Avatar hits $1bn

Discuss

87 Responses to “Avatar hits $1bn”

  1. Anonymous says:

    “Avatar ‘s made a billion dollars in 17 days.” – Do you not mean grossed?

  2. Anonymous says:

    Y’all are quick to knock something you haven’t even seen yet. I was skeptical of the whole Avatar thing initially as well, but my mind quickly changed in the first few moments the Avatars made their appearance when I saw the movie earlier today.

    Not only is all the hype from this movie justified, but I would definitely call this -the- Best movie i’ve seen in years. I haven’t really enjoyed a movie this fully since the Lord of the Rings movies.

    I’m as much of a critic as anyone else, and I enjoy a lot of movies, but they always lack something. I can honestly say without a doubt, that this movie can do no wrong. The only thing I didn’t like about it was that this 2 hour 30 min movie was too short! The world of Pandora and the Na’vi(Native Avatars) is so deep and rich with backstory that it’s hard not to find interesting.

    Definitely worth the 10 bucks to see it in 3-D. If you don’t see it in 3-D, you’re doing yourself a disservice.

    James Cameron struck gold once again(this coming from someone who isn’t a fan of Terminator/Titanic.)

  3. Neuron says:

    So why should movie revenues not be assessed in light of inflation like any other good or service?

  4. Neuron says:

    As long as we’re gonna ignore basic economics, we should talk about some movie from Zimbabwe that took in 100 trillion dollars.

  5. AirPillo says:

    * trailers almost always make films look better than they are (cf The Men Who Stare at Goats), so if the trailer sucks, the film surely will.

    Lolwut. No.

    Trailers are made by extremely cynical marketing teams who reduce films to their flashiest (and frequently least important) elements and often completely fail to convey the film’s point, setting, or premise in the process.

    It’s like judging a potential partner by a photograph of a single nipple. Trailers are honestly of zero use in judging a film.

  6. JB NicholsonOwens says:

    I concur with #9‘s comment and I can’t see myself paying for a movie I can’t share. I paid a lot of money for my Artist-endorsed copy of Sita Sings the Blues because Nina Paley treats us right. I’d like to do more business like this even though it costs me more money than most movies.

    I don’t want to fund a lobby group which lies—they enjoy record-breaking box office revenue while pushing for more punitive copyright laws on the basis that it’s our job to save their businesses. They lie about the effect illicit copying and distribution have on the number of creative works made.

    I don’t think it’s wise to help fund people who want to make it harder for you to have home media servers, noncommercial remixes, new ways to rent DVDs, and use technological restrictions to stop noncommercial verbatim copying and distribution.

    • Brainspore says:

      …I can’t see myself paying for a movie I can’t share

      I agree that the MPAA has gone off the deep end with many of their copyright claims, but how exactly do you feel you should be able to “share” the experience of going to a theater to be entertained? Do you boycott plays and concerts as well because you can’t bring in all your friends with a single ticket?

  7. mgfarrelly says:

    All the number fudging aside, a movie that cost 300 million (plus another 50-75 million to market) for a total of 400 million or so, has essentially a ROI of 100%…in 17 days.

    Add in DVD, television rights, merchandising, plus at least a few more weeks of theatrical box office.

    Yeah, he’s still King of the World.

    For my money (all 9 dollars of it) Moon was a far better investment. Sorry James.

    • Anonymous says:

      You people are ridiculous. First of all ROI is not for 17 days because fox would have spent that money over 4 years. Plus, only 40 or so percent of the box office receipts goes back to the studio. Besides they have to pay a shitload of money to those above the line like cameron. So if the studio wants to break even on just the bo, it would take atleast another 200 mil. Which will surely happen. Not to mention the money they will make off of tv rights and dvd sales. So all in all, it should be a good return. Dont forget the fact that the movie only cost so much because it was new tech. The sequel to this movie would cost less than 150 mil.

  8. Anonymous says:

    Images: Excellent. Unbelievable.

    Story: Bad.

    Acting: Bad.

    When your digital characters act better than your human beings… something’s wrong.

