|
Author
|
Topic: Avatar
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Osi Osgood
Film God
Posts: 10204
From: Mountian Home, ID.
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted December 29, 2009 09:30 AM
Though Avatar will no doubt make back it's 300 plus million that it cost to make it, I was rather struck that on it's first weekend, Sherlock Holmes was only beat out by Avatar by slightly under ten million, yet Sherlock Holmes cost a lot less money.
Though Avatar will make back it's money, I don't think it will be the cash cow people thought it would. Personally, I'm kind of tired of the whole "humans rape the environment" storyline.
It's been way overdone. It almosat makes me wnat to see the appalingly bad Steven Segal "enviromental action films".
Oooooh, thats a slam!!
--------------------
"All these moments will be lost in time, just like ... tears, in the rain. "
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Osi Osgood
Film God
Posts: 10204
From: Mountian Home, ID.
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted December 29, 2009 02:02 PM
I agree Doug, I just used Sherlock as a comparison. Blockbuster really doesn't have the same meaning as it used to.
It seems like every other film seems to be the next "record Breaking" film.
Though I thought it was a nearly total waste of time, lets talk about the true record breaker ...
"The Blair Witch Project"
I know, it sounds silly, but they made that film for two or three million dollars. It netted well over 100 million, (and more, once the video and DVD sales are tallied), yet it didn't take long for people to realize just how much of it was hoopla compared to good film-making.
Yet, you have to admire a profit margin of over 100 million dollars over an investment of only a few million. I bet Hollywood would like a return on they're investment like that!
One of the figures that really staggered me, was that, in the 1980's one tenth of all theatrical dollars were made by films that either Steven Speilberg directed, produced or was involved with. One tenth! That is amazing.
I miss the halycon days of trues blockbusters ...
STAR WARS
JAWS
RIADERS OF THE LOST ARK
By the way, though it was mentioned in this series of posts, I was highly impressed as to just how well represented the story was in the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, especially in the box sets, which brings the running time to just about 11 and a half hours. It couldn't have been made as successfully as it was without CGI.
Now, if only Peter Jackson would be at the helm of an epic version of "The Hobbit"!
--------------------
"All these moments will be lost in time, just like ... tears, in the rain. "
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Joe Caruso
Film God
Posts: 4105
From: USA
Registered: Jun 2003
|
posted December 30, 2009 09:09 AM
With the going rate of film releases and accompanying hype, Hollywood has to have a blockbuster with EVERY one just to recoup cost. And it ain't happening because of the trash they call cinema. Sales on tape will eventually help, but to truly be called a great film, it must meet the criteria of good theatre; appeal, story and care - I watched AVATAR, this is successful should spawn a follow-up, and I agree that the films back when; STAR WARS, etc guilded the lilly. Only seldom does a film really move mountains, so to speak. First the rating system has to be eliminated, once it's branded PG or R, it's restricting alot of people automatically, well that's another debate - In answer to the above, yes, top-film
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
John Davis
Master Film Handler
Posts: 286
From: Dunfermline, Fife, UK
Registered: Jun 2008
|
posted January 03, 2010 11:36 AM
I'm coming late to the discussion, having just got back in from seeing Avatar.
Prior to the film there were trailers for about five 3D films (all curiously cropped all round - I saw this at Dunfermline Odeon). I have to say not all the trailers worked, the up coming Toy Story did not look absolutely sharp and in fact most of the trailers looked on the dark side (probably not helped by the dark 3D glasses).
But it also struck me that where the action was fast flowing 24fps did not seem fast enough to let the action appear fluid - will we see cinemas showing 50fps prints in the future?
One of the other trailers was a British dance film and at one point a dancer threw his hat directly at the camera - I'm embarrassed to admit I ducked (something I've never done before).
So what about Avatar? well I enjoyed it very much, I think films of this calibre will mean this time 3D will stick rather than fall out of fashion again. There are similarities with Dances with wolves, as everyone else pointed out, but also Cameron borrowed from his own past efforts, Aliens and The Abyss.
We all paid extra for our 3D glasses but very disappointingly if we go to the Odeon tomorrow we would have to pay again the extra surcharge even if we had glasses already - hardly green.
