Hudson: Hey, why don't you go, man!
Bishop: [more loudly] I'll go.
Ripley: What?
Bishop: I'll go. I mean, I'm the only one qualified to remote-pilot the ship anyway.
Hudson: Yeah right, man, Bishop should go.
Hudson: Good idea!
Bishop: Believe me, I'd prefer not to. I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid. -
Excuses, excuses.
-
I thought you'd be smarter than this."
-
Seems to me that only 10 or so years ago reaching 100 million was a certified blockbuster, spending 30 million on making a movie (even a timeless Disney classic-to-be) was insane, and that making 300 million was an impressive incredibly elite feat that only belonged to Forest Gump and the Lion King.
At what point did a movie costing more that 150 million, and earning less than 200 million making it a flop happen? (and none of that takes into account dvd sales, which can sell millions of copies in a single day...
Besides, when it comes to sheer attendance, nothing is ever going to get more ticket sales than Gone with the Wind anyway. -
Nov 24, 2009 12:30:55 AM CST
True. "Gone with the Wind" still rules when adjusted for inflati
by blakindigo
But, how many times was that film re-released?
-
http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm?adjust_yr=1&p=.htm
NOT adjusted, first run only, in TICKETS sold, the top 10 are
1Gone with the Wind MGM 202,044,600 $198,676,459 1939^
2Star Wars Fox 178,119,600 $460,998,007 1977^
3The Sound of Music Fox 142,415,400 $158,671,368 1965
4E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial Uni. 141,854,300 $435,110,554 1982^
5The Ten Commandments Par. 131,000,000 $65,500,000 1956
6Titanic Par. 128,345,900 $600,788,188 1997
7Jaws Uni. 128,078,800 $260,000,000 1975
8Doctor Zhivago MGM 124,135,500 $111,721,910 1965
9The Exorcist WB 110,568,700 $232,671,011 1973^
10Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs Dis. 109,000,000 $184,925,486 1937^ -
"I want you two walking a perimeter.Stay frosty, we can't afford to let one of those bastards get in here."
-
Nov 24, 2009 12:39:51 AM CST
Try that again, a bit cleaner. first run tickets only
by glenn_the_frog
1Gone with the Wind 202,044,600
2Star Wars 178,119,600
3The Sound of Music 142,415,400
4E.T. 141,854 ,300
5The Ten Commandments 131,000,000
6Titanic 128,345,900
7Jaws 128,078,800
8Doctor Zhivago 124,135,500
9The Exorcist 110,568,700
10Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs 109,000,000 -
"Not enough to wake up to your face Drake."
-
"What do you want me to do, fetch your slippers Hudson?""Gee, would ya sarge?""Look into my eye."
-
... you're going out there to destroy them, right? Not to study, not to bring them back, but to wipe them out?""That's the plan, you have my word on it.""All right. I'm in."
-
Nov 24, 2009 12:56:35 AM CST
What gets me are the jaded people that are sick of effects
by blakindigo
driven movies—and THAT is there only criteria for hating on this movie. I mean, they'll go see offal like "TF:ROTF" or "G.I. JOE" but, when it comes to a man who consistently tries to push the envelope and give AUDIENCES an experience worth remembering, they spew nothing but venom. Strange.It's almost as if all effects driven movies are the same—as if they're all of the same ambition and have equal amounts of contempt for the audience and continue to lower audience expectations for good, enjoyable, blockbuster storytelling into the last Roman sewer.It's ironic that "Lawrence of Arabia" and "El Cid" were blockbusters in their day, but somehow in the 21st Century making a film of epic scope and ambition is frowned on in favour of movies like "Juno" or "Sideways." I'm not hating on those movies (I'm not really a fan though) but, why are people so jaded and cynical?Is it the 'hipster' arrogance, that snarky know-it-all viewpoint of entitlement that plagues the 'Net?
