Weekend Box Office by Klady – Big X-Mas
To start, Klady’s Avatar estimate is $1.3m off what the studio is touting and $2.8m lower than WB on Sherlock Holmes. Okay. We’ll see where it goes in the finals.
What’s really remarkable about the weekend’s record box office is that you have to go all the way down to #8 on the “biggest weekend ever” list to find a #2 film as big as Sherlock Holmes or a #1 as small as Avatar. On top of that, you have a $49.9m estimate on A&TC: The Squeakquel, which is another Christmas record breaker and the #7 December opening of all time. This was, unusually, a success of an array of titles, not one mega-number driving the weekend to a record.
Klady’s estimate has Avatar $1.5 million behind The Dark Knight‘s #1 Second Weekend gross off all time. And it’s just ahead of Shrek 2, which in its second weekend was the box office leader of the aforementioned #8 Best Weekend ever, followed by newcomer The Day After Tomorrow, which opened about $6 million bigger than Holmes. (Note again: December openings are different. By estimate, Sherlock’s launch is the #5 Dec open of all time and the #1 Christmas opening by a margin of almost 30 million bucks. No small success.)
The huge difference between this weekend and that Shrek 2/Day After Tomorrow weekend is that #3 movie. For that 2004 weekend, #3 was Troy’s 3rd weekend with a $12m take. Even this weekend’s #4 movie, It’s Complicated, doubled that.
The riches of this weekend are myriad. As noted above, this is the biggest 1-5 punch ever. Avatar, Sherlock, and Munks2 are now the #2, #5, and #7 openings in December history. The previous best, by the measure, was #1, #10, and #11 in 2007.
There is some down side…
2.5x the Friday start of Sherlock Holmes has to be a little disappointing, in light of a great number overall for the film. Does it mean anything in terms of word of mouth? Probably not. It was, I think, the intense must-see that made the opening day number bigger than proportional to the other 2 days, not a decreasing audience over a 3-day.
The “awards movies” were not sensational. $11.5m for Up In The Air on 1895 screens is okay, but no world beater. (it is, however, almost as much as the entire gross of The Hurt Locker.) Nine, on 1412 screens, is close to a wipeout with $5.4m. Invictus is looking like a $35m – $40m total domestic grosser. And Precious is now in the under-$1m a week category, looking like it will settle in at about $45m domestic. And in smaller openings, Crazy Heart did $13,170 per on 12, which is nothing special. Nor is A Single Man‘s $7130 per on 46.
Of course, Avatar is now looking like the awards movie to beat. It had the #26 domestic opening of all-time. It was the #26 Day Four grosser as well. Day Five, #23. Day Six, #22. Day Seven, #21. Day Eight, #16. Day Nine, #11. Day Ten, by estimate, #9. Who knows where it will be by this time next week?
Awesome to see Avatar ahead of Holmes.
That is decisive. Even if 3D is 50% of the sales, can it cover an 11Mil spread?
Owned. Just as expected.
Awesome.
$1B worldwide for Avatar. Dave called it, stood by it, defended it, rationalized it, and when all the shillings are counted, Cameron will be the only diredtor in history to have crossed the billion dollar mark twice. And in what is the most extraordinary thing about that fact, with tow totally unrelated movies, no sequel or prequel, just pure popular entertainment that was well done. That’s what Dave saw, plain and simple.
Gotta include the run of The Blind Side as another phenomenal story. Up in its 5th week, a true surprise blockbuster, (and not because of Sarah Palin), its like Avatar in a blue football uniform, really pleasing the crowds.
And to those New Moon lovers who decided that they would shit over Avatars opening weekend numbers, they should know better, how you start is never as important as where you finish. James Cameron has now proved that twice.
Kind of breaks my heart that more kids are into “Squeakquel” than “Princess and the Frog,” but whatever.
And I was driving by the Laugh Factory last week – did anyone else know that a film directed by and starring Tim Allen comes out next week from Freestyle (“Crazy on the Outside”)? I think what’s most interesting to me is that it’s a comedy about a guy who gets out of prison after three years and has to re-adjust to life with his family, something Allen has a unique window into, of course, but isn’t something he’s really addressed in his comedy before.
May try and see it. Kind of look at him differently following “Redbelt.”
Around 2000 of the minus 3500 theaters that Avatar inhabits are offering 3D. That said, Gross > Tickets Sold. Poland has said as much for years, and it holds just as true today than ever. The fact that Avatar is playing in less than 3500 theaters, and not breaking the 4000 barrier, makes this gross just as impressive.
The sky is the limit, bulldog. Give Fox and Cameron some credit too. They must have known what they had all along. And it all makes sense. Avatar is an audience movie. More than just an “event” movie. It builds on itself. and it will continue to build.
The only director to have crossed the billion mark twice is a wrong way look to it though. It’s a great ego booster and a good headline but it’s too incomplete (& innacurate) a summary.
Still, awesome.
I think AVATAR has a shot at hitting $1 billion overseas (not worldwide). It’d be the only film other than TITANIC to do it. Conservatively, though, it looks very possible that not only will it gross $1 billion WW, it’ll pass both TDK and ROTK to place #2 on the all-time WW list.
Its an ego centric statement for sure Gonzo, but I don’t see whats inaccurate about it. I’m not going on the adjusted for inflation, and any other permutations, this is the way the industry chooses to report, and of of now, its Cameron, Jackson, Verbinski and Nolan in that exclusive club.
I’ve always maintained that people who quote adjusted numbers could never say that Gone With the Wind would have made the same amount of money had it been release today, or even Titanic for that matter. The numbers are what they are.
That being said, I do agree that Fox played this one just right, and maybe might not have achieved the same result had they stayed in the summer. While Sherlock looked liked a winner, it was not the end-of-year type of event film that the Rings trilogy was. Avatar had a great window and room to play. Summer had lots of competition. Well played Fox, well played.
I’m not sure why people are saying “Invictus” is a disapointment. It’s going to do better than Clint’s WWII flicks, and in the range of “Changeling.” Given the subject matter, that seems appropriate.
Hats off to the biggest grossing year in Hollywood history.
Great year for Warner Bros., Summit and Fox. Decent year for Paramount, Sony and most of the other mid-majors. Bad year for Disney, Universal, and dependents.
80 million budget for “It’s Complicated??” Really?
Bulldog, I agree that the statement is completely earned. And I’m not the type to constantly quote adjusted bo figures, although I do think they are useful for providing context because they give an idea of how many tickets were actually sold, especially as a measure of ultimate all-tme success (which is what you are doing here).
Again, bravo Cameron but a billion dollars is still just an (arbitrary – if only because it’s value changes every decade) mark.
And is .99999 billion that much different? I think you sort of see what I mean (that’s what I meant by headliney thinking – weak journalists tend to think it discrete numbers rather than continuously). I am sorry if I come off a party pooper here – honestly I am very very impressed by what Cameron had done.