  9. CosmicDog says:

    Does anybody know what Titanic’s take was in its first 17 days? It seems that it took Titanic a while to achieve its ‘highest grossing film evar!!!’ status, much longer than two weeks, inflation or no.

  10. Angstrom says:

    A lot of people focus on the terrible story.
    As compared to what?

    Star Trek – (man comes back in time to kill man who has not yet killed planet, rather than save planet)
    Batman – (mad person threatens city, conflicted good guy wins)
    Terminator Salvation -(robots in the future, exploding, shouting)

    Really, what were people expecting?

  11. Teller says:

    “It’s like judging a potential partner by a photograph of a single nipple.

    Pretty good opening thought for a detective novel, AP.

    • AirPillo says:

      “But Holmes,” inquired Watson, “who on Earth would stand still, shirtless, long enough for such a photograph to be taken?”

      (If I ever remove my tongue from my cheek, it’s because I’ve bitten it, and that never lasts very long)

  12. toxonix says:

    Nitpicking over a plot is a waste of time. A movie this fantastic needs a pretty thin plot.

  13. Ian_McLoud says:

    Avaturd…

  14. ronton says:

    “I’ve noticed that the vast majority of people who slag the movie haven’t seen it. ”

    This seems to be a common argument.

    So, let’s see, do you have to listen to every Insane Clown Posse song and attend all of their concerts to know that you don’t like Insane Clown Posse’s music?

    Do you have to have a radio in your house constantly playing Rush Limbaugh just so you can say you don’t agree with Rush Limbaugh?

    We constantly make judgements with limited information. I don’t know about other “haters” (please), but I know enough about film, Cameron, CGI, 3D movies, and white guilt fantasies without spending money on this Fox Corp turd to know that I’m not interested and no I’m not equivalent to a Conservative Christian (actual overheard argument) for holding this opinion.

    • Brainspore says:

      So, let’s see, do you have to listen to every Insane Clown Posse song and attend all of their concerts to know that you don’t like Insane Clown Posse’s music?

      If you’re going to critique a specific album then you should listen to it first. If that prospect doesn’t interest you then you should ask yourself why you’ve involved yourself in a discussion about said album.

  15. MasterSauce says:

    @Cosmic Dog
    Me doing some quick/dirty math, adjusting for ticket prices and 3D… Avatar ‘Seems’ to be tracking better than Titanic did. Using this website for Titanic’s numbers:

    http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/1997/TITAN.php

    You can look at A. vs T. numbers and come to your own conclusion, but the first few weeks I think go to Avatar. We’ll see if it can take 15 straight weeks at #1 like Titanic. Doubt it, but, ya never know.

    Side note: Avatar also opened to almost 1000 more theaters than Titanic. IMAX, 3D and 2D versions of the film help. Take that for what you will.

  16. tubesoda says:

    Titanic made about 157 million domestic in its first 17 days while Avatar has made about 352 million domestic. I don’t know if average ticket price has more than doubled since 1997, but I’d be willing to guess the two films have sold comparable amounts of tickets in this time frame. At this point it looks like Avatar has slightly weaker legs than Titanic, but stronger legs than The Dark Knight (which had a much bigger opening and is still ahead after its 17th day). It’s quite likely that Avatar will overtake Titanic in terms of overall gross both domestically and especially internationally.

  17. adorhino says:

    Considering Avatar had a theme of “racial regard”…and I live in a Third World Country, can I have my money back?

    That’s because I’d like to see it again for the price of one IMAX3D ticket entry only ;-)

  18. Daemon says:

    I’ve noticed that the vast majority of people who slag the movie haven’t seen it.

    There are only three complaints I have about the movie. Mone require spoilers, and they’re all minor quibbles.
    #1: There were waterfalls from the floating mountains… inspite of there being no rain, and thus no way for them to generate a constant stream of water.
    #2: They actually named the material “unobtainium”.
    #3: It takes a while to get used to the 3d effect, and my eyes would keep focusing weirdly for the first part.

    The movie is epic.

