| arsenicazure said: It interesting to note that district 9 which was last on THAT list is prolly better than 70% movies there... |
100% right, district 9 even deserve more succes than most of the films in the list.
Titanic is the biggest movie ever even if you adjust for inflation. Remember that titanic had much more worldwide revenue compared to it's domestic US revenue. Those inflation adjusted charts are only for US box office, so they dont tell the right picture.
Titanic is No 1. Gone with the wind and/or Star Wars is second. Avatar will be third or fourth. (measured in total revenue worldwide, adjusted for inflation)
AVATAR 3MIL EASY
| Miguel_Zorro said: The inflation argument is valid, but only to a point. The argument that people have far more "other options" today is also very valid. Even a comparison between Titanic and Avatar involves movies from very different times. I remember when Titanic came out. At that time, most people hadn't used the Internet - at least not in the form that we know it today. With the modem that I had at the time, it would have taken me hours just to download the graphics on this webpage. (I also walked 2 hours to school in the snow, uphill, both there and back). :) NOBODY was downloading movies online. They weren't even available. Even Napster didn't arrive on the scene until 2 years later. Even if people could download them, there was nowhere to put the data, since DVDs came out that year, and the cost them was prohibitive. My hard drive at the time definitely wasn't big enough to store movies. The bottom line? People weren't pirating. Today, the top movies are downloaded millions upon millions of times, and burned into millions of copies. Now, assuming people waiting for the opportunity to buy Titanic to watch at home, they'd be lucky enough to watch on a VHS tape (or, for those doing well, a DVD), and view it on their crappy tube TV, with their crappy sound system. The experience just wasn't anything close to the theatre. Today, 47" flat screens with nice sound systems are the norm. My point is this - when Titanic came out, if you wanted to see it the way it was intended to be seen, you had to go to the movie theatre. Today, you can download a movie the day it hits theatres, and watch it at home on your massive TV with 7.1 surround sound. When Gone With the Wind came out? You had to go to the movie theatre if you wanted to see it *at all*. It also came out during World War 2, when there really wasn't much else to do for fun. For the 2+ years that it was in the theatres, the only competition that it had was a bunch of movies that I doubt many people have ever heard of. |
Estimates of Avatar's sales are around 78% or so are in 3D - i.e. the only way to see it that way is in the cinema. That's the main thrust of 3D from the studios point of view - not necessarily Cameron's - that you have to go to the cinema, sure you can download a 2D weaker version, but why? I therefore doubt the modern availablity of other mediums, etc. harmed it.
As for the new vs old I think it's clear that Avatar isn't going to be seen by the most people, even with a larger world population vs the all time most seen movies. That doesn't detract from it, but in the end worldwide more people saw Star Wars in total and as a percentage of the population, for example, and I'm not sure Avatar can get that far up the adjusted chart, although it might assuming it's theatrical run isn't cut short to push it to BR and try and push 3D TVs - remember that it should be more harshly adjusted for inflation as with most people paying more to see it in 3D it's total revenue is even more inflated than a standard film. I doubt Cameron or the studio cares as it steams towards $2 billion - they get paid on current revenue not vs the value of the dollar when Gone with the Wind was released (in terms of pure worldwide attendace I doubt anything will touch that film, in many countries in ran for 4 years plus in the cinemas!).
As for Avatar, as I've said elsewhere it's a 10 out of 10 visual experience with a 7 out of 10 scipt/acting resulting in an overall film of 8.5 out of 10 for me.
It's presentation demands a cinema viewing, and it's solid as a rock compared to the usual Hollywood rubbish - I mean the writing isn't Shakespeare and it is flawed but it's not awful, and while there are no standout characters of performances they are all competent with a couple of nice scenes here and there.
Popular movies make the most money and attract the most viewers, that's just the way it is. Are they often the 'best' film, when best is based on acting, script, theme, depth, etc? Almost never. Such films, while my personal preference, simply require too much effort or knowledge of film from the average viewer, or put theme and depth over entertainment, which of course limits them in terms of revenue.
At least Avatar has themes and a solid enough Narrative coupled with amazing visuals and 3D to go with its populist entertainment aspects, which these days is quite something when you look at movies like Transformers 2.
Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...
Avatar will have to double titanic's gross to beat it when unadjusted to inflation.
If it was the only movie for a year then maybe that could happen.
Owner of : PS1/PSOne , PS2 phat/slim , PS3 phat/slim , PS Eye+Move and PSP phat/slim/brite/go (Sony)
The Official PS Vita Thread! Get all your latest PS Vita news here! Come join us!
I still don't get what's the deal with Avatar. Are people really that impressed by CGI? I mean the movie looks great and all... but come on!
It's Pocahontas... in space. I don't see what's so special about it.
Quem disse que a boca é tua?
Qual é, Dadinho...?
Dadinho é o caralho! Meu nome agora é Zé Pequeno!
finalrpgfantasy said:
100% right, district 9 even deserve more succes than most of the films in the list. |
You are horrible people. D9 was a horrible movie with absolutely no believability. I was hyped for that movie but so many parts were increadibly stupid it was amazing.
thismeintiel said:
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. |
1. Ice Age 3D was crap compared to other animations like Up or Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs. So, I think you have just had bad experiences. I've literally watched almost every 3D animation that has released. I really like the tech and the movies are just funny, so its worth it to me. However, Avatar is no comparison. You are really emerged into the scenery and its just amazing to actually see something in full depth that isn't there in other movies. The shperical monitors actually look like spheres, etc.
2. Your viewings of the film are similar to judging the quality of a game from a YouTube video. It’s not even close. Granted, you may be very well much more critical about detail than I am, but I'm willing to send you the $10 to go see this movie just to have you come back here and say you were wrong. The movie won't win drama of the year, but it is a good story with a unparalleled technical twist.
BTW, the lighting is intended to be different as everything in Pandora generates its own lighting. This is one peice that truly makes it amazing to watch. Very imaginative and compelling.
| Miguel_Zorro said: The inflation argument is valid, but only to a point. The argument that people have far more "other options" today is also very valid. |
Again, if you'd like to know which is "more valid" check out the OP's list. It's dominated by movies from the last 10-12 years. The reason? Because the "inflation argument" has a far, far greater impact than the "other options" argument, or any other argument.
| When Gone With the Wind came out? You had to go to the movie theatre if you wanted to see it *at all*. It also came out during World War 2, when there really wasn't much else to do for fun. For the 2+ years that it was in the theatres, the only competition that it had was a bunch of movies that I doubt many people have ever heard of. |
That said, movies have always had to compete with other forms of entertainment. The people of 1939 didn't just lie in bed staring at their ceilings. Sure, they didn't have many of the forms of entertainment that *we* enjoy today, but they didn't know that they were missing anything; they had full lives anyways.
That's why the top grossers list *doesn't* have a bunch of movies from the 20s, 30s, 40s, etc., when people supposedly had nothing better to do. Gone With the Wind is the *only* film from that era on the list, right? The only one even close. It sticks out for a reason--because it sold a ton of tickets.
Finally, as for its competition... this is what Wikipedia has to say about the movies in 1939:
Movie historians and film buffs often look back on 1939 as "the greatest year in film history". Hollywood was at the height of its Golden Age, and this particular year saw the release of an unusually large number of exceptional movies, many of which have been honored as all-time classics, when multitudes of other films of the era have been largely forgotten.
GWTW had a lot of competition
As I remember, it went up against Casablance...
And a little number called The Wizard of Oz
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
