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.

bullshit, avatar dint gve ppl the same feeling star wars did 30 yeas ago

Avatar is the all about white power. White man can lead any group to victory. The white man can so easily stir other ethnic groups into an angry frenzy.

At least that is what io9.com says.

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

I'll answer you both here.  There absolutely original stories - i.e. plots.  That's easy.  The real question is are there any original themes left?

People often confuse these.  Theme is what the story is about, and while I hesitate to say there aren't any left, I would agree that all the major themes regarding our species currently have probably been touched upon.  But story or plot is the way you tell the theme (although of course a lot of entertainment stories don't even have a theme, which is why they are considered fluff in many ways).

Just an FYI to make this clear.  Therefore, when I say Avatar is lacking in originality I'm pointing out Cameron used a plot that was overly used vs coming up with a more original way to convey the theme (because one thing I will defend in Avatar is that it does have themes, which sets it apart from crap like Transformers right away, and in a good way).

Every year plenty of films and books, etc. come up with new ways to retell the same basic theme - and that's the level of originality I wanted in Avatar.  Of course, with the basic characters and structure Cameron set up for himself he basically painted himself into a corner, but that was his choice, not mine.

As an example look at say The Lovely Bones or The Time Travellers Wife - the books, not the films.  They both used interesting and original devives to explore their themes, even though the themes were familiar.  Or look at Moon, which featured a nicely original feeling plot while exploring existing themes.

A common theme might be 'Absolute power corrupts absolutely' - but there are many, many stories and plots you could use to convey that and yes, it is possible to come up with an original one if you put in enough effort.

As I said elsewhere in the thread, having read Cameron's original treatment I've come to the conclusion that Cameron deliberately settled for very familiar characters and story, to make it easy for people to absorb that and focus on the new stuff, which was accepting the aliens and their planet in a way rarely done before.

And in that he might have been right for general acceptance - but that doesn't change the fact he shyed away from using the tech and money to be more original, and create far more original aliens.  In a sense I don't really see Avatar as SF in a sense, because it does posit for me a truly alien society and how we might interact, instead he uses the SF setting to create a more allegorical tale that is really about the past rather than the future.

But hey, I'm glad people are thinking hard and talking about it - that's a great thing and i'll accept a little aggression anyday vs apathy.  In the end Cameron did put themes in Avatar, and meaning, so it's worth some conversation at least.

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.

the effect cud be greater, it being first 3d movie could be mean a bigger leg and gross than we thought. in us due to snow storms weekend 1 was more slow than it cud have been. i know 23 people going to see it again, word of mouth is best for a movie this year. can it be as big as titanic or star wars (adjusted gross is 1.5 billion for episode 4 worldwide)

It could.  It's a bit of an unknown I feel.  Up until now most 3D has been something for kids movies with limited appeal.  But recently it's been rising as a percentage of total revenue, and with Avatar I feel we have the first 3D film that's being viewed as the 'must see' example of 3D and the first true future of 3D films - as a result it could see considerable legs due to repeat viewing.

Most big movies today need a big haul over a fairly short period then look to DVD (and of course BR now).  But with the 3D Avatar is the first big film in a while that has a major hook that needs to be seen in the cinema.  It's interesting to note that Titanic, while undoubtbly lucky with Leomani, etc. driving 14 year old girls to see it 20 times or more, was the last big box office success before the shortening of cinema to DVD transition, which was allowed fairly long legs at the cinema.  Avatar too could be granted a longer lease in the cinema due to the 3D element as that's only going to be available to a tiny few at home - although I could see the film giving BR a boost as well as 3D TVs.

Plot is simply what happens.  It's the story itself, NOT the story telling.  All basic stories have been covered, period.  I'm not saying that every possible variation has been covered (i.e. I'm sure you could come up with a few more settings to retell Romeo and Juliet in), but the basically every overarching story has been covered.  I think what you're asking for is more along the lines of a more original way to tell this story.  In a way, it didn't.  I've seen a few things where they try to do this whole colonialism thing by making you care about the culture or the world, but none of it really worked.  The world wasn't real enough, the viewer/reader didn't connect enough (that's why something else was always needed ala Heart of Darkness, Speaker for the Dead, Dances with Wolves).  This one did it though.  The world and the people were enough.  It connected to you in a way no world or people had before.  Basically, although it had been done before, this was the first time anyone had done it well.

Note: Why are you replying to my same quote twice, but ignoring the most recent one up above?  The one that really challenges most of your argument.

@heruamon: I was annoyed because you tried to jump into an argument with just a lot of claims.  You were saying a lot of things as fact, where as we had been using evidence from the film.

Let me counter a few points you made: Trudy wasn't a marine, she was a scientist, and all the scientists were against what was happening. 

I'll quote myself about the captain dude: "I think Cameron also didn't want to distract from the main story by focusing on minor characters too much.  Sure, he could spend 15 minutes throughout the movie focusing on the challenges of the pilot and that one science dude on surviving on the inside, possibly being grilled by their superiors, lying through their teeth, etc., but ultimately that has very little to do with the overall theme.  That's why the captain dude's a caricature, the valuable material is called unobtanium, etc.  All of these things aren't important to the main theme, and they keep the situation universal."

The reason you think the Link thing is cliche is because it's a common attribute in many native belief systems, and all stories of this type try to bring out the value of such a belief system.  Now, to add to that, I'll quote myself again: "First of all, the worldwide network is far from just a way for "unlikely reinforements to charge to the rescue and allow Jake to make a big change permernant."  Primarily, it serves as a tangible form of the idea of interconnectedness so prevalent in all of these colonialism/nature movies.  You see it in Heart of Darkness, Cermony, Dances with Wolves, etc.  It's really common in a lot of native belief systems.  Here, that belief isn't just a way to see things, it's real.  I think it makes one of the hardest parts of this genre to understand much easier to see and believe for Westerners.  Also, it's used throughout the entire freaking movie.  Those "links" between the Na'vi and their horses/banshees?  You have the network to thank.  It's the connection they have with their ancestors."