That said, as stated above, I do think you entire take on why adjusted figirues should always be looked at is off. It has nothing to do with how a certain movie would have performed under different circumstances and tastes (not just because it’s unfair but because that same movie would have been inevitably been done differently too thought that it’s not it either). Rather, it’s because when you take each movie in it’s own time period it exists in a different universe population wise and culture wise (I’m sure it’s something you realize equally well).
Long live Avatar. I can’t wait to see all of the responses from other directors (both good and bad).
All in all Gonzo, I think the adjusted figures argument is an unwinable one, because no one can know what would have happened if…..
If Titanic had to face a Rings movie a week or two after, what would have happened? What if it had to battle with a New Moon for that female demo?
And as for competition, in this age of not only other movies, but other mediums, its a given that less people are hitting the multiplex these years because they have so many other options, and it isn’t one big thing as some people like to harp on i.e. some random VG release, or leaked unfinished print, its everything combined that has driven box office attendance downward.
This year ironically will see a spike, and because of the above, its a testament to the movies that do succeed phenomenally. Blind Sides, New Moons, Avatars, et al, successfully made their argument that you should leave the comfort of your home, with all the distractions that did not exist 50 years, hell 10 years ago. People are now more nonchalant than ever. Everyone has that ‘been there-seen that-whatever” attitude, which is why ‘event movies’ are getting harder and harder to create. And everyone is a movie marketeer now, no one wants to be sold to.
I can see where amount of tickets sold can be applicable, but it must be taken in the context of the era in which it was sold, and not be held as some sort of litmus test as to the successes/failures of this eras flicks.
Ouch for Nine. I know the reviews weren’t stellar, but given the pedigree and amount of advertising I saw for it, I figured it would do at least double what it did. Not a Merry Christmas for the Weinsteins.
Gonzo, I’m not so sure how Avatar will hold up 20 years from now. The reason Star Wars IV held up was because of the characters, not the production, which is dated. Avatar is all production, and it’ll be surpassed within 5 years easily. Ultimately, I think it will be a technological footnote.
The real issue about its influence will be, since the studios were already focusing solely on tentpoles, how much of their slates will they demand to be shot in 3D? And, as 3D is digital, how badly will this affect Kodak’s ability to maintain celluloid as a profitable enterprise? There will be a tipping point when Kodak either has to fold shop on film or drastically cut back its production — thus forcing filmmakers who still want to shoot film to shoot digital instead.
This “all production” thing is a load of shit created by critical types who don’t like that the film is a box office phenom.
I’m not saying it works better than The Dark Knight… or even as well. It surely is flawed. But stuff like Cinematical doing, “Does Avatar mean the end of story” is just masturbatory crap of epic myopia.
As for the film thing… has nothing to do with 3D. Celluloid is dying, with or without effects.
Just the other day, Roger Deakins said that True Grit would probably be the last Coens Bros film to be shot on celluloid. It’s not because they are doing a lot of CG.
Remember when people wanted to keep editing on film? No more. Film projection is on the way out. Shooting on film is next. For better or for worse.
This is what happens, if King Kong succeeds. That’s all. I am shocked that people really turned on RDJr like that, but the people obviously prefer him in a suit of armour. Which should lead to grosses that make Avatar’s money seem trite. Nevertheless, I admit that I am wrong, but it still pisses me off. It would have been nice to have a Sherlock Holmes franchise. Fucking Furry Sex took it right out at the knees.
Wikipedia: On January 13, 2004, Kodak announced it would stop marketing traditional film cameras (excluding disposable cameras) in the United States, Canada and Western Europe, but will continue to sell film cameras in India, Latin America, Eastern Europe and China.
Kodak has been here before and knows what the future holds.
I’m loving that TWC’s Nine campaign came up short. I caught up on my ABC soaps (what of it?) the last couple of days, and the incredibly forced ways (as part of their promo deal with ABC) they tried to work the film into the actual dialogue of the shows was incredibly obnoxious at worst, embarrassing at best. Did TWC really think that soap viewers hearing their characters talk about what a great film Nine is supposed to be would really make them drop everything and buy a ticket? I’m sure most would’ve thought like I did–that the plugs were incredibly forced, obnoxious, out-of-place, and made the shows play like a Taster’s Choice commercial for a minute.
What about European and other world cinema? Will it to bail on film? Seems to me that most Euro films are still, mostly, shot on film. Kinda sad if that comes to pas.
IIRC, didn’t O BROTHER have some digital enhancement to every shot/frame? Or so I read tthe time of its release.
Dave-
You didn’t accurately respond to a single point I made.
1) Avatar is all production. Nobody’s discussing the great story or characters — they’re discussing the “experience”, which means production and 3D projection. I said Star Wars remained popular because of its characters — Avatar doesn’t have any memorable characters, and it will easily be technologically passed. (PS- I didn’t like The Dark Knight either, but it had great characters — and as soon as I saw it I told you Ledger would win the Oscar, and you told me it was too soon to make that judgement.)
2) The reason movies are going to be shot digitally has nothing to do with artistic choice. The Coens don’t even like digital — they’ve said so. The reason filmmakers will start shooting digital is because of industry movement. My point is that at some point in the near future, based on a confluence of reasons, Kodak will have to shut down or scale back its operations — forcing filmmakers who still want to shoot film to shoot digitally. And I’m questioning whether the studio rush to create more 3D product will contribute to that.
O Brother was the first fully digitally color-timed motion picture. But it was still shot on film.
Avatar succeeding is fucking confounding to me, but Neytiri is a memorable character. She’s it, but that’s better nothing!
I think you could say 2001 was “all production.” I haven’t seen Avatar yet so I’m doubting it’s any 2001, but those productions can still have a shelf life.
Speaking of digital, I just saw Get Smart. Damn, if they’re going to shoot in HD they should at least learn how to use it. I couldn’t believe how blurry and smaeary and ghosty that whole movie was. Buy some lights and use the correct shutter speed, fuckers!
2001 innovated at every level of filmmaking — narrative, conceptual, FX, cinematography, I’d even argue the use of actors as well. That’s why it’s regarded among the greatest movies ever made on international polls. And, IMO, the greatest movie ever made.
bulldog, you are the one adding the “what if” scenarios to the equation and then saying than it doesn’t work. And for everything else you are returning to what I already know (read: we are in agreement here).
Yes, box office adjustuing is flawed (everything is) but it does have it’s place and it should not be ignored. Let’s not spend another five paragraphs outlining just how and in what ways it is flawed – we both get it.
Also, I’m in complete agreement with DP. Enough with that “all production” crap. Avatar is an increadibly reactionary film. It’s a combination of so many different things that I’ve lost count after the second dozen (note to Tarantino: THIS is how you steal). But the movie works and it works fucking great. You can try downplaying it all you want but “Avatar” will stand the test of time.