-
The major difference to me is that Cameron is a perfectionist. Lucas likes to say "that's good enough". Huge difference in attitudes there. Fan anticipation is the only thing the release of Avatar has in common with Phantom Menace. Every talkback has a dipshit or two comparing them... they have no fucking clue.
-
They look too uniformed, no blemishes on the skin, no scars, no dirt marks, from living in the harsh jungles of pandora. Mind you, from what I've seen before. Honestly, I hope I'm blown away by this movie in theaters, because I haven't been impressed by a movie in years, but so far, the Navi look too cartoony to be real.
-
Wow. I need that cap. Now.
-
New Moon is the first time I've felt out of touch with a big blockbuster film. I just don't get it. Well I mean. I get Vampires. They're all cool and stuff, but lets get to why it's really popular. Teen girls love romance with hot guys, especially shirtless ones. The books and movies are mediocre at best. It's a franchise that lives off tween girls going crazy over hot guys on the big screen. Twilight is like the boy band of movies. Hopefully these tween girls will grow out of it and we can get back to real movies. TRON Legacy 2010!!! Woot!!!!!
-
after seeing previews and reading talkback for AVATAR here's my problem with all this. first, the effects aren't that great. the navi don't look real enough when compared with the scenes with the humans and personally takes me right out of it. I feel like maybe Cameron should have digitized the humans similar to beowulf and used photorealistic landscapes so that navi wouldn't stand out as much.
and the plot as we know it isn't all that original. I mean the end of ROTJ had to deal with natives have to overcome technologically superior humans and i'm sure someone has already mentioned Ferngully. Cameron could possibly take it in diffrent directions but i am not going to hold my breathe. and i just don't really see this movie being hugely succesful. it could make its money back in the long run but it isnt gonna do NEW MOON money even if it wasnt a good movie that is half an hour too long and some of the climax was laughable. -
http://movies.ign.com/dor/objects/800318/avatar/videos/avatar_trl_thanator_chase.html?show=hi
-
in addition to "Titanic" and "Terminator". Your opinion is fine, but it seems that you don't know how scripts are constructed to make bald claims without real evidence to back it up.Look at the "FIRST BLOOD: The Mission" screenplay. It contradicts your ideas on his writing. Read the "Aliens" screenplay and 'scriptment'. That also contradicts your opinion. Sorry, the evidence is in Cameron's favour.
-
Cameron's name was attached to a movie in which it was said that they had found the "bones" or burial ground, of Jesus Christ.
God does not like to be mocked.
IMO. I'm not trying to start anything. Don't sue me :) -
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/11/ff_avatar_cameron/all/1
-
the box office thing doesnt matter to me.
-
up with my dick in jo ASSS!
-
I agree with blakindigo. You're welcome to your opinion of Cameron as a writer, but most of what you wrote is hearsay and incorrect.
He might not be a great screenwriter, but he IS at least a very, very good one. I think you're selling him short.
Also, Cameron DID write "Terminator," regardless of what Harlan Ellison, curmudgeon than he is, claimed. The studio paid him off so he'd shut the hell up (at a huge discount), not because he had any claim to the actual writing of "Terminator." This is pretty well-documented.
Just saying. -
Too bad AVATAR cant be on the same level as the excelent big hit show STARGATE UNIVERSE which rocked TV history this Fall!!!! im so glad STARGATE UNIVERSE is being hailed as one of the best sci fi story to ever appear on a visual medium!!! some even called it the new STAR TREK!!!! how cool is that!! so awesome man!!!!! FUCK AVATAR 3d GLASSES SHIT!!!!!! I SHIT ON AVATAR AND FUCK NA'VI in the ASS!!!!
-
I WANT TO SEE THAT!!!! I'D PAY TO SEE NA'VI BEING FUCKED IN THE ASS BY FUCKIN CHIMPS!!!!!
-
IF NOT THEN WE DRILL THEM A NEW ONE!!!!!!!!!!
