Box Office Guru Wrapup: Avatar Continues To Dominate

Summary

For a fifth straight weekend James Cameron's Avatar controlled the box office setting another milestone as it moved past Star Wars into third place on the all-time domestic box office chart. Watch out Dark Knight, you're next. The unstoppable force that is Avatar dropped a slim 18% from last weekend and brought in another $41.3, according to estimates, bringing its total to an other-worldly $491.7M. Internationally, the film has now made $1.1B, which is just a hop, skip and a jump from Titanic's current record of $1.2B. Combined, the 3D sci-fi adventure flick has made an astounding $1.6B worldwide in only five weeks and the only question now is when it'll beat Titanic, not if. Back to Article

Comments

inactive user

Jared King

"nabobs"

He said nabobs!

Jan 18 - 10:07 AM

Lando Griffin

ben keesing

http://failblog.org/2010/01/10/avatar-plot-fail/

Jan 18 - 10:19 AM

TedStriker

Dirk Reynolds

You are actually incorrect Ico. You can't use Gone With the Wind's total take from its original release date because that total is based on many re-releases over the decades. The actual #1 all-time based truly on inflation calculated correctly in dollars per release of the movie is The Sound of Music.

As far as your condescending take on all people who like Avatar. Give it a break... each comment you add to this makes you look more and more pretentious. Avatar is not an original idea. But neither is 2001. Kubrick borrowed much of his story from many books and stories that were made way, way before the 1960's. I've said this before in another post about Avatar a few weeks ago, and I'll say it again... at this point, pretty much all stories are retreads of thousands of previous stories that have been told over the centuries.

I'm very curious to know what types of movies you rate as quality. Are you the type that thinks box office success and movie quality are mutually exclusive traits? If not, then it would be interesting to know a small list of movies that came out in 2009 that you were impressed with.

Jan 18 - 10:20 AM

Nine Oh Two

Nine Oh Two .

You're really trying to use the old 'nothing is really original arguement'? That is some seriously flawed logic. Of course you can't get something from nothing, that's besides the point. Everything has to come from somewhere, nobodies debating that. Last time I checked, there was a difference between breathing new life into an existing concept and shamelessly ripping it off. Avatar does the latter. It doesn't try and challenge the audience, it just regurgatates the same old story we've been getting spoon fed for for ages now. Oh yeah, but the effects are cool, so that automatically makes it great.

But saying that 2001 was borrowed in anyway is just plain wrong. Only in the small details is this take even remotely accurate. The crowning acheivement of 2001 is that it transcends typical film conventions to deliver a story that couldn't be made in any other fashion. Each of the 3 acts sports a completely different tone. 2001 is a truly visionary film.

Jan 18 - 11:20 AM

misterkyle1901

kyle T

I think you're missing the point. Avatar appealed to the masses in a way that other movies specifically made to appeal to the masses didn't. It cost 300 million dollars to make. 2001 wouldn't have a chance at making that back if released today. And they are completely different movies. Nobody is going to claim that Cameron is the next Kubrick. Kubrick was daring for the way he challenged the audience, and asked them to look deeper into the meaning of the images on screen. Cameron is daring for the way he challenges the audience to come in droves in hopes of being able to ever work again. If Avatar flopped, he would have been screwed. Kubrick didn't need his movies to make a billion dollars. Cameron does.
Now, trying to make money is not excuse to be lazy in storytelling. But lets be honest, Cameron is not a lazy filmmaker. Avatar making so much money is a step up, I believe, for the general masses. It is different in certain aspects, and the masses generally reject different. You can, however, complain all you want when the sequel to Avatar doesn't try to tell a more original story. There's a chance for originality to be marketed in a way that will be seen by the masses.
But, Avatar should not have won best picture. Sorry.

Jan 18 - 11:46 AM

TedStriker

Dirk Reynolds

Ok, I'm not going to get into a debate today on 2001. I agree with your take on parts, but not on the whole with that movie. (I do own it on DVD and have watched it many times over the years... but that's neither here nor there). On Avatar though, our opinions differ greatly and I attribute that at least part based differeing frames of reference. Though, I (and probably many other people on this board) do not appreciate people like you who lob insults right and left at people who don't agree with your opinion. It is just your singular opinion after all, and we all have one (just like @ssholes).