Anyone here is dumb enough to argue that anyone will remember “Sherlock Holmes” twenty years from now? You know what I mean by remember.
mutiny.
1. The fuck “Avatar” doesn’t have memorable characters. The. Fuck.
And I know film’s weak points better than most people here but I’d be lying if I didn’t have a great time. Did you?
2. Nobody argues at that point at large. Though that that ignores those filmmakers who do love 3D and actually do choose it primarily not because of money but because of the possibilities that it opens. And you know what, I think people film be shooting on film decades from now anyway. It will not go away completely and may even make a comeback. Ever heard of vinyl?
Also, I bet that even Coens chose to shoot “Burn After Reading” on digital because they wanted to play around with Red.
Maybe so, but that doesn’t negate the fact that “all production” types of movies can last. Maybe in 20 years people will still dig the look, robots, monsters, and action of Avatar.
Russ Myers created some of the greatest characters of all time, but aside from cineastes, who watches his flicks?
Burn After Reading was shot on Kodak 500T. What the fuck are you talking about?
And no, I didn’t have a great time at Avatar. I thought it was boring and I didn’t care for the visuals. Only thing I liked was the final battle.
And my 3D cherry was popped by U2-3D. That was much more interesting to me.
“Avatar succeeding is fucking confounding to me”.
I still dont get what is confounding you IOIOIO, and am still yet to decipher why you chose this flick to prophecy doom on when all the signs pointed to if not a phenomenal run, at least a good one. Time of year/ successful director/ good reviews/ event feel/ pre-release build-up / and the bonus of 3D for long playability.
I still stand surprised that New Moon opened that big, and despite its freefall, its eventual gross is still beyond what I would’ve predicted, but Avatar was poised for big number, it was just how big is the argument. Persons who were comparing this to King Kong were flat out crazy. Rings was always the best comparison and its playing out that way….and then some.
EthanG said: “80 million budget for “It’s Complicated??” Really?”
Apparently they bought a lot of fruit.
Oh, and thereason
The Holiday cost more than 100 million.
IO:
There’s still going to be a Sherlock franchise. You’re getting worked up over nothing.
IOIOIOIO, I don’t get why you are so pissed – this was a very strong opening for Sherlock, about as much as they could have expected.
Like I said on the previous blog, it will likely head towards $175 million, bigger than any Bond film, and likely big enough to start a franchise. Make no mistake, this is a franchise – Downey has said as so, Silver has said as so – overseas, it will clean up even more and Warners will make more.
And I don’t know how any one is spinning the Up in the Air opening as disappointing – it had the typical Clooney opening against the toughest competition ever in the biggest weekend in history. I would say that’s a win – I can easily see it doing $60 or $70 million, which would put it above all other Clooney films of the past five years, except for Oceans.
And these kudo’s to Hollywood for an uptick and biggest year ever? Kudo’s, indeed – this was the strongest year since 2003. So many fantastic films and so many strong entertainments. Even not a bad year for docs, though nothing on the level of Man on Wire or Grizzly Man from recent years – the other night, I did an On Demand double feature with my wife with Food, Inc. and The Cove. Both were beautifully shot, compelling, and clocked it in just 90 minutes each.
Although, I have to say surprisingly, I enjoyed Food, Inc. more even though I was actually hyped for The Cove. The Cove was extremely preachy and one-sided in a way that even most Michael Moore docs don’t approached. I enjoyed it – just fantastic photography, genuine suspense – but wow, I just had to wince at times at some of the Japan-bashing. I can see why it was banned in that country.
1. I read it was shot on RED. My bad. No matter.
2. Sucks for you, you missed a great film. And, no offense but you kind of invited that reaction, anyone ever told you ever pretentious? Popped my 3D cherry?
But hey, at least you got something out of that battle.
lol…Im amazed Meyers keeps getting these enormous budgets. Unless Im wrong, “It’s Complicated” has the highest budget of and Meryl Streep movie ever. Wtf??
Also, you seriously have to wonder if the execs over at Universal have their heads screwed on straight. Their next release, “Leap Year,” is the biggest direct competition for Meyers’s film until a month from now. Good job.
Also IO, they are going to blaze full speed ahead with a Holmes franchise. 65 million is a fantastic weekend, and the movie is designed to be the first in a franchise.
Gonzo, you could take any random 5-minute chunk from Apocalypse Now, play it on repeat for 3 hours, and I’d probably find that more interesting than Avatar.
You can’t miss a great movie if you didn’t think it was one…
“You can’t miss a great movie if you didn’t think it was one…”
I’m sorry but would you care to translate that bushism?
You said I missed a great movie.
So, obviously, if I didn’t think it was great, then I didn’t miss anything.
It’s not that complex.
So now we know somebody’s still making money in this town. Maybe they won’t need to lay off so many people anymore.
IO’s got that nerd mentality…if one movie didn’t WIN then it has FAILED. Holmes is big. I still can’t believe people were underestimating it.
Avatar is the sort-of surprise to me. Not that I expected it to do poorly, but I had no clue if people were interested in that one or not. I had no sense of buzz on it.
No, it’s a sports mentality, and I still have come across little buzz for Avatar. This leads me to believe that Avatar has one whacky demographic. Someone pull some demos!
That aside, Holmes failed like Watchmen failed. It had a whole fucking year, and it gets that result? Really?
Unless the fucker some how pulls 200m. What’s the point? It’s not like TDK second films happen all the time. It’s done. Put a fork in it. It’s done.
If Warners wants to waste it’s money on meddling results, then they should just make a lame Harry Potter rip-off film. That’s the best way to waste money these days! I am looking at you right now Percy Jackson.
Avatar is already at over $600 million worldwide, i aint a money tracking expert but this has 2 be some type of record.
Yeah, I think $600 million counts as “buzz.”
IO, you are just so stupid. There is no nuance to any of your thinking. You’re like a retarded robot.
Sequels have been made to other movies that have made less money. It’s a good opening. You’re just whiny because it didn’t beat your whipping boy.
The funny thing is that IO is wrong about Sherlock as well. This was a GREAT number for them.
It has struck me in recent days that I still approach box office as 80% math and history and 20% emotion. It seems that most people on the web – obviously, IO included – flips that… 80% emotion and 20% math & history.
And Mutiny… I will address your first thing in depth later tonight.
As for the rush to digital… again… no… 3D is irrelevant… Avatar is irrelevant… it has nothing to do with studios thinking “it’s the thing to do.”
The biggest money makers have a heavy lean to CG, which is easier to deal with in an all-digital environment. The smallest money makers seem to find digital easier, even though many indie producers feel you can do the same films for the same money using celluloid. The middle is shrinking.
I have to say I truly enjoyed Sherlock Holmes. Very entertaining movie. So if it is lucky enough to have a sequel any guesses here on who could be Moriarty? I am thinking Gerard Butler or Russell Crowe? any thoughts on this? I know it is early to speculate but what the hell.
