By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
thismeintiel on 22 January 2010
Edit Thread
superchunk said:
thismeintiel said:
darklich13 said:

I prefer this list adjusted for inflation

Love this list much better.  Avatar will never be #1 on this list, nor should it.  It's not too hard to cross the once touted 100 mil mark now, not when  you have over 300 mil population in the U.S. and it costs (at least where I live) $10-14 for a normal movie ticket.  For those of you who think Avatar is bigger than any movie based on revenue alone, you need to put it in context.  The average ticket price now is ~$8, back in 1939 (GWTW) it was ~$0.45.  Currently, the population of the U.S. is ~308.5 mil, back in 1939 it was ~ 130.9 mil.  And let's not omit that Avatar opened in ~3,500 theatres, which probably isn't even half of the number of theatres in the US, but is probably more than all the theatres back  in 1939.  The vast majority of those being single screen theatres.  So you can see why putting things in context is important.  Avatar isn't really close to being the most successful movie.

I also hate when people are brought in by hype.  Though with Avatar it's more like blinded by hype.  EVERY single "positive" review (and that's not an exaggeration) always talk about how the story and dialogue are just average, or sometimes even below average, but go for the effects.  "They bridge the gap between what's real and fake."  "It'll change the way we watch movies."  Sorry, but CGI and hype have never gotten me into the theatre and it never will.  And you know what, the effects aren't that great.  Everytime I see an ad I'm like, "What is the fuss about, I can so tell that's fake."  I have seen better CGI in other movies, stuff that actually looks quite real.  And no magical 3-D glasses aren't going to make the effects or story better.  What I find funny, though, is in like 5-10 years when effects are to the point when we truly can't tell they are fake, this movie is going to just fade away in history.  Just remembered for the money it brought in, and nothing else.

I can tell you havn't see the movie.

The tech is far superior to anything out yet by a huge difference. You WILL NEVER get the idea of what it actually presents without watching it in 3D at the theater. Have you gone to any of the newer 3D movies? They're phenominal and Avatar is the Ferrari of these, only for the same price. You literally feel like your directly in front of the action as a camera man for a news event must feel like during any newsworthy situation.

As for the story/lines/etc. They are actually pretty good. It presents a really well developed world and culture and the human intanglement is clearly identifiable. Granted that part is purely an opinion and mine is probably subjective as I really like scifi fantasy films.

I have yet to hear ANYONE of any background say that going to Avatar was not worth the ticket price. I have gone twice and am irritated that I won't be able to watch it at home with the 3D presentation that I received at the theater, which means I just might go a third time. This is not something I have ever done in the past. I can count on one hand the number of movies I've seen more than once in the theater and this would easily be the first movie I ever see a third time.

While I agree with you on the idea of taking modern movie revenues in context, it doesn't really matter. The real list is actually ticket sales, just as we focus on single unit sales for games on this site. In ticket sales, if Avatar gets multiple releases like Gone With the Wind and Star Wars, it too would eventually lead that list. Its that good.

Yes, I have seen some of the new 3-D movies.  One of them being Ice Age 3-D.  The effects look the same as the commercial I saw on TV, only in 3-D.  While this does make for an enhanced viewing experience, it can't make up for everything.  I may have a more discernable eye, so Avatar still looks fake to me.  Which is one reason I don't buy into the hype surrounding the movie.  Don't get me wrong, it's not horrible looking, just not as awe-inspiring to me as some think.  I have seen CGI on the same level in previous movies.  Their expressions look really good, but they make the same mistakes that many make.  Two major ones are muscle movement and lighting.  I've seen quite a few clips of the movie, maybe even seen half of it if it was all added up (ok probably not that much).  Watching them move/talk it looks more like their body parts are just moving and not controlled by an underlying muscle structure.  There is some muscle movement, just not enough to make it look natural and real.  Lighting is the worse mistake many animators/directors make.  Instead of displaying the correct amount of lighting (especially when covered in shadow or dark) they seem more concerned with if people can see their "spectacular" effect.  Again, Avatar is definitely not the worse offender, but when they are covered in shadow it still seems to have been made brighter than it should be. 

You may think my standards are too high, but really they aren't.  I still love watching 80's movies even though they don't have effects that hold up to today.  Can't really blame them since they did the best they could, plus sometimes it adds to the movie.  Maybe if the story was more original or the dialogue better or it wasn't touted as "the movie that will change how we view movies" and "make it so we can't tell what's real or fake onscreen", I'd be more into it.  But given its current state, I'm not very interested in seeing it.  Ever.  And like I said before, I think within 10 years, when effects have truly evolved until we can no longer tell what's fake onscreen, Avatar will mainly be remembered for its spot on the top money-makers list.