-
....it's all a hokey act, and this movie is an overhyped video game fill withe scenes from starship troopers etc.... so what ? the point is it is nothing new. It's price tag is inflated for attention and to give Cameron all the credit is even more hype BS. The VFX artists are the ones working hard, not Harlan Ellison in the armchair.
-
....it's all a hokey act, and this movie is an overhyped video game fill withe scenes from starship troopers etc.... so what ? the point is it is nothing new. It's price tag is inflated for attention and to give Cameron all the credit is even more hype BS. The VFX artists are the ones working hard, not Harlan Ellison in the armchair.
-
He did kind of kick-start the whole mess if you remember.
-
Seriously, shut the fuck up.
-
But Cameron did rip off Ellison's Outer Limits stories. How do I know? Because CAMERON SAID SO. And I hate how he gets all the credit for Aliens, when people seem to forget that there was a movie actually before that which laid out everything but the marine angle. And frankly, Titanic's love story on its own is really not that much more sophisticated than Twilight's. There, I said it. So spare me this talk about how original Cameron is.
-
That makes me want this to fail. I'm sorry, but he's a technically briliant director who makes soulless melodramas. The "quotable" dialogue from ALiens wouldn't have been out of place in a John Wayne movie 40 years earlier. In musical terms, he's like Mark Knopfler: all technical prowess and no heart. My worry is that if Avatar is a huge success, we'll be seeing more crap like 2012 and the Bay movies. Why? because it's easier for the studios to throw money at Bay and Emmerich than to nurture the next Scorsese or Coen bros. The spawn of Titanic was PEarl Harbor, not LOTR.
-
if you liked every blockbuster besides NewMoon, then your IQ has to be sumb 100...lots of really bad films in there.
-
He doesn't write esp good dialogue for sure. He is decent with plot but not great beyond that. But he directs highly entertaining films and Avatar will be no different.
-
I can't believe how dumb and bad at math some people are. So if a film costs $100 to make and nets $10,000, it is the most profitable movie in history? You are fucking retarded...most profitable is the film with the largest amount of profit...sigh..
-
Shame on you folks.
-
Nov 24, 2009 1:02:32 PM CST
Neither Aliens, Abyss, or T2 are particularly well written.
by liesandpicturesofalsolies
Not as well written as "Fuck you, you fuckin' machine." anyway.
-
"Neither Aliens, Abyss, or T2 are particularly well written."Oh, but they are. I love all this talk about Cameron not being agreat writer. Aliens and T1, T2 are some of the greatest action/adventure scripts ever written - perfectly structured, every scene advancing the plot, set-ups and pay-offs perfectly executed, and -yes -some memorable dialogue. I take it some of you folks just don't know much about the craft of screenwriting at all. Even Titanic, some crappy dialogue aside, was rock-solid in terms of the other, more important aspects of scriptwriting. A marvel of economy and structure. These are the most important and difficult aspects of scriptwriting.And wookie1972, sorry but I have to call bullshit on this - Cameron's movies are far from 'soulless melodrama' - for all his reputation of being a hard-ass he's got an extremely strong humanistic streak running through all his movies, and the concerns are clearly drawn from his own life - marriage, tech lust/caution, etc. Mark Knopfler, my ass - Cameron is more of a Jimmy Page - taking a lot of tropes and ideas from past sci-fi but combining them into his own, like Page stripmining old blues standards and pumping them up - but with some degree of heart and feeling. Kubrick would have been the Hendrix of the film world - a complete innovator.