Dave-
We’re in agreement, mostly, on #2. The thing is, most blockbusters still shoot on celluloid, even though the FX is obviously digital. TDK, Harry Potter, ROTFL, Indy, etc. That said, digital 3D is, well, digital. And if the studios push for more 3D, then that’s fewer large productions shot on celluloid. Therefore, Kodak will start getting hit at the top just like it’s been hit at the bottom.
You can say everything’s been moving digital for years. But along that route, there are certain events that further the movement. And I’m simply suggesting the move toward 3D is significant now.
With every post, IO gets deeper into his own delusions. “That aside, Holmes failed like Watchmen failed. It had a whole fucking year, and it gets that result? Really? ”
REALLY.
Holmes has the 5th biggest opening weekend in December, 4th if not for last weeks Avatar, it came in above TTT, no CGI monster or fanboy base, no blockbuster director or proven box office star, and dont say RDJ, cause outside of Ironman, he hasn’t been proven yet, and they get this to $65M, and you’re disappointed? I wonder what you’re smoking?
And you liken this opening to WATCHMEN? Again, what are you smoking? Watchmen was supposed to be the ultimate fanboys wetdream, Elvis alive again, Jesus walking on water, the missing fucking link. Instead it premature ejaculated with a blue penis, and left limp and and impotent. Sherlock at $150M is a success, at $175M is a celebration, and at $200M+ is a blockbuster. Because it opened below Avatar is absolutely no indication of “failure”.
Both Sherlock screens pretty much sold out tonight (Dublin, Ireland). But while it was well made and had some moments, I never got the sense from the audience around me that they were buzzing with it, reacting to it. Nevertheless, with those opening numbers I don’t doubt they have a franchise. But I do think they will have to work a lot harder on the sequel to get people to the point where they actually enjoy it.
Dave your Avatar coverage has been all emotion. With movies you like (POTC: Dead Man’s Chest, Avatar) we get daily updates on its box office. With a true phenom like TDK, all we get is one article calling the people who said it may approach Titanic’s domestic gross fools. We didn’t get daily updates when TDK was smashing records. Avatar isn’t really even breaking any records, just showing remarkable legs. I love following box office, I am in awe of what Avatar is doing, but you’re cheerleading.
Well, Poland’s self-admitted 20% is just representing itself then. And we’re better for it, because Avatar is an interesting as hell Box Office story.
TDK was simply a fluke for him, and as an event. Even the grandest of estimates for TDK were only hovering around $500 million WW before release (like, er, mine).
Just found out that while TDK wasn’t a big Box Office success in Japan, it did become the #2 Blu-Ray over there in 2009. tooot toooooot!
Thanks Monco. Those are the facts, David. Deny them all you want, but that’s WHO YOU ARE! You are 90% emotion and 10% Math and History. How people like Perm give me shit while letting you slide, is fucking ridiculous.
Perm, that’s a bad number. I could give a crap for where it stands all time. It’s bad number in terms of the entire YEAR this film had of lead time. It just sucks. David can think it’s great, I know other franchises have been built on less, but for what they wanted it to be. It came up short. A retarded robot? This coming from a douche like you has to be some sort of compliment.
Bulldog, what the fuck are you on about? It’s an apt comparison. The second biggest film in history has your trailer, and that’s the best you can do? Really? Holmes had a fucking year, and that’s the best it could do. If they are happy, then it’s their money to waste. I just think it’s foolish to herald that number as something grand when it’s not. It sucks, they failed, and now Warners should move on to something else. This fish just don’t hunt.
Well, Avatar has had ten years so by your dumb stupid idiotic foolish retard logic, no wonder it won.
Do you post on AICN? You seem like a perfect fit for over there.
Perm, you post no better than a talkbacker. Why you got it in your head that you are better than me, is once again absolutely amazing. You are a fucking dipshit, who thinks I am a dipshit, but really you are the dipshit. Really, your idiocy is astounding, and go see Avatar. How can you discuss film when your poor white trash ass does not go and see them? Here’s one middle finger for you, here’s to middle fingers for you, and here’s an Ethan Hawke goatee for you. If only you could be in an episode of Spooning with Spoony.
It’s sort of like big Yenta Poland believing he’s better than anyone. Seriously, he’s as emotional as they come, and his hate-on towards Finke is just embarrassing. Who cares if she’s a self-serving liar. She’s doing her thing, it’s her thing, and it does not effect your thing. You dig?
The second biggest film in history has your trailer, and that’s the best you can do?
The first Holmes trailer came out this past May, and TDK came out ten months before that… So… Umm…
?
Reminds me of the shortened trailers Fox gave Fight Club & The Beach before Phantom Menace. Placement isn’t the whole game.
As a matter of fact IOIOIO does post on AICN. His other nicknames are BSB and Merrick. He’s also the guy who shouts “first!” inside his own articles.
And there’s nothing more pathetic than an idiot commenting on a film’s perfomance, downplaying it at first, then showing suprise and finally coming up with retroactive excuses for how what actually happened could not possible have happened.
And what’s even sadder is that the guy still doesn’t understand “Avatar’s” trajectory.
Heck, I didn’t have to looooooove TDK to understand it’s appeal. And I didn’t need “daily updates” because, after a while, they would have been redundant.
IOIOIO, you just don’t get it, do you?
“It has struck me in recent days that I still approach box office as 80% math and history and 20% emotion. It seems that most people on the web – obviously, IO included – flips that… 80% emotion and 20% math & history.”
I’m assuming the recent ACC/GI Joe difference and the more recent Princess/Alvin 2 difference were part of the 20%? All in all though, great call on “Avatar,” though I think that was a lot of emotion too. I still have a hard time QUITE believing it gets past Tranny2 domestic..$375 million seems realisitic. But really who knows.
IO, read your last post and reflect. If you do not see the idiocy, then you are truly an idiot.
Also, not the second biggest film in history. Get over it.
I believe IO is referring to Watchmen’s trailer attached to TDK, but sorry, trailer placement doesn’t mean anything. I saw TDK three times in theaters and these are the three WB movies who had trailers attached to it:
Watchmen
Terminator Salvation
Body of Lies
Watchman is the only one of those that actually had a truly strong opening and $55 million for that film was the high-end of what any one could have expected, sorry. The legs (or lack thereof) are what killed it.
As for Sherlock, Box Office Prophets said it cost only $80 million? If so, that’s very impressive and there’s no doubt about upcoming sequels. It could easily make $450 million worldwide on a $80 million budget, which would almost make it as profitable as The Hangover or even The Blind Side – Warners would be foolish not to make a sequel.
Perm, again, you are a fucking moron. The only one disputing these facts are you. You are vulgar, you have wished death on me and my family, and you continue to add nothing. Why? YOU DO NOT GO AND SEE MOVIES. YOU SIMPLY YELL AT ME, INSULT ME, AND ACT AS IF THAT’S WHY YOU POST HERE.
