Not by everyone. But I found the protagonist to often have very flat delivery.
Not my fucking job, is it? You don’t have to be able to do something well to be able to tell when someone else is doing it poorly (or at least not as well as it could have been done).
I didn’t see a lot of films last year, but here are a few wide-release films that I personally feel had a better story: Coraline
*Watchmen *(even though it wasn’t nearly as good as the comic) Moon A Serious Man
I’d put *Avatar *somewhere on the level with Star Trek or Zombieland: enjoyable, but not mind-blowing.
But but but but but he’s Dio! If **he **thinks something, and a bunch of people, some of whom probably think Fox News is a fair and balanced source of information, think the same thing, then by god, he **must **be right!
ETA: I’m not saying the film wasn’t enjoyable or that you’re not allowed to like it. I’m just saying that it wasn’t a masterpiece and it doesn’t deserve the pedestal some people insist on hefting it up onto.
Frst, why is it any less arrogant to declare that the movie IS woodenly acted or call the story “trite” than to say that it isn’t?
Secondly, it’s not that I think the story was brilliant, I just think that pointing out that story is familar and routine is a shallow and uninsightful criticism. With the amount of money riding on the film, and the need to appeal broadly to an international audience, Cameron couldn’t afford to do complexity and nuance. The story was good enough, and the success of the movie speaks for itself about whether it was effective.
Personally, I thought the movie was ok, but not spectacular. It was a pleasant enough entertainment while it was happening, but I forgot about it ten minutes after I left the theater. I’m not trying to defend it as the greatest movie ever or anything. I actually think Cameron’s Terminator movies and Aliens were better.
Of course it’s arrogant. I’m incredibly arrogant. Have you noticed nothing I’ve posted on this board ever? Modestly is most certainly not my forte. However, I also happen to think I’m right.
It wasn’t criticism–it was a comment. I’m not engaging in a blindingly insightful review, just saying, “Um, it really wasn’t all *that *awesome.”
I’d disagree, but then I remember that someone in the Pit posted a thread about something along the lines of Fox News now being the most trusted information source in the U.S. But “he’s playing to the lowest common denominator” isn’t a particularly sterling argument in favor of “this film is an amazing masterpiece.”
The question isn’t whether the movie was successful or whether the story was “good enough.” Clearly, it was. We’re just talking about whether is the complete pants-spooging orgasm of originality and creativity that some people are claiming it as.
“Unadjusted” was my response to your statement, as in “Unadjusted, Avatar is indeed the highest grossing film of all time.” (but adjusted, it has a ways to go.)
Nobody’s denying the achievement, but having a frame of reference (not only accounting for general inflation, but the specifically inflated ticket prices of this particular movie relative to average ticket prices) doesn’t hurt.
There’s no “real” way to compare films across the decades. Gross receipts is the current way of measuring the performance of a film, imperfections and all. By any measure, regardless of adjustment, Avatar is an unqualified success as a business endeavor, especially for something that had the distinct stink of waterworld about it and made the execs nervous. Rather, it has become a new original franchise with sequels that will cost far less than the original due to the technology developed in the first. This is a great success.
The real amazing thing is the shallow slope of the gate decline- I’ve been watching this handygoogle doc every once in a while (can’t recall if it was already linked here), and it is striking how much business Avatar is retaining from week to week. It may be impossible to compare Titanic to Avatar, but both have been massive hits and Avatar is clearly continuing to leg it out. The Oscars, if kind, could even spike things up for a few weekends.
Because it doesn’t. People are doing this to be assholes toward a movie they don’t like and because they don’t understand WHY it’s so popular, so they have to discount the money it’s made somehow. We saw it with Titanic, we saw it with The Dark Knight, we saw it with Return of the King, we see it with Avatar.
Comparing this movie’s money with Transformers is a good example of just not getting how loved this movie is, and why. They have very little in common except for special effects.
Seems there’s sensible arguments both for and against adjusting for the increased price.
On the one hand, if you use box office cash as an indirect measure of popularity, then different ticket prices for different movies skew the tally. If 100 people go to see a $10 movie and only 75 people go to see a $15 movie, the $15 movie will be viewed as more popular. I think it’s reasonable to say that’s not right.
On the other hand, if you use cash as a measure of financial success, which, you know, duh, then it doesn’t matter how many people have gone to see it. If you price tickets for a movie at $3 billion each, you only need one taker. Basic economics says that the higher the price point for something, the lower the demand, and you need to figure out what price point maximizes revenue. If 100 people will see a movie for $10 but only 75 will see it for $12, you lose potential revenue by setting it at $12. But despite Avatar’s higher average price point, a hell of a lot of people still went to see it, enough to push revenue way over the previous record.
I think it’s safe to say that Avatar is popular enough that the increased ticket prices haven’t put people off seeing it.
I think it hinges on whether you’re asking how popular a movie is, or how successful it is. How successful a movie is is clearly measured in dollars. OK, you maybe have to factor in inflation, but if all those millions of people are still willing to see Avatar despite it costing more than other contemporary movies, then that counts for something, too. If I can sell movie tickets for $15 a piece instead of $10 a piece, then my movie is more successful.
Then again, if you want to compare how popular movies are, I think that number of tickets sold is probably the closest there is to a fair measure, and by that standard, it’s still well behind Gone with the Wind.
My in-their-70s parents, who eyerolled their way through all the Star Wars films when my brother and I were little, went and saw Avatar when they heard me say I liked it. And they liked it, too.
While I’m gonna have to recalibrate my brain on that one, believe me when I say that makes this film about as mainstream as a sci-fi film will ever be.
Amusingly, my mom mentioned it during her church group, and had to endure a long rant from another lady about how much it “Bush-bashed”.
She told me: “I told them ‘Well, I thought it was a good movie.’ but [other lady] didn’t know what she was talking about; it was political, but not Bush-bashing. [Other lady] probably just heard that from some tv person, anyway.”
If she knew how to, I’d have her come to the Dope, since she’s suffering through the same flamewars at her church group. Alas, my parents can’t even figure out how to reset their screensaver after my 7yo nephew reconfigured it.