  19. life_is_miraculous says:

    I think #48 is on to something with the effect of 3D on emotions. I easily recognize the thinness and tiredness of the plot… but was moved on a very visceral level by this film… not teary eyed so much as transported into the story – small and cliche as it is… I find myself quite ready to fight tooth and nail with people who didn’t like the film… while at the same time agreeing with their points…it was just such a mind job of a movie experience for me…scary really.

  20. liamo says:

    I had no idea there were so many haters. I’m going to go out on a limb and say most of them either didn’t see it, or saw it in 2D

    The plot is thin and predictable, but visually it’s stunning. I was blown away by the beauty of this film, and i’m usually not very impressed with CGI

  21. wylkyn says:

    I wouldn’t say the plot is boring. It has been done before, as many people have stated, in movies like “Dances with Wolves” or “Ferngully.” But it is still compelling. If your main beef with a movie is that the plot is unoriginal, then you must never go to any films. Newsflash: there are no new stories.

    I am one who usually hates movies that are made just to flex CGI muscle. I thought Transformers was ridiculously bad – the poor writing and acting killed any chance for me to enjoy that movie, no matter how cool the special effects were. There are countless movies like that out there. I honestly don’t feel that was the case with this movie. Even though some of the characters were flat, they still surprised me with the occasional nuance. The story, though told before, was told well. And the acting was excellent. On top of that, the world was well thought through – not perfect, but still…do you expect perfection from every movie? And the visuals were beautiful and compelling.

    Is it the “Best Movie EVAR”? No. But it was still awesome, and I plan to see it again in the theater.

  22. Anonymous says:

    Avatar is a riddle to me. How can you get the most cliche, most typical and unsurprising story, throw in action like found in thousands of poor movies, scenography like in so many others, blend it, and come up with something SO AWESOME. I mean, by all means this movie should be horrible. But it isn’t. It’s great. How?

    As for piracy, watched it yesterday in cinema, now downloading torrents. Because I want to see pieces I missed due to jerks coming late in big groups, read dialogues I missed, stop and analyze scenes that ran too fast to see details and so on. I may buy some blu-ray or not, when it comes out. For now, I’m not going to wait for official home release. And they got my money already.

  23. GammaBlog says:

    Yes the plot is simple, but it is not without a political, ecological edge. The movie let me live on a completely realized, stunningly beautiful, alien world for two and a half hours without having to wonder WTF is going on, like the ridiculously convoluted, logic defying plot of Star Wars.

    See it in 3-d, you won’t be sorry, Cameron’s use of it brings you in as opposed to pushing you away. And the motion capture method for the CGI is 98% there. I wasn’t feeling uncanny valley at all, like the skin crawling experience that was Polar Express.

  24. Anonymous says:

    This numbers could increase dramatically in the next weeks because finally in Italy the film will be release. We are the last country that will launch it on cinemas…

  25. Anonymous says:

    There’s so much talk that these box-office earnings figures are as rigged as the movies themselves and their social-media accounts. All the movie actors go to Twitter, you notice. Why not FriendFeed, Plurk, etc., etc.

    If the entertainment media industry isn’t square with the public about their personal relationships, drug habits, past crimes committed, etc., etc., how can we expect them to be square with us all about their movie box-office grosses??!! We Can’t, That’s How!!

    Please no flaming me for this by the entertainment media marketing trolls here pushing and pulling the movie. I’m being serious.

  26. takeshi says:

    So, everyone who dislikes this movie is a hater? Wow. I saw it, and I wasn’t impressed. Sure, the effects were great. What do we expect from a movie that costs so much?

    I’m not exactly a hater. I don’t blame people for liking it, I don’t criticize people for seeing it multiple times if they want to, but this “us against them” shit is annoying. I enjoy a lot of Hollywood movies, and ‘Avatar’ isn’t one of them. I paid my $10 on opening day, so I’m entitled to an opinion.

  27. Anonymous says:

    Although I didn’t find it as tiring and long as some complained (all those talking parts in between the action), I enjoyed all the action and effects like any video game set in an alien planet. Problem is, there are some video games with a far better plot than this eyecandy of a film, who leave you with something to think about after seeing them. Sure it was fun while it happened but right after it ended there was not much left to remember.