Now go let the other dude who post under your account respond to me in order to give me a chance to yell at both of you. Again, you add nothing. Never have, never will, but apparently David hates me enough to let people who threaten me with PHYSICAL VIOLENCE to stay on this forum. I guess I should start threatening Poland the way Perm threatens me, and that might change shit around here. If only I were as dumb and heartless as Perm. I could make that plan happen.
Gonzo, who the fuck are you again? Oh you are an AVATARD. Wow. That sums you up a great deal. Bugger off.
Geoff, if it cost 80 million, then that’s not that horrible of a number. They simply need to call Nolan up and ask him if he feels like doing a Holmes movie after TDK… RETURNS.
http://chud.com/articles/articles/21969/1/PROJECT-880-THE-AVATAR-THAT-ALMOST-WAS/Page1.html
Pretty sure I was the first one to use the word “Avatard” on here, sarcastically. It’s time I coined another one. A sherlocked watswit.
In other news… paranoid much?
So understand I’m late to the party, but I finally caught up with Avatar today, and it’s pretty much everything everyone is saying it is – which is to say, both completely stupid and completely awesome. Went with my Dad, who correctly stated that by the last scene he half expected Ewoks and Princess Leia to show up (he also picked out bits and pieces of about nine other movies in it).
The eco-babble and attempts at political profundity in Cameron’s script are adorable and hilarious, even more so when you realize the guy really does think he’s actually saying something. Did I really hear a character use the phrase “shock and awe” in there? I could’ve sworn I overheard at least two conversations walking out in which people were actually pontificating about all of the bullshit in there as if they’d just read Tolstoy or something. Jesus.
But needless to say, he really does kick the shit out of those action scenes, so much so that the uselessness of so much of the story is rendered irrelevant. Why does Michele Rodriguez change her stripes with pretty much zero provocation? Why does Sully get to ride that big red dragon thing when he’s already got his own dragon thing?
Lastly, and most importantly, isn’t it heartwarming that Wes Studi is still getting work in the token Native American parts even when he’s a special effect?
Fuck it, who cares when shit is blowing up so good?
I love it. Just a great time at the movies.
Oh, please. I wrote endlessly about The Dark Knight… at least, it seemed endless. Looking in the archive, I count 11 entries, aside from the regular Saturday and Sunday box office stuff, about the film… about half on the box office.
Obviously, I didn’t see the number coming. But when it came, I acknowledged it and I offered perspective. Can you guys get over it, ever?
I have spoken to “a true phenom like TDK” or a true phenomenon like Avatar. Not culture changers… either one.
That said, TDK’s numbers, while impressive, were completely in line with the massive success of the Batman series’ openings, the only exceptions being &Robin and Begins.
Avatar, on the other hand, is an original with no built-in audience. And these numbers are outdoing, in some ways, every one of the Rings movies, which are the appropriate comparisons, not summer movies.
I did exactly the same thing on TDK that I did on Avatar… I listed the likely scenarios, based on history, before hand and suggested people not expect too much. In the case of TDK, I was positioned – falsely – as a basher. I liked the movie… and didn’t think it was the second coming… like Avatar. Also like Avatar, it had visuals that were unlike what we had seen before, which was part of the phenomenon. Unlike Avatar, it had a performance that was truly memorable, by Ledger.
Of course, I said from early on that Avatar would be the 2nd highest grossing film of all time. And I did not on TDK. So boxed in, I would be. And indeed, I expect TDK will become the 5th highest grossing film worldwide sometime near the end of January… maybe sooner.
This explanation is for people people other than IO, who might not be myopic to the point of insanity. Sherlock Holmes did about as big a number as any sane person could have ever expected… an actual record breaker. But no, it’s not Dark Knight II. Duh. It may well outgross Iron Man worldwide. But I guess that’s not good enough. Crazy.
“This is what happens, if King Kong succeeds.”
Firstly, what the hell is up with that grammer, IO? Secondly, what the hell does that even mean?
Your thinking on Sherlock Holmes is what’s “wacky” not the demos on Avatar. A huge opening against massive competition and you’re still not happy? As everyone else and their blind dog can tell you, this movie will make bank and will do so overseas even more. It’s a hit and a sequel will not be a waste of money (unless they maybe decide to release it during summer, which would be a mistake).
In regards to Nine, I think it’s impossible to portray its performance as anything other than incredibly disappointing, but does anyone know what’s going on with the international release (did TWC pull a Basterds? How much did they sell it for etc?) Because I can imagine this movie becoming very popular on the international scene where the idea of “movie stars” still exists and they can pull in massive dollars. Remember when Brad Pitt was still able to make huge international hits out of domestic disappointments?
I sincerely doubt “Sherlock Holmes” cost the same amount as “It’s Complicated,” though that’s a hilarious thought.
Keep in mind of the top 10 December openings, the low point was 218 million with “Kong.” So Sherlock can be expected to do at least that level, having opened with 15 million more…so $250 million domestic is very, very realistic.
Dave, seriously, with regards to Sherlock Holmes – what did you hear its budget to be?
Because having seen the film, I could certainly see that, but I can also see it costing $150 million – it’s hard to believe that Joel Silver could try to launch a new franchise without spending at least $100 million.
If that $80 million number is accurate, wow – this franchise can almost be as profitable as Harry Potter for Warners.
David, come on now. Come on. Monco pegged you. Stop trying to act as if you are above anyone. It’s sad when people who have given me shit, point out the obvious about you, and you refuse to see it. The sooner you realize that much of the douchieness around here starts with you because you are the biggest douche on this board. The better off we will all be.
You are also high in believing Holmes will out perform IM2 internationally. Seriously, where is Holmes supposed to find all of this money with AVATAR out there? Come now, David. Come now.
Camel, it will barely hit 2.5 opening. The fucking Chipmunks will probably take it out next week, and it will keep sliding from there. If it only cost 80m. Wow. It’s cheap. Does it’s cheapness and overseas money really guarantee anything? I doubt it, but strange things can happen. I simply do not see how you can spin this opening as anything other than a disaster in terms of LONG TERM MORIARTY SEQUEL PLANNING. If I am a wrong. I am wrong. Luckily I am more right than David Poland most of the time, so that’s a good thing.
Ethan, Sherlock would have to do 3.5 times opening to make that much. Do you really see this film holding that well? It’s facing fucking Avatar and fucking Chipmunks. It would be lucky to get to 200m, but 175m seems a bit more likely.
Dave, seriously, with regards to Sherlock Holmes – what did you hear its budget to be?
Because having seen the film, I could certainly see that, but I can also see it costing $150 million – it’s hard to believe that Joel Silver could try to launch a new franchise without spending at least $100 million.
If that $80 million number is accurate, wow – this franchise can almost be as profitable as Harry Potter for Warners.
