Reasonable said:
AkibaFan said:
Reasonable said:
heruamon said:
BTW, somebody mention it before, and it's worth mentioning again...
Monday's $ = $16,385,820
3rd biggest EVER for a non-holiday monday, and the only films higher are TDK and POTC...some pretty amazing company to be, so I think the legs issue is going to be moot. I'm really glad for Cameron, as he took a huge risk with this film, and it paid off royally. Avatar was worth the hype, as I've never seen anything so beautiful on film.
I had to add these quotes from THR: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i1002148bbd34e1b5d8c0e8f768154290?imw=Y
Hollywood insiders, recognizing the technical leaps involved, already have begun applauding. None other than Steven Spielberg has called "Avatar" "the most evocative and amazing science-fiction movie since 'Star Wars.' "
That is some sweet praise from Spielberg, and the Avatar effect is going to be far and wide. Maybe Lucas will let somebody do a KOTOR movie, using this tech. The awards front is looking pretty good as well with these comments:
"Right now, the number that's being bandied about is nine -- drawn from a menu that includes best picture, director, visual effects, editing, art direction, sound, sound editing, score and song. (Cinematography, costumes and makeup are more of a stretch, given how much of that work was done digitally.)"
I had the wrong category...it art direction, not cinematography. Best picture might be a stretch, but the mroe I tohught about it, best director is definitely something the Academy might want to reward Cameron with.
|
I doubt Avatar will get any of the mainstream awards this time around, but the technical awards should be a lock. We'll see, but Oscar voters seem to shy from bestowing the big awards to the same director twice and Cameron got a pretty big haul with Titanic.
I suspect Avatar will get some decent nominations, but only pick up the technical stuff (and maybe song). Best picture and director would be a stretch IMHO - although the academy does love the themes in Avatar.
I doubt it will get any acting nods. The live action roles are simply to cliche and stretched to be plausible while I doubt the academy will consider the 'performance capture elements' that seriously. Personally Zoe Saldana, as noted in most reviews, probably does deliver the best performance in the film via her 'performance capture' but I suspect there will be plenty of real world performances that easily surpass any chance she might have.
I think though Cameron is safe on the money front, although I doubt Avatar will get anywhere near Titanic, for a variety of reasons. But with that start, good reviews and the general perception 'you have to see this in 3D' I think it will easily make enough to be profitable.
|
it cost 200 - 300 million
it made 250 million over the weeknd (boxofficemojo.com & othr sources)
not easily but it will mke lots of profit and monday hd the 3rd lowest drop off ever for a movie, i thnk it might do 1 billion worldwide
|
Yeah, I've been tracking the numbers. I think it should do anywhere from $800 to $1 Billion depending on its legs and whether interest holds. Worst case should be around $650 Million which still makes it profitable, but I think it will do a lot more. It has a nice hook in the 3D, which is way better than anything I've seen, plus most reviews are good and word of mouth seems to be good to.
I mean, I thought it was flawed in many areas, but am still absolutely advising everyone I know to see it in 3D in the biggest screen possible.
Obviously with its high cost base it's unlikely to be the most profitable by ratio - Paranormal Activity probably takes that by a mile - but all it needs is a decent profit to be considered a success.
|