  28. Anonymous says:

    amazed that some people on here can have such strong opinions on a film they haven’t watched. the story isn’t groundbreaking but the whole 3D/IMAX experience is what you should be going for (as all reviews have said). Off to see it a second time at the IMAX in a few weeks :D

  29. Anonymous says:

    @29
    The plot is thin and predictable, but visually it’s stunning.
    ..plot .. thin and predictable .. visually .. stunning
    .. plot .. thin .. visually .. stunning

    Ohhh .. it’s not a movie. It’s viral advertising for the future ride.

    http://themeparks.about.com/od/universalparks1/a/T23D.htm

    http://avatargame.uk.ubi.com/

    http://www.moviesonline.ca/movienews_7305.html

    http://pirates.bethsoft.com/

    Somewhere, somehow, George Lucas is to blame. I’ll wager my hat upon it.

  30. vagobond says:

    I saw Avatar and I’m damn glad I didn’t have to pay for it. Not that I am against a U.S. Marine being the only way that an entire race of intelligent beings and a deity like planet can be saved since obviously they aren’t capable of the God like will power of a single U.S. Marine

    Oh yeah, nothing like showing the world that one American Marine is the superior to an entire species and an entire planet.

    Nice job Cameron, you should have just made it Iraq and then said these are a bunch of stupid arabs but with one competent marine as their king they can win this war.

    Jackass. Nothing like advanced level ethnocentrism and a billion dollars to make the world hate America even more than they already do.

    • Halloween Jack says:

      You seem to have not understood the ending at all.

    • pjk says:

      THANK YOU. and rather than hater, I prefer to be called a dissident. You people who say it looks bad because of the trailer are exactly correct. I saw it, and it is as bad as the trailer. Every single comment/review I’ve read about this movie says, “Well, the story is boring, but…” I mean, seriously, IT’S A MOVIE. That’s like saying, “well, this car only goes 20mph, but it has a really comfortable interior.” Christ. In 5 years, no one will remember Avatar.

  31. Tenlow says:

    I really hope I’m not the only one who doesn’t think it looks good. Going solely on the commercials, I would never watch this movie. CGI is a fantastic technology, but it hasn’t hit it’s prime yet. Maybe in a few more years, I won’t cringe every time I see something CGI that’s supposed to blend with the rest of the world, but what is essentially a cartoon in the middle of a movie ruins the illusion for me. Even if we ignored the commercials that put me off, everyone who has seen it has told me it’s one of the best movies they’ve ever seen. That hasn’t happened since Episode III came out, which was also the first time I’d ever actually asked for my money back after the movie finished.

    I’m going to see it eventually, and I’d like to be surprised. But I highly doubt it. Really, the only way they can convince me is if the trailers were actually from before they finished the CGI, because if that really was the final product in the trailer, you’ve all been had.

    • The Mudshark says:

      I thought the same thing when I saw the trailers. When I went to see it yesterday I was blown away. The facial expressions were incredible. One may find things to criticize but in any case it is a revolutionary SFX-experience. If you are remotely interested in CGI you have to see it.
      One thing that bothered me, but may have been a side-effect of the 3D-Technology: Sometimes the far-off background in the jungle seemed a little like wallpaper, kinda flat.

      • freshacconci says:

        So if we’re not remotely interested in CGI, can you please stop calling “haters” or saying we’re “jealous”? Are we in grade 8 here? I mean, christ, it’s just a movie. And it’s making a kazillion dollars so I don’t know why fans are being so defensive. I don’t care about CGI. If it’s a good movie that uses CGI, fine. But if that’s all it has going for it, no thanks. Everything else I’ve heard about it, especially from the fans, makes me want to avoid it. This is how I felt about the Matrix way back. Everyone went on about it being revolutionary. I saw it. It was terrible.

        Cameron will not lose any sleep over missing out on my money. So we’re both happy. Cameron can sleep on a big pile of money and I can spend my money on something else. So for those of you that enjoyed the film, well, good for you. Glad you’re having fun.

        • freshacconci says:

          Shit. I didn’t mean to direct my comments specifically at The Mudshark. I replied to him based on his comment, “If you are remotely interested in CGI you have to see it.”