I grant you Avatar didn't have the greatest story or dialogue, not by a long stretch. It was serviceable to me. But I did not go to this movie expecting something along the lines of a Coppola or Scorsese film. I went expecting a Cameron film, and it delivered. Plot and dialogue in James Cameron films have always left a lot to be desired. But I generally enjoy them because they make me feel like I was just on a ride, rather than watching a film. If you think Avatar is a piece of trash, which undoubtedly you do with your many vociferous posts, then you must think T2, Titanic, etc. weren't good either... because the quality of the plot and dialogue are very similar. So then why are you so enraged over this film? You must have had low expectations going in... On the other hand, if you like Cameron films in general, then I'm confused.

I'm guessing you weren't the biggest Cameron fan before you saw this movie. So if that's the case, geez, temper your expectations, or by all means don't go at all if that's how you feel. Don't blow a head gasket because the general populous seems to enjoy something you find ample time spewing hate toward. You continue to write negative comments on a pro-Avatar story because why? You feel the need to try to character assassinate the majority of the movie going public as well as the majority of the professional reviewers?

I went in expecting to be impressed by the technical wizardry and I was. The fact that it did not have the plot quality of The Godfather did not disappoint me because that was not target of my expectations for this particular film. I liken this movie very much to the original Star Wars. I saw that movie in the theater during its original release in 1977 and was blown away by the spectacle. Was the plot a whole lot of "been there, done that" (just in a new-fangled space setting)? Sure. Was the dialogue atrocious? Yep, in fact it seems to get worse each subsequent time I watch it. But was I impressed and did I walk out of the movie enjoyed (like I just got off a roller coaster)? You bet your @ss.

Different movies present different types of enjoyment to me. I absolutely LOVED "There Will Be Blood" last year because DDL blew the doors off of the expectations I had for actors getting into their characters. I thought "Meet the Parents" was belly-laugh funny as hell. "North-by-Northwest" is one of the all-time greats. Those movies met and exceeded the different expectations I had for each of them. Different types of movies evoke different expectations from me. To me Avatar was a ride, plain and simple... and I sure did enjoy the wind in my hair.

Jan 18 - 11:59 AM

ColinTheCimmerian

Colin Hay

I've had this discussion before on another thread, and several people have already touched on some of the points I made there. But the key point is that the movie-going marketplace was ENTIRELY different when Gone With the Wind was in theatres as compared to now. It goes way beyond just ticket price. There was no such concept as home video back then, and that concept has completely changed how people go to movies. Today, only people with too much disposable income or too much time to kill go to a single movie over and over and over again. Most people will see a movie once, maybe 2 or 3 times if they really like it, then wait a few months and buy the DVD or BluRay for 20 bucks. There is no notion in our brains that we'll never be able to see a given movie again; any modern film is easily accessible through a wide variety of inexpensive means at any given time. There's no level of scarcity or rarity there, and the more easily accessible something is, the less valuable it is in the eyes of the consumer. People went to Gone with the Wind again and again, year after year, re-release after re-release, because it was only accessible by way of going to the theatre; there was no viable alternative.

I won't even bother getting into the other factors that have changed the marketplace, like piracy, alternative forms of entertainment (i.e. video games and cable television), and advances in home theatre tech that detract from the relative impressiveness of seeing something on the big screen. Suffice to say, comparing the number of tickets sold is no more reasonable a method to compare the success of two films made 70 years apart than comparing total gross. Too much has changed in the world, too many new variables have been introduced for there to be any reasonable comparison.

Jan 18 - 10:27 AM

Interloper

christo breytenbach

To those that claim that Avatar is only great in 3D: Go watch the movie in 2D as well, it is still just as awesome. I saw the movie once in 3D and 3 times in 2D, the experience was almost the same except for some scenes that greatly benefited from the additional depth perception. 2D = 9.5/10 , 3D = 10/10
Please note 'almost the same'.

Also trying to compare Avatar with GWTW is a bit far fetched,its too old to compare with modern cinema. For the last 12 or something years NOBODY was able to make a film that came close to TITANIC's box office success. The only person that seems able to beat James Cameron's previous film seems to be....................................wait for it............. James Cameron.


