So Avatar hits in a few weeks and everyone’s wondering if it’ll be a situation like Titanic where Cameron spent a lot of money and it worked out well or if it’ll be the next Waterworld (or Heaven’s Gate if you like).
So let’s get our early predictions in!
I almost titled this thread as “How much of a bomb will Avatar be?” since with it’s roughly 500 million budget it will have to be the biggest film of all time to do well for the studio. I’m going to predict a “disappointing” $70 million opening that implodes immediately on word of mouth. Total box office of less than $150 million in the end.
I am split. On the one hand, I hope it will be a good movie as we can always use more good movies. On the other hand, I hope it bombs and leaves such a huge crater that it drags the whole 3D fad in with it.
I think the cynical adult geeks may dismiss it, but the teen geeks will go nuts for it, and they (who used to be us) will send its take into the stratosphere.
Not seeing major buzz for this outside of the 3D/CGI/James Cameron/Biggest budget ever themes. Not that I follow the movie industry, but virtually every story I see is along those lines - as if there’s nothing to the movie itself (story, plot, emotion, relate-ability ) that is very interesting or good.
I think it’s going to bomb somewhat awful*. And get the sense the studio knows this which is why we get 4-minute previews during football games and whatnot.
*bomb is relative - it will probably break easily $100M, but expectations are so freakin’ high that anything less than biggest movie of the year will equate to bomb.
It depends on how good the movie is. Cameron has a pretty good track record with sci-fi/action. He’s not just a CGI guy. He can tell a compelling story. I think the movie might actually be good. If it is, it can make some coin.
Either way, I won’t be contributing to the Box Office take. It’s certainly pretty enough, but the extended trailers make it look too much like “Dances with Wolves meets The Smurfs” for me to be interested.
Seeing that Transformers 2 brought in over $400 million domestically and the concensus was that it was a piece of crap I see no reason that Avatar can’t do the same.
In the 80’s he might have had a few great SciFi movies, but I can’t think of anything afterward that wasn’t a complete CGI crapfest. Cuddly “I won’t kill anyone” Arnold vs Odo was an insult to the Terminator series.
James Cameron has only made three movies since the 80s (soon to be four).
Terminator 2: Barely used CGI by today’s standards, and when it was used, it was used damn well.
True Lies: I just watched this and honestly can’t recall anything blatantly CGI about it–certainly less than modern action movies. That aside, I didn’t like this film.
Titanic: Definite heavy use of CGI–but a “CGI Crapfest” it is not. You may think it is a crapfest, but I can’t imagine it being so for the CGI, where it was mostly used to create scenes that would have been impossible otherwise (and even those didn’t draw attention to themselves).
One of my best childhood friends is the virtual production supervisor for Avatar. I talked to him about it via e-mail and he thought it is good from a CGI standpoint but he invented some of the technology to make it work. He also did The Lost World: Jurassic Park and The Aviator, and AI as well as 15 other movies. Avatar is obviously extremely CGI intensive but I am sure they did a good job with the talent they have. I guess it depends on the storyline itself and I don’t know much about that yet…
I have tried various 3D systems. Every year at SIGGRAPH they would trot out yet another 3D system, and every year I couldn’t resolve the 3D. Finally I had an optician test my 3D vision and confirmed what I already knew - that like 12% of the population I have trouble resolving forced 3D imagery. On top of that, I wear glasses, and - as every glasses wearer knows - all the cheesy 3D glasses fit poorly on my regular glasses.
So if this shit catches on and I’m no longer given the choice of seeing the film in 2D (which I understand is Cameron’s plan), I’ll have to wear my regular glasses, with an eye-patch underneath and cheesy plastic glasses on top. And pay $3 to $5 more to have an awful, uncomfortable experience.
Fine for you who can see it. But imagine if they invented a movie technology that could not be seen by gay people. Or black people. Both are groups of roughly the same size as those of us who cannot easily see 3D.
I saw 160 films in the theater last year. I love movies. I view this plague of 3D movies as an assault on my favorite form of entertainment solely in the interest of raising the average ticket price and offering something not available in the home (at the moment). 3D movies are a perfectly fine thing in their proper context - amusement part rides and IMAX type entertainments. And hey, I’ll be happy to go if they ever come up with a 3D technology that doesn’t require any glasses and the accompanying forced 3D.
By the way, I’m sure commasense will be along shortly to dispute everything I said and fail to disprove any of it. We’ve been down this road several times already.
I think Avatar, like 2012, needs to be seen on the BIG screen, so I’ll probably be there on opening day. (not that I’m comparing their merits on anything other than CGI-WOW factor)
Holy shit. Do you have any taste? No offense. Really, no offense. But I can’t think of a dozen releases a year I’d want to see in the theater. Even if I had an art-house theatre nearby, well, then maybe a dozen. I love movies myself, but I’d be hard-pressed to name thirty releases from 2009. I remember being thrilled in 2007 because I got to see both modern masterpieces There Will Be Blood and No Country for Old Men in the the theater twice each. I probably saw four or five other films that entire year, none of which I recall, and it was hands down my best movie year ever.
Oh, and on-topic. Avatar will call to mind how hip and cheap District 9 was.
No, it’s not. There aren’t anywhere near enough 3D theaters for them to pick their money back were they to only show it in 3D. Rest assured, it’ll be playing in plain-D as well.