          • The Mudshark says:

            Even if you didn´t mean to address me directly, why the aggression?
            All I did was to recommend to someone who is apparently interested enough in CGI to criticize it, to go watch the movie. If you´re not interested and stay home it´s entirely fine with me. Chill out man.

  32. fALk says:

    throw 100 million + on marketing anything and get a ten fold return – its economics and has nothing to do with a good or bad movie. I think avatar marks the point where a movie is not about a story anymore but more about the rollercoaster ride – more at place at a fareground then a cinema. its where it came from anyways and maybe its just destined to get back there. the good stories are told elsewhere anyways.

    • octopod says:

      >throw 100 million + on marketing anything and get a ten fold return – its economics

      if only life were so simple, then I’d be like, sooo rich.

      sadly I don’t think the dismal scientists would agree with that, or the classification.

      do agree tho, it’s ‘just’ an awesome disney ride.

  33. Anonymous says:

    Yeah, I saw it opening day, and it was cool, but a mediocre film by all accounts. I’m more into independent movies driven by plot, but love my block busters as simple pop-corn munching material. The plot in Avatar is trite, tired and predictable. The effects are, indeed, amazing.

    Personally, as block-buster/popcorn movies go, I enjoyed Sherlock Holmes more.

  34. Anonymous says:

    At the risk of causing a row: Plot and script wise, how does Star Wars compare? I mean, thats the movie we should be comparing to. I’d say that the plot and script is just fine considering. (Especially is we count episodes 1-3, which we shouldn’t.)

  35. Anonymous says:

    Haters? How could anyone muster that much emotion for a film? Lets save hate for when its really necessary else it will end up overplayed like genocide etc.

  36. Moriarty says:

    Everyone who claims not to like this movie is obviously just jealous.

    • fALk says:

      Why and for what would I be jeleaous? That I don´t have 400+ million to throw at digital celluloid? That I can´t write a bad story? I think some of the backgrounds are great, environments great – character – well cartoonish but ok – story really really trival borderline really really bad. Constant focus on american army soldiers in about 90% of hollywood scifi movies released in the last two years really gives me the shivers (long live lem) – no matter if they are in the service of the flag or the service of a mega corp. It tones down war its propaganda in its advanced stages and no fluffy story around it can hide that – it makes people accept war as something normal – its not its shit – but if the story would have been at least knee deep I would have forgiven it and blamed the investors for demanding such things and would be delighted about a good movie – its a nice rollercoaster ride like creatures of the deep sea or whatever that forgetable thing was (also from cameroon – testing out his 3d recording technologie and the worst “documentary” I have ever witnessed) its showcasing 3d tech that needs to be pushed to market because – well – there needs to be a reason for more locked down blueray media that can´t be filmed inside a cinema and distributed illegally – its the only reason I see that a movie like this can exist at this point.
      I am so – really looking forward to what real artists with a great vision do with the technology and hope I hear the name cameroon never again – but sadly the sequel is probably already scheduled as of now – what a waste of money for mindless bullshit.

  37. randalll says:

    For the sequel Cameron will hire Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet, and use the proceeds to purchase the state of California.

  38. Anonymous says:

    What are the chances that someone who hates Avatar likes Titanic?

  39. martinhekker says:

    some random contradictory thoughts:

    1.the better 3d, immersive entertainment gets, the more irrelevant it may be. that is, it approaches what we imagine in our minds. in that case, comics and books do the same thing more efficiently
    2. on the other hand, 3d effects may have an unintended effect on emotions. that is what i suspect based on my subjective experience in 3d movies, feeling the heartstrings pulled more strongly. this could account for the audience response to what most people agree is a series of cliches.
    3. thank goodness for the economic stimulus. hats off for putting so many creative people to work.
    4. geekpoint: there is a meme out there regarding top heavy biped walkers. the appropriate counter meme is: “help, i’ve fallen and i can’t get up”!

  40. Talia says:

    The tide of people who’ve apparently decided to hate the movie merely because its popular have convinced me to pony up to go see it.

    Thanks!