Jan 18 - 10:33 AM

PixarfortheWin

Derrick Ford

TedStriker you are wrong, Gone with the win is the altime BO leader when dealing with inflation

Jan 18 - 10:40 AM

TedStriker

Dirk Reynolds

No, it is you that is wrong, PixarfortheWin. I'm sure you went to some place such as boxofficemojo.com or any of the dozens of other sites that say "inflation adjusted" box office. These figures are generally not correct. They are way too simplified. Most of them are doing a single calculation using an inflation adjusting calculator for the release year. I.e. they take the total box office receipts, and then plug in the original release year and get a number. That makes no sense for a movie like Gone With The Wind (which was released in 1939 originally and has made just under $200 million between 1939 and today in non-adjusted dollars).

The problem with Gone With the Wind is that it only made a fraction of that amount in the original release. And although the initial release was in 1939, that was a very limited release. Its first full scale release was in 1941. It made only $9 million in total receipts between 1939 and 1947. In 1947 it was re-released for the first time. Additional releases happened in 1954, 1961, 1967, 1971, 1989, and 1998. The total $198 million take is distributed over all of these releases. In fact, about half of the Gone With the Wind non-adjusted gross total was made in its final four releases (1967 and on). So doing the basic inflation-adjusted calculation of $198 million for 1939 is a complete waste of time... and I'm guessing that is what you are basing your facts on.

Contrary to this, The Sound of Music was first released in 1965. Its total gross from 1965 until today has been about $158 million, of which ~$151 million was attributed to its initial 1965 release and ~$7 million was attributed to its single subsequent re-release in 1990. Thus, the vast majority of the entire all-time gross of The Sound of Music can be correctly calculated in 1965 dollars. When you do the correct calculations, as I have laid them out here, you come up with The Sound of Music being #1 by quite a substantial margin.

Jan 18 - 11:21 AM

dethburger

dethburger hates Flixster

True.

Jan 18 - 11:25 AM

DKUK

Derrick Wong

TedStriker: Wow, all this time I swallowed a pill and accepted it, never thought of it the way you just explained it. I always looked at BOMojo and just looked at the numbers and never the breakdowns of multiple releases. But I can see the logic, now if only we could all sit round a table and go through the maths....

I'm still on the fence about Avatar, anyone here (China) who asks me about it, I say I will let then know once I see it again in IMAX 3D. Yeah it means I have seen it and the story didn't grab me, but as someone said earlier, I didn't go to see it for a great story, I went to see it for the experience.

Jan 18 - 06:55 PM

dethburger

dethburger hates Flixster

I had read this some time ago...maybe six or seven years I think.

Ted's point is correct, based on initial release numbers.

The easiest way to figure this out is to simple count admissions with no dollar amount attached.

Jan 18 - 08:32 PM

TedStriker

Dirk Reynolds


DKUK,

For most movies, the numbers work fine on Box Office Mojo and other reporting sites, because most movies do not have multiple releases or if there are multiple releases, the initial release made the lion's share of the money. But when you get really popular movies that maintain their popularity over time, the multiple releases that span decades really start screwing up the all-time box office receipt calculations for those movies quite a bit. Gone With the Wind is the epitome of that problem. Eight releases over the course of almost 60 years makes the calculation for that movie particularly treacherous.

Jan 18 - 09:57 PM

PixarfortheWin

Derrick Ford

I still dont understand how Snow White is 10th when adjusted with inflation when that movie made 180 million thru its run and most of that was made when ticket prices were 25 cents for a kid and 40 cents for an adult.

Jan 18 - 10:42 AM

Bigbrother

Big Brother

Pixar, that's because much of Snow Whites BO was picked up on a later re-release, so the inflation isn't as drastic. They explain it on the BO Mojo page. Snow White is actually the example they use. I guess a lot of people have asked that question before.

Jan 19 - 05:37 AM

Dachshund96

Alpha Z

I'm insulting? Damn straight and if you knew me in real life I would insult you too. Thats the way I am and I back it up. I don't hide from people I lay it out in front of you. Don't like it do something about it. GWTW blew chunks and thats what they should use for military torture methods. Titanic sucked too.