-
Nov 24, 2009 1:34:58 PM CST
Tailhook, get your facts straight before you go off on one
by turd_has_risen_from_the_grave
Cameron's Terminator script supposedly took ideas from Ellinson - it actually took only superficial ones if you actually bothered to investigate the source material - but in any case, did Ellinson actually write the Terminator script? No, so shut the fuck up. True Lies WAS written by Cameron. Oh, you mean because it was a loose remake of the French movie LaTotale, do you? How exactly does that disqualify it from being written by Cameron? Are adaptations of source material to be equally discounted? Don't be stupid. As for Titanic- Romeo and Juliet? Yes - that's one of the basic story archetypes that's been used in hundreds of stories throughout the centuries. Are you unaware that Romeo and Juliet's basic story was itself stolen by Shakespeare from earlier sources , as were many of his plays? It doesn't mater about universal story archetypes, it's how to funnel them into your own stories that counts.Seriously, some of you will do just about anything to discreit the achievements of successful filmmakers. It's getting increasingly wearisome.
-
Nov 24, 2009 1:46:14 PM CST
Finally, Emperor I wholeheartedly agree
by turd_has_risen_from_the_grave
Well maybe not entirely with your assessments of Lucas, who was in fact a terrific director between 71 and 77, but certainly about AICN. This place is largely a sewage dump, filled with ignorant mouthpieces, annoying trolls, and people with personal vendettas against particular filmmakers and movies. It's actually a futile exercise to try and correct them. I remember very well the glory days of AICN in the late 90's; I blame the disappointment of The Phantom Menace for this perpetually downward spiral in standards of comments and levels of negativity here. Perhaps it is just indicative of the anonymous nature of the internet as a whole or just collective cultural ennui.,p. I mean, to take an Example above, people criticizing Aliens! Fucking Aliens! That would have been sacrilege 10 years ago. and it certainly isn't to do with a movie not ageing well or people growing wiser - it's simply due to bitterness, bile, and a need to tear everything down. A reduction in intelligence, not a leap. Granted not everyone has to like a certain movie, but dyed-in-the-wool genre classics are even getting attacked here. I think I even saw someone laying into Empire at some point a while back.
-
See Turd's post above…
-
That's right. And I'd do it again, I tells ya!
-
If memory serves, I believe livingwater is the same nutjob who posted a rant claiming that he had been fired by Peter Jackson and that Jackson stole his work (writer) and was doing everything he could to blackball him in the industry.
-
Shut up assholes. Go watch fucking Blade.
-
Jumped off the Cameron bandwagon with that one. Fucker needed an editor and an ending.
-
I just couldn't believe hicks would be driving around in underwater ships.
-
Stymied.
-
Yeah, but at least there success wasn't based on cute boys. What kind of a franchise is fueled by cute shirtless hunks? I never said I liked every franchise. I said I related to, in that I understood. Ok this is Star Wars, Spider-Man. Even Titanic had special effects for the guys.
-
This will kill all 3-D moviemaking outside of cheap horror cash-grabs and 3rd-chapter sequels ... probably for the next 50 years. James Cameron's LAZER CATS is guaranteed to fail. Or, you can just say James Cameron's GAYLIENS is guaranteed to fail. Or you could just call it NA'AVI IN THE WATER.
-
When this movie dies at the box-office, it's going to be a nightmare for fanboys. We're talking Fanboy Armageddon. The fanboys are going to see the destruction of whole studio divisions as they economically implode due to a shutdown in support. Independent movies will be the first to go. Then, you'll see a shutdown of support for directors and filmmakers who do fantasy or sci-fi. Performance motion capture divisions will shut down. Mo-Cap perfomrers liek Doug Jones won't be able to find a job. Real-world comedies like EVERYBODY'S FINE will be the only thing left to be seen, and even those won't have big-name stars. Get ready for wave upon wave of anonymous fluff romantic comedies and girl-pleasing teen flicks - those are guaranteed money-makers. AVATAR is the last straw of tolerance for studios. They will be DONE with fanboys when this fails. Completely. This will mean no TINTIN. This will mean no more sci-fi fantasy pictures for YEARS. This will shut down the UNIVERSE for fanboys, and will be followed by WAVE after WAVE of cancellation of sci-fi/fantasy projects, esp. sequels with big-name actors. It will be the end of James Cameron's career, the end of Sigourney's, the end of Worthington's. I am calling it right fucking now.