    • Moriarty says:

      So you like it because lots of people don’t like it because lots of people like it? And you’re thanking someone for this state of being?

      • octopod says:

        I had the same experience mw2. now the psychology of what motivates purchasing decisions piques my interest. (finished it on veteran yesterday, was a barrel of fun)

  41. dculberson says:

    Wow, people get whiny fast.

    • Brainspore says:

      My favorites are the people who claim that Cameron is a talentless hack and that the Hollywood marketing machine must be stopped, yet inexplicably paid money to see Avatar. (I’m looking at you, fALk.)

      • freshacconci says:

        Except, weren’t others complaining that people were criticizing the movie without having see it? Well, fALk saw it and gave it some praise but overall didn’t like it. What is it you would like?

        • Brainspore says:

          What I would like is for fewer people to pay for films that they apparently know they won’t like then complain about the experience afterward. fALk apparently already considered Cameron a terrible director before seeing the film (see his “worst documentary ever” comment) and credits Avatar‘s success to its formidable marketing budget. So why shell out the money to see it?

          I personally don’t care for most of Michael Bay’s work. That’s why I didn’t pay 12 bucks to see “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” on opening weekend (or since).

  42. GrymRpr says:

    Lets see…
    1-Advanced WHITE People: Check
    2-Colored Natives who use Arrows and are decorated with feathers: Check

    Gods.. Cannot this man come up with an ORIGINAL Idea?

  43. Marchhare says:

    It was an amazing movie–visually stunning with a passable plot. I was skeptical, but was really taken by it. I’m going to see it again at IMAX.

  44. hagbard says:

    This discussion thread has been done before soooo many times, and the writing is very weak. This is just RISC vs CISC III! And the commenters’ motivations are totally unbelievable. Come on people! Have better opinions!

  45. BookGuy says:

    Full disclosure: I probably won’t see it until it comes out on DVD. I’m blind in one eye, so 3D movies (and 3D in general) doesn’t work for me, so there’s no compelling reason for me to see it in theaters. That puts me in the “curious, but not extremely so” category, I suppose.

    That said, I was still curious, so I checked out some reviews, and I tried to read both positive and negative reviews to get a sense of what people think. I was just stunned at the amount of vitriol directed at the reviewers who didn’t like it. I mean, I know, it’s the internet, and internet comment sections aren’t generally bastions of good sense and manners, but damn. Things beyond just threats of violence and questioning of the reviewers’ intelligence and parentage, but things along the lines of “you’re a broken shell of a human if you don’t LOVE this movie.” Maybe I just don’t read enough (?!?) movie reviews online, but are there any other recent movies that have produced such extreme reactions?

    • freshacconci says:

      I can’t imagine it will get that bad on this forum, but some of the fanboi talk is getting a bit much. Do you fans have a financial stake in this? Or can you just not stand it when people don’t like what you like?

      But to answer your question, just choose a random popular movie at imdb and you’ll see the level people will sink when discussing their favourite movies. It’s mind-boggling.

  46. dculberson says:

    Ferngully wasn’t original when it came out. The story is one that’s been played through in various forms for centuries or even millenia. Just like Star Wars is the Hero’s Journey, this is a similar story line. It doesn’t make it any better or worse, just like an artist singing “yet another” version of Cold, Cold Heart can still make a song that’s well worth listening to. It’s the personal touch that the creator puts on the work that makes it enjoyable.

    To me, the visuals of a film are a significant part of enjoying it. I can enjoy something like Pi or Static where there’s almost no budget, and little special effects, but since it is a visual medium, I can also enjoy something like this [nb, I haven't seen it yet] without it having the most groundbreaking story. Hell, I knew 100% of what was going to happen when watching the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Does that mean it wasn’t worth watching? No way!

  47. Anonymous says:

    PAPYRUS typeface?!! seriously?!!!!!

  48. dejawooblog says:

    I’m all happy for JC and his ever soaring bank account balance, but I’m pretty sure this movie is just Fern Gully 3.

  49. Xopher says:

    Go, Avatar, go!