Jan 18 - 10:56 AM

Throw An Onion

Joshua Mills

Screw Avatar and the pathetic lazy writers and directors who made it. Sure it looks pretty but so did District 9 and I don't see anyone handing out awards to that movie. The Hurt Locker deserved all the awards Cameron and Avatar got.

Jan 18 - 11:09 AM

Nine Oh Two

Nine Oh Two .

You're really trying to use the old 'nothing is really original arguement'? That is some seriously flawed logic. Of course you can't get something from nothing, that's besides the point. Everything has to come from somewhere, nobodies debating that. Last time I checked, there was a difference between breathing new life into an existing concept and shamelessly ripping it off. Avatar does the latter. It doesn't try and challenge the audience, it just regurgatates the same old story we've been getting spoon fed for for ages now. Oh yeah, but the effects are cool, so that automatically makes it great.

But saying that 2001 was borrowed in anyway is just plain wrong. Only in the small details is this take even remotely accurate. The crowning acheivement of 2001 is that it transcends typical film conventions to deliver a story that couldn't be made in any other fashion. Each of the 3 acts sports a completely different tone. 2001 is a truly visionary film.

Jan 18 - 11:20 AM

misterkyle1901

kyle T

I think you're missing the point. Avatar appealed to the masses in a way that other movies specifically made to appeal to the masses didn't. It cost 300 million dollars to make. 2001 wouldn't have a chance at making that back if released today. And they are completely different movies. Nobody is going to claim that Cameron is the next Kubrick. Kubrick was daring for the way he challenged the audience, and asked them to look deeper into the meaning of the images on screen. Cameron is daring for the way he challenges the audience to come in droves in hopes of being able to ever work again. If Avatar flopped, he would have been screwed. Kubrick didn't need his movies to make a billion dollars. Cameron does.
Now, trying to make money is not excuse to be lazy in storytelling. But lets be honest, Cameron is not a lazy filmmaker. Avatar making so much money is a step up, I believe, for the general masses. It is different in certain aspects, and the masses generally reject different. You can, however, complain all you want when the sequel to Avatar doesn't try to tell a more original story. There's a chance for originality to be marketed in a way that will be seen by the masses.
But, Avatar should not have won best picture. Sorry.

Jan 18 - 11:46 AM

TedStriker

Dirk Reynolds

Ok, I'm not going to get into a debate today on 2001. I agree with your take on parts, but not on the whole with that movie. (I do own it on DVD and have watched it many times over the years... but that's neither here nor there). On Avatar though, our opinions differ greatly and I attribute that at least part based differeing frames of reference. Though, I (and probably many other people on this board) do not appreciate people like you who lob insults right and left at people who don't agree with your opinion. It is just your singular opinion after all, and we all have one (just like @ssholes).

I grant you Avatar didn't have the greatest story or dialogue, not by a long stretch. It was serviceable to me. But I did not go to this movie expecting something along the lines of a Coppola or Scorsese film. I went expecting a Cameron film, and it delivered. Plot and dialogue in James Cameron films have always left a lot to be desired. But I generally enjoy them because they make me feel like I was just on a ride, rather than watching a film. If you think Avatar is a piece of trash, which undoubtedly you do with your many vociferous posts, then you must think T2, Titanic, etc. weren't good either... because the quality of the plot and dialogue are very similar. So then why are you so enraged over this film? You must have had low expectations going in... On the other hand, if you like Cameron films in general, then I'm confused.

I'm guessing you weren't the biggest Cameron fan before you saw this movie. So if that's the case, geez, temper your expectations, or by all means don't go at all if that's how you feel. Don't blow a head gasket because the general populous seems to enjoy something you find ample time spewing hate toward. You continue to write negative comments on a pro-Avatar story because why? You feel the need to try to character assassinate the majority of the movie going public as well as the majority of the professional reviewers?