IOIOIOIO, you are one stubborn man – $175 million for Sherlock Holmes would be a huge win, no questions about it. And that’s the low end of what it will make. Do you realize that in his 30 year career, Robert Downey Jr. never even co-starred in a film that grossed above $100 million before Iron Man? And Jude Law has been absolute box office poison for the past five years. And when the hell did Guy Ritchie make anything that made any kind of real money?
And while we’re at it, when is the last time the name Sherlock Holmes was a box office draw – in the ’40’s????
Warners pulled out all of the stops on marketing this thing and they opened it, that’s all you can ask. It will likely end up being much more profitable for them than Batman Begins, which from what I remember, did launch a huge sequel that I think you might have enjoyed.
Relax, brother, and enjoy…….
Honestly, I have no idea on Holmes’ budget, Geoff. $80 million seems unlikely, unless Downey was primarily a back-end deal. But I don’t think it has to be $150m either.
And no… I don’t think it can be anywhere close to as profitable as Potter for WB.
And not sure why I am answering, but Holmes is a European-based franchise title, so it goes in with an advantage over Iron Man. Maybe it won’t make as much. But it could well make more.
They should put Snoop in the sequel and call it Doggystyle of the Baskervilles.
IO:
Batman Begins opened to 48 million. Sherlock opened to 65.
You are dumb.
“Ethan, Sherlock would have to do 3.5 times opening to make that much. Do you really see this film holding that well? It’s facing fucking Avatar and fucking Chipmunks. It would be lucky to get to 200m, but 175m seems a bit more likely.”
I could see it going there too. I’m just saying based on December history, it has a good shot at 250 million as well. Id think 220 would be the likely number. Chipmunks has a different demo.
The key is there are no new movies opening for 11 days. The larger question is would the fanboys rather see “Sherlock” or keep going to see “Avatar” at this point. Either way I have a hard time seeing this movie Below 140 million domestic by this time next week, if for no other reason than New Years falls on a friday.
This is purely anecdotal…but over Christmas I spoke to several people who wanted to see Avatar in 3d, but said every showing that worked for their schedule was sold out for the near future, so they were going to wait awhile.
LOTR: Return of The King did $68m over the week from post-Christmas Monday through the New Year’s weekend. It looks like Avatar will be closing in on or passing $300m domestic by then, taking in at least $75 million in the same period… that would be a 44% drop for the week.
It’s done $405m international in 10 days, estimating $145m this weekend. Figure at least another $100m in the next week.
So we’re likely looking at Avatar cracking $800 million worldwide in 17 days.
Even dropping 50% a week from that point on, you
I heart mashed potatoes.
David,
do you think there is chance Avatar could top Titanic, either worldwide or just domestically?
I think there’s a slight chance, but I can’t see teenage girls going back to this again and again. That said, Avatar does seem to have tapped into that enormous group of people who rarely go to the movies, by having great word of mouth. It’s a water cooler movie.
David,
do you think there is chance Avatar could top Titanic, either worldwide or just domestically?
I think there’s a slight chance, but I can’t see teenage girls going back to this again and again. That said, Avatar does seem to have tapped into that enormous group of people who rarely go to the movies, by having great word of mouth. It’s a water cooler movie.
David – just a quick note to say that your “conservative” figures may be slightly more accurate than you think.
Historically, December blockbuster releases hit a much larger drop on the weekLY post-new year than the weekEND. For example, for I Am Legend’s first full new year week the weekend take dropped ~43% while the weekly (days 18-24) take dropped ~56%. For Return of the King, the weekend drop was ~49.5% while the weekly (days 18-24) drop was ~65%.
So, historically speaking, the chances of 18-24 drop being over 50% are pretty good, which then would compound down the line.
“You are also high in believing Holmes will out perform IM2 internationally. Seriously, where is Holmes supposed to find all of this money with AVATAR out there? Come now, David. Come now.”
Iron Man made $266 internationally, so it would stand to reason that it will made more, even if it’s just $50mil more like Transformers 2. So, yes, you’re right that Sherlock Holmes probably won’t beat it, but Sherlock Holmes isn’t a sequel to Iron Man. It is a cockney mystery movie starring Downey Jr and so-called box office poison Jude Law so it really shouldn’t be expected to make over $300mil internationally.
However, I would hazard a guess and say that the money for Sherlock will come internationally from the same places it came from in America (ya know, from people who made it gross $65mil against Avatar).
Christ almighty.
Anyway. The average second week % for the top ten movies within the Top Grossing Movies in Their 2nd Weekend at Mojo is 16.25%. And Avatar‘s per screen average is at least $4000 higher than every other title on the list. Is that $4000 worth of 3D? I’m not sure. If someone wants to work those numbers into some tangible maths then feel free…
LYT – That’s the exact same thing I’ve heard. No one seems to be really in love with the movie per say, but with the presentation.
This is probably as close as we’re going to get to how it must have felt when Kong ’33 was released. People went in droves for the spectacle, during the depression, for the escape. 2001 was the next big leap, then Jurassic, now Avatar but with larger exponential.
And while I get gross > tickets, we’re talking 60% of theaters are 3D, with a $3 minimum pad and RealD is accounting for 50% of the sales. How is this not the equivalent of 1 ticket/Holmes = 1.5/Avatar? It’s no longer a comparison between Avatar and TDK, LOTR or whatnot with or without adjustments. Avatar is first in a new category, which is what Cameron intended.
As for cultural-changers, Avatar’s very existence is predicated on it. The amount of 3D conversion, domestic and international, was done based on the movie. I’m with Mutiny on this issue; you’re going to see a huge swing towards 3D for big films that, pre-Avatar, would have shown apprehension. For example, how does Disney/Marvel now not take a second look at Thor for 3D? Worthington claimed WB is considering converting Titans for 3D. Normally, I’d blow that off, but considering his heat from Avatar why wouldn’t they take the gamble now? It may not be an authentic 3D, but what do they care if it spikes a ticket price thereby altering the gross? The screens exists, why not take advantage?
Gee whiz that IO’s a bit of a dick, ain’t he? (and I love him for it. It’s the debater/shit-stirrer in me. Shout out to the G-man while I’m at it 🙂
Here’s a simple factoid film/BO lovers:
Avatar will be a billion-dollar earner when the phenom dust settles back down to Earth from the epic heights of Pandoras floating cliffs (JC says thank you expanding INT. BO/3D). No ifs, ands or buts about it. All time second highest grosser WW? 90% likely. Success Story? Tick. Profitable? Ka-ching! Lining JC’s pockets? Duh. Game changer? I’ll get back to you on that one. Do I personally give a shit? Ha. No 80% emotion here guys. James Cameron gets a congratulatory back-pat from me simply for saying, doing and now watching as his predictions (and hopes and dreams — picture a tear hitting a pond… ripples…) become a reality. Note to snarky media-types: the next time JC has a Spectacular-Spectacular coming down the pipe that costs a mega-humungo-fortune and looks a teeny-bit risky and threatens to change the landscape of cinema as we know it forever more (or for 6 months at least – Inception is on the horizon kids), keep the pen poised and ponder the doomsday, EPIC FAIL guesswork a wee-bit longer (save it for Baz Luhrmann), for the “King of the World” has blown shit out his ass and all over your faces twice now. You may get third-time-lucky but don’t count on it. Cold, stiff, facts.