  50. Stefan Jones says:

    I saw it in a tiny theatre (The Strand) in upstate NY (Old Forge). Tickets for me, my sister, my brother in law, and two nieces cost . . . . $20.00.

    This was the 2D version, but still . . .

  51. Ian70 says:

    Factor in inflation, ticket price fluctuation, and all the other variables, and then let us all know when it finally waltzes over the shriveled corpses of all of the movies that those smug bastards hold so dear to their cold, desperate hearts.

    (Wow, just finished watching ‘Watchmen’ again. It’s fun to talk like Rorschach)

  52. Itsumishi says:

    Piracy is killing the movie industry

    /sarcasm

  53. daneyul says:

    Wonder what the Ferngully writers’ cut will be…should be HUUUGGGE!

  54. Anonymous says:

    Is it hating to just have no interest in a very obvious and tired story? I have found all the making of stories and videos about making Avatar to incredibly interesting but I cannot fathom taking the time out of my life to watch it

  55. cymk says:

    I saw Avatar, and thought it was worth the ticket price. The visuals are fantastic, the whole world Cameron created is wonderful (from the flora to the fauna) but the scope is lacking. Cameron set out to describe a world but only described a jungle, a single part of this world (like this magic metal is only in the jungle, and no where else on this planet?). I would have preferred less money/time spent on making the movie 3D and more spent on improving the mediocre story/plot. Its like ready a book that spends too much time describing the setting (even that was marginal) and not enough on character development, the villains were flat and generic and all but a handful of the good guys get basic development. I loved the navi tribes, what little we saw of their culture, though the “oh by the way…” inclusion of the other tribes at the end of the movie was annoying.

    I’ll probably see it again, but this time is regular old 2D so my eyes don’t hurt afterward.

  56. davejenk1ns says:

    It’s a widely passed-around meme that– adjusting for population size, inflation, cost-of-living– the greatest movie of all-time was “Gone With the Wind” in 1939. That same year gave us “Wizard of Oz”.

    The Economist had an article two weeks ago about the fractionalization in the media market, and that the Long Tail is not so long in movies– people really gravitate toward a few blockbuster “event” movies or something really fringe and cheap. The movies that are just so-so are dogs, financially. As a result, the studios are betting more and more on blockbusters, at the expense of their independent movie arms (e.g. Disney is dropping Touchstone Pictures, etc.).

  57. Anonymous says:

    1 billion dollars is actually really good for such a mediocre film. I am glad that its doing well since that might help excellent science fiction movies with great special effects get made.

  58. adonai says:

    Let’s be fair, Titanic made a buttload of money, but at the time, a lot of that was from teen girls going multiple times (I know several young ladies who made it an even dozen). Avatar may have made less money but be seen by more people :)

  59. Daneel says:

    Not a hater so much as someone who is far more interested in plot and character than CGI, and who thinks that the story sounds incredibly dull, and the trailer looked awful*.

    * trailers almost always make films look better than they are (cf The Men Who Stare at Goats), so if the trailer sucks, the film surely will.

    Plus, I shelled out for Titanic, and Cameron’s not getting me again.

    • Anonymous says:

      I thought the trailers were awful, but I loved the movie. (Enough that I’ve went back to see it a second time – this time at an IMAX theater.) Go figure.

      The plot isn’t top-notch, but it’s still one of my top 5 fav movies.

  60. Itsumishi says:

    Finally. We have a chance to finally knock that smug prick James Cameron off his “highest grossing film of all time” perch.

    I’m gonna book me some tickets at imax right now..

  61. Anonymous says:

    I remember seeing it back in the Aughts- it touched me then, but those were simpler times.

  62. Joe says:

    It feels like the price of movie tickets has been going up a lot faster than the CPI. Does anyone have good figures to confirm or deny this impression?

  63. jabberwocky42 says:

    I wonder about the actual number of moviegoers, since most people I know saw it in IMAX 3D, and I paid $100 for 6 IMAX tickets.

    Also, people have described Avatar as a “moviegoing experience,” and I would agree. It’s not the sort of movie I would think about actually buying, but it is something I enjoyed seeing in theatres, if not for the story, then for the graphics.

Leave a Reply