Will Avatar - 3D make it onto super8?
[ January 03, 2010, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: John Davis ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
Keith Ashfield
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 997
From: U.K.
Registered: Dec 2006
|
posted January 28, 2010 04:46 AM
Went to see this last night, with an "open mind" (if such a thing is possible) bearing in mind, how much hype the film has had.
I have to say that I really enjoyed it (even the wife enjoyed it!). The 3D effects were superb, the story flowed well.
Whenever I leave a cinema, having seen a "new release", I always apply the criteria "Would I like to see that again?" and I have to say with "Avatar" the answer was definately "Yes".
By the way John, don't be ashamed at "ducking" at the 3D effects, we did exactly the same thing. It just proves how well the process has progressed since the 1950's.
With regards to your comment about paying "forever" for the glasses - we went to our local Cineworld complex and didn't have to pay for the glasses, if you had your own, and this is how it should be, in my opinion.
--------------------
"We'll find 'em in the end, I promise you. We'll find 'em. Just as sure as a turnin' of the earth".
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Adrian Winchester
Film God
Posts: 2941
From: Croydon, London, UK
Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted February 07, 2010 10:30 PM
It's a credit to this forum that discussion of 'Avatar' has not resulted in open warfare - which resulted on a 35mm forum I checked out! There's something about it which clearly inspires an extreme range of responses. I suspect that some of the negativity results from the 'hype' around the film, causing some to be far more critical than they would be of the average film. It was discussed on a UK arts TV show last week after the Oscar nominations and (to me) it appeared that some of those criticising it were essentially saying: "countless millions have been manipulated into seeing this, but that doesn't mean it's a good film - we know better". All very cynical. Like Keith, I went with an open mind and found it an engrossing film that does does have a story and is quite moving at times. I agree with Doug that the time passed surprisingly quickly. I share the reservations that many have about CGI, but this is a film that would be be virtually impossible to make without it. One thing I admire about Cameron is that (as with his Termainator films) he takes the time and money needed to ensure that the CGI is so good that it doesn't have tell-tale 'CGI-look' that's characteristic of most films. I thought the realisation of Pandora is more or less perfect. The aliens looked slightly 'animated' to me, but that's a minor point considering that a man-in-a-suit approach was out of the question! As for similarities with 'Dances With Wolves' (or 'Pocahontas', which frequently gets mentioned), I haven't seen either of those so I can't comment, but couldn't similar things could be said about countless other films? I don't recall people saying that 'Pocahontas' had similarities with 'Dances With Wolves'!
I saw it at the Barbican in 3D but I'd like to experience it at the London Imax cinema. All the initial schedule of screenings have sold out so I bought a ticket for an 00.20 (a.m.) screening on a Tuesday morning!
If John (Clancy) hasn't seen it yet, I'd say give it a try - as an admirer of 'Aliens' you'll find that the two films have similarities which might appeal to you.
I'd love to see one or two (2D) scope extracts on Super 8. I don't suppose this will happen but I'd welcome any support from collectors for a trailer. In view of the visual appeal of this film, if we can't find 20 people to justify such a release, I fear that we will never see a trailer for a new film on 8 again.
--------------------
Adrian Winchester
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I must see this one, however about just over a month ago I ran an hour and a half of an old 35mm print at work of "Dances with Wolves" just to see what it was like after all those years... well as I was keeping an eye on "Avatar" on its first screening I started to think back to "Dances with Wolves" and the resemblance, at this point my enthusiasm for "Avatar" took a bit of a nose dive. I hate to sound like a "party pooper" with this movie but apart from the brilliant effects the rest just lost me. How can one relate to characters that are CGI. "Dances with Wolves" however had... "real people"... stunning scenery etc. I might go and see the 3D version of "Avatar" ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
and I am sure the effects are very good. I keep telling everyone that I work with... go and see it in 3D but I am afraid even with the young ones I work with there is little interest to pay the $20 to watch it. I intend to put together the rest of "Dances with Wolves" after the school holidays for a once only screening.... anyone want to come to watch it ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
as most people have other things they want to do when the weather is nice as it is at the moment.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