This is what a friend of mine said to me after he saw the movie: “You know that Armond White guy you told me about that everyone hates and who said Avatar was shitsmear? Add me to the #isatool list.”
A tip Dave:
‘I heart math’ should read ‘I A tip Dave:
‘I heart math’ should read ‘I <3 math'. Get with the lingo my man. Ah, the kids and their computing machines.
You know, I love Avatar as much as any one, but can we REALLY give it so much credit for the 3D explosion? Hadn’t this train already left the station?
Earlier this year, Coraline was goosed by 3D and we can be pretty sure that was the case with Up, as well.
The thing I’m skeptical about is…are there really enough 3D screens to go around? Look at how Christmas Carol had its legs chopped off, which we all knew would happen.
Just seems to me that we’re going to see this happen on a monthly basis, now – Alice in Wonderland will get some big numbers in early March until…..How to Train Your Dragon opens up and eats up grosses until…..Piranha 3D opens up and and then…..Shrek opens up in about a month.
And we’re not even talking all comparable genre’s, here – what I’m asking, is this really a sustainable long-term trend?
Geoff-
Avatar is significant for 3D. Yes, the train had left the station, but as with any movement there needs to be a catalyst, so to speak. And for 3D, it’s Avatar.
Just as sex, lies & videotape was for indies. Or Nevermind was for “alternative.” And so on.
It’s the one that’ll get the credit.
My grandmother’s 25 year old Philipino nanny went to see Avatar yesterday. So, as before, I am so confused it’s not even funny. It simply sounds like everyone just wants to see a 3D spectacle. And this is why I don’t run a studio.
Avatar gets the credit because Cameron was the straw that stirred the 3D drink starting in 2002. A lot of pre-Avatar 3D productions only occurred because he got the theaters to start laying tracks while he prepped. I say “he” even though it was a consortium, but without him it would have never gotten this far.
If Avatar wasn’t such an FX behemoth, it could have been first but with less screens. So it becomes a double-edge sword; does he jump the gun with less optimal viewing or does he let others go and wait for the biggest impact. I’m sure a few pre-Avatar 3D flicks would now love to have come out a year later.
That’s why I think Mutiny’s on point that we’ve crossed the threshold and Dave’s right when he says the middle is gone. The death of mid-tier has been coming for sometime, but now we’ll see an acceleration as 30-70Mil budgets are folded into top-tier 3D blowouts. Bottom-tier dependents will be targeted for cable as TV production costs reach parity and real independents move online. That’s a realignment that can work out for all, until the unions get involved.
Boys & Girls… The “3D Phenomenon”is still fewer than 15 films a year.
This 3D tub thumping is, to my eye, an excuse for not appreciating that people actually like the film… they really, really like the film.
It’s like The Phantom Menace, but with something for the haters to obsess on other than Jar Jar Binks.
If the 3D didn’t matter, people would just go to see it in 2D. Everybody wants to see it in 3D. Because that’s the experience they want to have. Avatar would not be heading toward $1B if it was just a standard celluloid blockbuster. The 3D made it an event experience.
As for Phantom Menace… it’s a piece of shit. How many movies have 70 minute take-down videos on YouTube? Funny thing is, I initially compared Avatar to PM as a negative. But, at least on some level, we agree it’s an accurate comparison.
“This 3D tub thumping is, to my eye, an excuse for not appreciating that people actually like the film… they really, really like the film.”
Actually, it’s like Titanic, but with something for haters to obsess on other than teenage girl repeat viewers.
I wish MCN had been around in 1997/1998 so DP could throw conniption fit after conniption fit over all the MSM nonsense reporting that it was only teenage girl repeat viewers that drove Titanic’s gross up. It’d be like the irate “IT’S NOT A FUCKING SLUMP THIS YEAR!!!” commentary from 2005 all over again. 😀
Seriously, teen girls never drove a movie to 600 million.
Titanic earned 600 million domestic because it was seen extremely widely by basically every single demographic and class in the country, including many who never go to the movies, and seen twice by many who never see a movie twice in theatres in the age of the multiplex.
I would venture that Titanic earned at least 400 million of its gross from first time viewers. and probably 120-150 from second time viewings by non teenage girls. and then the last 80-50 million was repeats by Teenage girls.
I’d love to see DP use math to completely deflate the utterly idiotic and nerd-self-serving myth that Titanic earned all its money off teeange girl repeat viewers.
“Boys & Girls… The “3D Phenomenon”is still fewer than 15 films a year.
This 3D tub thumping is, to my eye, an excuse for not appreciating that people actually like the film… they really, really like the film.”
As far as the future of 3D, “Avatar’s” success will only fuel the conversion of more screens to 3D, and Alice will back that up in March. 3D really has exploded in just the last year or two. Below are yearly grosses for RealD..no I don’t know the % that was 3D, but nearly all of the films have been profitable (JoBros, GForce and Bolt are possible exceptions 🙂
2005- 1 film, 135 million domestic, 314 million WW
2006- 1 film, 74 million dometsic, 140 million ww
2007- 1 film, 82 million domestic, 195 million ww
2008- 4 films, 291 million domestic, 648 million w
2009- 12 films, 1.52 billion dom. and counting, 3.82 bil and counting ww
Overall, 3D films (and yes not 100% of their grosses are 3D) will make up about 14% of the 2009 box office domestically. Last year they made up about 3.5%, and before that less than 1%. That is HUUUUGE. 4 of the top 10 films this year were 3D releases. Clearly studios have found a way to paid their grosses. Will the fad come down the Earth like digital animation did after its heydey a few years ago? Obviously, but it will remain a major force.
In 2010 there are already 13 films firmly on the slate in 3D, with many more such as Jackass 3D rumored. Obviously, there is going to need to be a further increase in screens if theatres except to handle the coming onslaught :
Alice in Wonderland-March 5
How to Train Your Dragon-March 26
Piranha 3D-April 16
Shrek 4-May 21
Toy Story 3-June 18
Despicable Me-July 9
Revenge of Cats and Dogs-July 30
Step Up 3D-August 6
Guardians of Ga’Hoole-Sept 24
Alpha and Omega-Oct 1
Saw 7 3D-October 22
Oobermind-November 5
Rapunzel-November 24
Yogi Bear 3D-Dec 17
Edit: In 2007 there were actually 2 films for 180 million domestic and 364 million WW.
Also, DP there are actually 19 films already on the slate for next year in 3D. Apparently Jackass has a release date of October 15, there is a Kenny Chesney concert film in late April in 3D, and I forgot “Tron “Legacy.”