-
It looks great. I'm sure average moviegoers will love it. Fuck, 2012 made money and it was universally slammed. I can name ten movies that were universally slammed by critics that are blockbusters.
-
It's going to fail because it features GIANT BLUE PEOPLE. It is so alienating - so foreign to the average moviegoer - it's going to be just ignored. People will go see a romantic comedy. Parents won't let their kids see this alone because it looks like it has kissing and kinda violent-stuff. It basically takes a shit on every single demographic.
-
... sometimes I feel like the Gmork. "The Nothing will destroy your fanboy world ... and I have been trying to HELP it! Because fanboys who have no hope ... will shut the fuck up ... and when fanboys shut the fuck up ... there will be happiness and peace."
-
EVERYONE who isn't a fanboy has said this movie looks lame, looks like a cartoon, they don't like the visuals, don't like the style of it. What Cameron et al Fanboy cum Morons fail to realize is that ALL the visual effects are going to be lost on the average viewer. The average viewer has the attention span of a starfish. See, people think it was the visual complexity of LOTR battle scenes that got the eye of these people and made them go "ooooo!" No, wrong wrong wrong. It was the size. LOOKIT DAT IZZZ BIGGGGGG. That's about as far as it goes. Little details on rocks, trees, plants, animals - holy shit, dude, they're not going to see ANY of that. They can't even fucking pay attention to their own fingers and toes. They don't know why we have a flag in the US with 50 STARS on it. They don't know their own NAME some of the time. I work at a job where I have to ask people their address - AND MOST OF THEM HAVE OT FUCKING THINK ABOUT IT FOR A MINUTE TO RECITE IT. Since they don't call themselves, THEY OFTEN DO NOT KNOW THEIR OWN FUCKING PHONRE NUMBER. Do you REALIZE that kids age of 4-5 used to know their own phone number? NOW GROWN ADULTS DON'T! And you think they're going to be interested in the level fo detail on an animal's rump in AVATAR? These fuckers don't think of visuals like that They think of BIG or BAYSPLOJINZ or nothing. They don't think at all. They just react, like when you stick a needle in the finger of a coma patient and the coma patient winces. That's the audience you're trying to impress. And AVATSAR ain't going to do it.
-
The man who gave the world Terminator and T2, Aliens and The Abyss, True Lies and Titanic. Who co-wrote and got the funding together for Strange days. That James Cameron? And most seem to hate him for a film that hasn't even come out yet. Jesus Fucking Christ, I give up. Oh, and big shout out to GeneralJackCosmo and his ilk, because yes, I do remember when people used to celebrate their love of movies rather than celebrating their need to hate everything, when film fans could have fun debates about films rather than just arbitrarily pissing all over them without rhyme or reason, and when the quality of the film meant a hell of a lot more than just how much money it made for a bunch of faceless studio suits. I mean we now live in a world where you can't even give James Cameron the benefit of any doubt until at least opening day. That these are the types of people who films are largely being made and marketed towards now frankly depresses the fuck out of me...
-
This isn't your blandly directed Jon Iron Man guy comedy. It's SCI FI. The Transformers are easily related to, but they're big ass robots. What's the problem?
-
Great music/director analogies. Hendrix/Kubrick is dead-on. It doesn't always work, and you don't always like it, but it's ALWAYS AMAZINGLY ORIGINAL. And an original failure is ALWAYS better than a succesful knock-off to me.
-
your name reminds me of the lines from ALTERED BEAST that I always thought would make the two best tag lines ever: ALTERED BEAST - RISE FROM YOUR GRAVE JUNE 23. ALTERED BEAST - WELCOME TO YOUR DOOM JUNE 23.
-
ThusSpakeChipmunk, you are indeed a Gmork. Most of the time I respect your opinion, but I think you're dead wrong on this one.
"Avatar" featuring GIANT BLUE PEOPLE will be why the film will fail, huh?