I went in expecting to be impressed by the technical wizardry and I was. The fact that it did not have the plot quality of The Godfather did not disappoint me because that was not target of my expectations for this particular film. I liken this movie very much to the original Star Wars. I saw that movie in the theater during its original release in 1977 and was blown away by the spectacle. Was the plot a whole lot of "been there, done that" (just in a new-fangled space setting)? Sure. Was the dialogue atrocious? Yep, in fact it seems to get worse each subsequent time I watch it. But was I impressed and did I walk out of the movie enjoyed (like I just got off a roller coaster)? You bet your @ss.

Different movies present different types of enjoyment to me. I absolutely LOVED "There Will Be Blood" last year because DDL blew the doors off of the expectations I had for actors getting into their characters. I thought "Meet the Parents" was belly-laugh funny as hell. "North-by-Northwest" is one of the all-time greats. Those movies met and exceeded the different expectations I had for each of them. Different types of movies evoke different expectations from me. To me Avatar was a ride, plain and simple... and I sure did enjoy the wind in my hair.

Jan 18 - 11:59 AM

TedStriker

Dirk Reynolds

No, it is you that is wrong, PixarfortheWin. I'm sure you went to some place such as boxofficemojo.com or any of the dozens of other sites that say "inflation adjusted" box office. These figures are generally not correct. They are way too simplified. Most of them are doing a single calculation using an inflation adjusting calculator for the release year. I.e. they take the total box office receipts, and then plug in the original release year and get a number. That makes no sense for a movie like Gone With The Wind (which was released in 1939 originally and has made just under $200 million between 1939 and today in non-adjusted dollars).

The problem with Gone With the Wind is that it only made a fraction of that amount in the original release. And although the initial release was in 1939, that was a very limited release. Its first full scale release was in 1941. It made only $9 million in total receipts between 1939 and 1947. In 1947 it was re-released for the first time. Additional releases happened in 1954, 1961, 1967, 1971, 1989, and 1998. The total $198 million take is distributed over all of these releases. In fact, about half of the Gone With the Wind non-adjusted gross total was made in its final four releases (1967 and on). So doing the basic inflation-adjusted calculation of $198 million for 1939 is a complete waste of time... and I'm guessing that is what you are basing your facts on.

Contrary to this, The Sound of Music was first released in 1965. Its total gross from 1965 until today has been about $158 million, of which ~$151 million was attributed to its initial 1965 release and ~$7 million was attributed to its single subsequent re-release in 1990. Thus, the vast majority of the entire all-time gross of The Sound of Music can be correctly calculated in 1965 dollars. When you do the correct calculations, as I have laid them out here, you come up with The Sound of Music being #1 by quite a substantial margin.

Jan 18 - 11:21 AM

dethburger

dethburger hates Flixster

True.

Jan 18 - 11:25 AM

DKUK

Derrick Wong

TedStriker: Wow, all this time I swallowed a pill and accepted it, never thought of it the way you just explained it. I always looked at BOMojo and just looked at the numbers and never the breakdowns of multiple releases. But I can see the logic, now if only we could all sit round a table and go through the maths....

I'm still on the fence about Avatar, anyone here (China) who asks me about it, I say I will let then know once I see it again in IMAX 3D. Yeah it means I have seen it and the story didn't grab me, but as someone said earlier, I didn't go to see it for a great story, I went to see it for the experience.

Jan 18 - 06:55 PM

dethburger

dethburger hates Flixster

I had read this some time ago...maybe six or seven years I think.

Ted's point is correct, based on initial release numbers.

The easiest way to figure this out is to simple count admissions with no dollar amount attached.

Jan 18 - 08:32 PM

TedStriker

Dirk Reynolds


DKUK,

For most movies, the numbers work fine on Box Office Mojo and other reporting sites, because most movies do not have multiple releases or if there are multiple releases, the initial release made the lion's share of the money. But when you get really popular movies that maintain their popularity over time, the multiple releases that span decades really start screwing up the all-time box office receipt calculations for those movies quite a bit. Gone With the Wind is the epitome of that problem. Eight releases over the course of almost 60 years makes the calculation for that movie particularly treacherous.

Jan 18 - 09:57 PM

King Crunk

King Crunk

James Cameron is probably the most powerful man in Hollywood right now since he will have the two highest grossing movies of all time. And I thought the story/characters in Avatar were well done, conventional, but Cameron knows how to work within convention very well and make it seem unconventional.