Interesting.
Just like the original the "Star Wars" featured stormtroopers, Jawas, alien planets, and a tall guy in black named Vader? Just like...
Nah, it's not even worth it.
Pull your head out of your ass, man. Before it's too late. -
The difference was that STAR WARS mined the deep truths of cultural mythology - the Samauri, Westerns, etc. Those weird aliens were part of, but not the principle part of, the original ads, which pitched the movie as a blonde-haired blue-eyed kinda handsome dude and a dark roughish kinda handsome dude and an old mysterious dude against a bad-ass evil armored knight dude (and the shots of the knight were really brief). If you read stories, you'll know that there was great turmoil at the studio about whether to advertise the movie as a "trick" by making it seem serious, or whether they should accentuate the obvious dumbassery of the whole thing by making "funny" ads because execs clearly saw the movie as incredibly stupid (the non-serious promo campaign was called, I believe, LITTLE RASCALS IN SPACE as its descriptive name). The serious ad idea won out, but they also HID all the weirdness as much as they could, focusing on technology (laser blasts, laser swords, etc., pitched violence and fighting) AND THE HUMAN LEADS. Not so with AVATAR, which wears its geek cred on its flaccid sleeve.
-
id sort of pointless. transformers 2 made a boatload of money. yet, that movie sucks ass. so even if avatar makes a lot of money (which i dont think it will) that does not mean that the movie is well written or acted.
-
your making good points. i feel like cameron is trying to pull a fast one on us. trying to dazzle us with a lot of expensive cgi to distract us from the story (which sounds very preachy and heavy handed) and the acting (which looks cheesy).
-
It's someone trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. That's what mo-cap, CGI, etc. are all about. But the fact is, nobody cares about CG or not CG. People would love PIXAR movies just as much when they're about a good story if they were CGI or traditional hand-drawn. Likewise, nobody's going to NOTICE the wizardry in AVATAR - it's not visibly different from DELGO to the average person. They see no variation between AVATAR and ARTHUR AND THE INCISIBLES. To them, it's th same damn thing. So it's a waste.
-
You MORON! The average person has never heard of Delgo! I know a lot of average people that want to see Avatar.
-
the latest pics and viseo of the navi reminded a lot (a lot, a lot) of abe sapien from the hellboy movie. and obviously abe is not cgi. and no one can tell me that they cant make them look like their 10 feet tall without cgi. thats a trick that they have been doing in movies 'practically' (in camera) since the 1930's. this movie feels like a rich guy who owns a 4 million dollar car: he doesnt need a 4 million dollar car to go fast. he just wants to show off what he can buy and how much money he has.
-
I honestly think you're lying when you say a lot of people you know who are AVERAGE want to see AVATAR. I and several other people I know have talked about the "average people" in their lives - friends and family - and those few among them who've even heard of it think, as you thought RE FANTASTIC MR FOX in another Talkback "It's a cartoon? Pass." And it is a cartoon, because there really is no differnece between the Na'Avi and Mr. Scrooge in the new CAROL. Eff you, Leg-Man.
-
great read with tons of behind the scene photos and concept designs.
James Cameron’s New 3-D Epic Could Change Film Forever:
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/11/ff_avatar_cameron/all/1
Inventing Effects to Create the Avatar Universe:
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/11/ff_avatar_movie/all/1
5 Steps to Avatar: Reinventing Moviemaking
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/11/ff_avatar_5steps
interactive trailer:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/herocomplex/2009/11/avatar-technologically-advanced-even-in-the-trailer.html -
THE 'AVATAR' DISASTER - WHAT WENT WRONG, AND WHAT'S NEXT? - coming January 1at, Entertainment Weekly
-
FOX'S MASSIVE FIRINGS - "We're Never Making Another Big-Budget Sci-Fi Film Again," says Studio Head.