Jan 18 - 11:22 AM

dethburger

dethburger hates Flixster

True.

Jan 18 - 11:25 AM

TombstoneLawDog

Daniel Klein

"Last time I checked, there was a difference between breathing new life into an existing concept and shamelessly ripping it off. Avatar does the latter. It doesn't try and challenge the audience, it just regurgatates the same old story we've been getting spoon fed for for ages now. Oh yeah, but the effects are cool, so that automatically makes it great."

...uh, ....sorry you didn't like it? Does that help?

WHY the HATE?

If the *worst* thing that happens as a result of Avatar is that more people embrace this particular technology (which will NEVER be as expensive as it was, this first time around and will only get easier to use)-- even 'better' story-tellers than Cameron-- WHAT is the evil, here? "Oh, NO! More directors will make lucrative CRAP that I don't LIKE!" ...because that wasn't happening, anyway.


Jan 18 - 11:30 AM

Stepping Razor

Stepping Razor

@Ithilgore Even though your juvenile post really doesn't deserve any sort of response or recognition, you do need to grow up. Hopefully you will be able to achieve that in this lifetime.

Jan 18 - 11:37 AM

misterkyle1901

kyle T

I think you're missing the point. Avatar appealed to the masses in a way that other movies specifically made to appeal to the masses didn't. It cost 300 million dollars to make. 2001 wouldn't have a chance at making that back if released today. And they are completely different movies. Nobody is going to claim that Cameron is the next Kubrick. Kubrick was daring for the way he challenged the audience, and asked them to look deeper into the meaning of the images on screen. Cameron is daring for the way he challenges the audience to come in droves in hopes of being able to ever work again. If Avatar flopped, he would have been screwed. Kubrick didn't need his movies to make a billion dollars. Cameron does.
Now, trying to make money is not excuse to be lazy in storytelling. But lets be honest, Cameron is not a lazy filmmaker. Avatar making so much money is a step up, I believe, for the general masses. It is different in certain aspects, and the masses generally reject different. You can, however, complain all you want when the sequel to Avatar doesn't try to tell a more original story. There's a chance for originality to be marketed in a way that will be seen by the masses.
But, Avatar should not have won best picture. Sorry.

Jan 18 - 11:46 AM

Greg L.

Greg Loesch

I'm sorry "Ico fan", but your way off base here. Cool FX are not enough to make a great movie. Case in point, several films released last year...Transformers 2, 2012, 9, etc. These films - particularly the two former - had some of the most advanved, impressive, and mind-blowing FX in cinema history. However, no amount of pretty FX could cover up the fact that these movies were bad. Further proof is in the extremely low critic scores, and massive Box Office drop off. These films were NOT satisfying on an emotional level, and all of the wow FX in the world couldn't make up for that. Now Avatars FX are much further advanced then both of those films, however at the same time, MUCH less flashy. Avatars FX looked so real, in most cases they didn't even look like FX. It often looked as though James Cameron had discovered a secret Moon and brought his camera there to document it. Furthermore, much of the depth of Avatar comes from breathtaking moments involving the characters, Pandora, and the interaction between both. Jake running his feet through the dirt, the seed drifting down and grazing Neytiris arrow, the Na'vis beautiful hometree and rituals. The film was littered with beautiful moments like this that go way beyond just pretty visuals, moments so artistic and lyrical that say more then any amount of witty dialogue could ever acheive.

Avatar was a movie that was not afraid to be what it wanted it to be. A film that had extremely strong convictions, with messages that are very pertinent, much more so then District 9. D9 was a good movie, but had way more issues then Avatar. Lazy plotting, for instance making the spaceship fuel also an agent that can change organisms...nothing more then an easy way out of what could have been a much more complex narrative. Also the last half of the movie turned from an intriguing thoughtful look on discrimination and apartheid to a generic chase movie. Avatar kept its focus strong on characters, giving us several scenes of action gold when necessary, but never over doing it.

Avatar was without a doubt a smart-film, one that had brains but still appealed to mass audiences, a rare feat. It had some of the most interesting sci-fi ideas to come around in ages...the whole "avatar" concept, the switching between worlds, the physical connection between all on Pandora, and that's only scratching the surface. So much thought and creativity was placed into making Pandora a real place, it's utterly remarkable. All of the science in the film was spot on - there's a great read about the science of Avatar over at Aint it cool news which is highly recommended, and notice the intense scientific debate it started as well. A film that does that is in NO way simple-minded.


Jan 18 - 11:56 AM

TedStriker

Dirk Reynolds

Ok, I'm not going to get into a debate today on 2001. I agree with your take on parts, but not on the whole with that movie. (I do own it on DVD and have watched it many times over the years... but that's neither here nor there). On Avatar though, our opinions differ greatly and I attribute that at least part based differeing frames of reference. Though, I (and probably many other people on this board) do not appreciate people like you who lob insults right and left at people who don't agree with your opinion. It is just your singular opinion after all, and we all have one (just like @ssholes).

I grant you Avatar didn't have the greatest story or dialogue, not by a long stretch. It was serviceable to me. But I did not go to this movie expecting something along the lines of a Coppola or Scorsese film. I went expecting a Cameron film, and it delivered. Plot and dialogue in James Cameron films have always left a lot to be desired. But I generally enjoy them because they make me feel like I was just on a ride, rather than watching a film. If you think Avatar is a piece of trash, which undoubtedly you do with your many vociferous posts, then you must think T2, Titanic, etc. weren't good either... because the quality of the plot and dialogue are very similar. So then why are you so enraged over this film? You must have had low expectations going in... On the other hand, if you like Cameron films in general, then I'm confused.

I'm guessing you weren't the biggest Cameron fan before you saw this movie. So if that's the case, geez, temper your expectations, or by all means don't go at all if that's how you feel. Don't blow a head gasket because the general populous seems to enjoy something you find ample time spewing hate toward. You continue to write negative comments on a pro-Avatar story because why? You feel the need to try to character assassinate the majority of the movie going public as well as the majority of the professional reviewers?

I went in expecting to be impressed by the technical wizardry and I was. The fact that it did not have the plot quality of The Godfather did not disappoint me because that was not target of my expectations for this particular film. I liken this movie very much to the original Star Wars. I saw that movie in the theater during its original release in 1977 and was blown away by the spectacle. Was the plot a whole lot of "been there, done that" (just in a new-fangled space setting)? Sure. Was the dialogue atrocious? Yep, in fact it seems to get worse each subsequent time I watch it. But was I impressed and did I walk out of the movie enjoyed (like I just got off a roller coaster)? You bet your @ss.

Different movies present different types of enjoyment to me. I absolutely LOVED "There Will Be Blood" last year because DDL blew the doors off of the expectations I had for actors getting into their characters. I thought "Meet the Parents" was belly-laugh funny as hell. "North-by-Northwest" is one of the all-time greats. Those movies met and exceeded the different expectations I had for each of them. Different types of movies evoke different expectations from me. To me Avatar was a ride, plain and simple... and I sure did enjoy the wind in my hair.

Jan 18 - 11:59 AM

PixarfortheWin

Derrick Ford

Yeah sorry Tedstriker you are wrong. You want proof that you are wrong, even Guiness World Records, who actually research this stuff has Gone with the Wind as the all time leader, the funny thing is that Star Wars is second so even if you dont count Gone with the Wind, Star Wars would be number 2. So the valid sources are correct and you are wrong.

Jan 18 - 12:08 PM

ProducerPaul

Paul Barrett

Well said, Ted Striker.

And for those of you who don't know Douchehound (I mean Dachshund) he is infamous in the main forums for making outrageous and mostly dickish statements. He is a prick on the boards, and now he's admitted he's a prick in real life. So, do what you would do with any jerkoff in real life, just ignore him.

Kind of surprised he's on these boards though.

Jan 18 - 12:15 PM

What's Hot On RT

Total Recall
Total Recall

Nine Movies That Bring the Funk

Weekly Binge
Weekly Binge

Watch Arrested Development

Cosplay Gallery
Cosplay Gallery

See over 350 Comic-Con Costumes!

24 Frames
24 Frames

Photo gallery of great movie spaceships

Find us on:                     
Help | About | Jobs | Critics Submission | Press | API | Licensing | Mobile