-
END OF AN ERA - HOW 3-D ONCE AGAIN PROVED TO BE 'THE BIG LIE' - Cinema Marketing Magazine
-
to address some points here:
cameron is a great writer. 3 most important words in screenwriting is structure, structure, and structure. that's how you can easily spot bad movies to great ones. some corny lines aside, cameron's scripts are very well structured, his characters are strong and well written. combine that with his trademark set pieces and appetite for grandiuer, i dont know how any geek worth a damn could feel dissapointed.
i've mentioned this dozens of time. star wars borrowed heavily from kurosawa films, matrix is derivative of so many movies it's too long to list, ditto with district 9, jaws, indiana jones, whatever... once the story is filtered through yourself, then it's not quite the same thing. hacks copy and make shit, artist copy and make old concept seems fresh.
yeah, cameron is not kubrick. but kubrick is not fellini either. and hitchcock is just a cock compared to truffaut and kurosawa. film is medium that has enough place to accept all these different talents. just because cameron is making big budget action films doesnt mean he's below the league of all the other names. he's just making a different kind of films than those names. you give $300 million to kubrick or scorsese, i doubt they could pull something as spectacular as we'd get from cameron. prefering van gogh, doesnt mean that da vinci or dali sucks. -
it's called advancing the evolution of films. and i dont mean just technically. the aliens in SW were just secondary characters, sure, and just because it was done and has always been done that way, nobody should try anything different???
cases has been made that cgi characters can make for a convincing and even compelling characters. many suggested gollum for an acting nomination. and big furry cgi ape is the leading man in kingkong. so what's wrong with taking it a step further in avatar? see the film first, then judge if it succeeds or fails. it's cameron, he's the best there is for this kind of material. give him the benefit of the doubt. he's more than earned it with his solid track record. -
You're missing the point. Sure, Cameron COULD have done the Navi with makeup and forced perspective, but he says right in the CNN interview (paraphrasing) "I'm not trying to replace human actors, I'm just trying to save them five hours in the make-up chair".
And...I am NOT so sure how forced perspective would work on an epic scale with hundreds of Navi & humans in the same shot, not to mention the environments are 100% cgi...and I'm not sure where on Earth Cameron would go to find a bioluminescent jungle to shoot in... -
Once again, tailhook, juts like your delusional recluse friend ThusSpake, you're utterly wrong on every single point you just made.
You're looking for cracks in Cameron's filmmaking armor when there are none.
Question for you: do you really think Cameron sees himself as the star of his movies? I laugh as I even write that question. I can't fucking believe you've convinced yourself that this is true.
I'll let you in on a little something: Cameron knows his actors are the stars. He knows his story and environment and action sequences are the stars. He knows this better than almost anyone on Earth.
You're grasping at straws with your argument. -
Remind me again...who was the biggest star in STAR WARS: A NEW HOPE?
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- A fucking awesome AVENGERS Super Bowl Spot! Love this! -- 209 total posts 209 posts
- Call Me Skeptical, But Here It Is... Harrison Ford May Be In New BLADE RUNNER After All -- 288 total posts 96 posts
- Sunday Is Sweeps Day Four!! Discuss Here DOWNTON ABBEY, THE VOICE & SUPER BOWL XLVI! -- 89 total posts 88 posts
- Harry's read this new EVIL DEAD script - and yeah, takes more after EVIL DEAD the original... -- 163 total posts 80 posts
- Here's a new RIDDICK shot for you Diesel-heads! -- 87 total posts 77 posts
- Monty Cristo Shares His Thoughts (and Those of a Reader) on CHRONICLE -- 73 total posts 73 posts
- Speaking of Raimi... Wanna see a flying monkey from OZ - THE GREAT & POWERFUL? -- 73 total posts 73 posts
- WTF Hollywood: KAZAAM -- 65 total posts 65 posts
- The Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day was told to tell you you’re a fascist pig. -- 44 total posts 44 posts
- Will Smith on a Monocycle in MIB III? -- 44 total posts 44 posts