Err..plus the Friday the 13th 3D film in August and supposedly Hoodwinked 2. Theres your 19. Sorry for the triple post!
See, Dave, people are even posting in quantities of 3 now…
”
2005- 1 film, 135 million domestic, 314 million WW
2006- 1 film, 74 million dometsic, 140 million ww
2007- 1 film, 82 million domestic, 195 million ww
2008- 4 films, 291 million domestic, 648 million w
2009- 12 films, 1.52 billion dom. and counting, 3.82 bil and counting ww
Overall, 3D films (and yes not 100% of their grosses are 3D) will make up about 14% of the 2009 box office domestically. Last year they made up about 3.5%, and before that less than 1%. That is HUUUUGE. ”
The real question is, “is it still math if David Poland doesn’t post it first?”
Mutinyco: “If the 3D didn’t matter, people would just go to see it in 2D. Everybody wants to see it in 3D. Because that’s the experience they want to have. Avatar would not be heading toward $1B if it was just a standard celluloid blockbuster. The 3D made it an event experience.”
I saw it in 2D because 3D is packed and selling out and there wasn’t a convenient 3D showing. And the 2D showings are full. Though everyone want’s to see it in 3D, people are lining up for the 2D showings as well.
That still proves my point. Everybody wants to see it in 3D. 2D is something you settle for. And the only reason it was released in 2D was because there weren’t enough 3D screens.
Mut – Your claim, without benefit of any kind of proof, is what I call Reverse Analysis.
People want to see it in 3D because they are selling 3D. It will sell more tickets internationally, where is is being shown on a much smaller percentage of 3D screens.
I’m not saying that the 3D is not a factor in the marketing and the actual number of dollars. But this spin that “it’s all about the 3D” is a load o’ excrement. The thing movielocke brings up about Titanic is a perfect example. These myths become embedded as The Big Fact when they are a narrow factoid.
And that’s where Avatar lives now. First it was, “they can’t do the numbers they are hoping for.” Then it was, “the grosses are just hopped up on 3D premium pricing.” Now, it’s “everyone hates the story… they just like the visuals and only like then because of the 3D.”
Blech.
As for EthanG’s stats… yes… good numbers. But analysis is a little myopic for me. Just because the industry ramps up on something – primarily on animated films, where it is easy to convert in a CG-produced environment, creating a marketing and ticket-price benefit at almost no risk – doesn’t make it a trend that won’t be limited.
This is going to be a full entry shortly, but of this year
People want to see it in 3D because it was FUCKING CREATED IN 3D!!!!!!!!!!!!!
People want to see it in 3D because 3D is being crowed about and therefore, that seems to be the best experience possible. It’s called marketing call and response.
We haven’t even tipped the scale on the mainstream stories about how it was made. That will start next week.
Ironically, one of the problems they have been lucky to avoid is a “which 3D” hierarchy, mostly because few people really have the option of choosing between formats.
Dave, I agree to an extent on the 3D animated front. Clearly Dreamworks, Fox and Disney deciding to release all of their animated films in 3D probably only increased their grosses by perhaps 10%. But I think there is a trend as the number of live-action 3D films increases from 3 in 2008 (2 of which were concert films), to 5 this year in cluding the mixed G-Force and 9 next year with the mixed Yogi Bear, with 5 already officially on the slate for 2011.
Perhaps it’ll be a passing fad, though outside of the horror genre I suspect not, and perhaps not even there. After all, “My Bloody Valentine” and “Final Destination 4” both ended up highly profitable.
Obviously it’s too early to tell one way or another as the only non animated/concert/horror films released in 3D have been “Avatar,” “Journey to the Center of the Earth” and the disney X-Games doc (people wouldnt care about the X-Games in theatres if it was 4D is my guess). Given “Avatar’s” success and that Journey turned into Brendan Fraser’s biggest non-Mummy hit since 1997, the early signs are encouraging….I think whether or not “Alice” surpasses Charlie and the Chocolate Factory will be a good indicator.
The movie was CREATED in 3D.
That’s its format.
This goes beyond marketing. It’s the artistic format it was created in. The 2D version only exists because there weren’t enough 3D screens.
Yeah, and movies are supposed to be seen in theaters but people have no problem watching them at home, some still on smallish 4:3 tvs. People want to see what they want to see, but how they see it is flexible.
That’s not what we’re discussing, Perm.
The point is, Dave is essentially arguing that Avatar in 3D is of limited impact to its success, and that it’s mostly about marketing.
The point is, the movie was created in 3D. And it’s the 3D that made it an event.
Mutiny and DP, you’re both right. Yes, it was created in 3D and 3D is making it an event…. but it’s also an event because the movie is really connecting with audiences and generating tremendous word of mouth (even from people who watch the 2D version). Credit goes to Cameron for pushing for the acceptance of 3D — because it really is a cool fun experience when done right — and also for crafting a movie that audiences love.
JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH was also created in 3D (using the same Pace Fusion cameras, no less) but it didn’t generate nearly the buzz or awareness because the movie was a generic family adventure movie that never connected beyond its core audience. (It also didn’t have the number of 3D screens AVATAR does, but I don’t think it would’ve grossed anywhere near the same amount even if it had).
Well, we can say that now because it was made in 3D and it’s an event. But who knows, if it had been released regular would it have done as well? While I doubt it, who knows?
I do think movielocke is stretching a wee bit in his numbers…in that more movies are making more money that have 3D releases along with conventional…because the bigger movies are doing that. But that doesn’t mean the 3D is really adding any dollars. I’m not saying it isn’t, but I’m sure DP has a stack of stats and figures and he’ll be whipping them out.
The writing was on the wall when HANNAH MONTANA 3D opened to $31m on only 683 screens.
Figure 3D pricing adds around 20-30% to the overall gross. In other words, when AVATAR hits $400m it would’ve grossed “only” $320m in a 2D-only format (all other things being equal, though of course they couldn’t/wouldn’t be).
But still, $320 million for an original film about Thundersmurfs is amazing. And since it’s likely going to finish well above $400m, figure the “2D-only” number to be in the $350-375 range. In other words, without 3-D, it’s at ROTK/SITH levels for an original movie. Stunning.
I think people also want to see it because it looks like nothing else before it. The 3D does enhance it, but I think the 3D hype really took off after the first weekend. There were numerous comments before it opening about the motion-sickness effect with 3D movies; only after word of mouth helping stamp out this belief did the 3D hype take off.
I thought earlier, DP mentioned 3D pricing being insignificant in regards to BO (or maybe he meant bottomline)… I wonder with the increase in ticket price for 3D, what actual percentage does the studio get. I wonder if the theaters actually get a higher percentage of 3D dollars versus 2D.
Also, AICN is also reporting possible 3D versions for Robin Hood, Clash of the Titans, as well as rumors of Iron Man and Treck in 3D. I would venture that these new 3D possibilities are clearly the result of Avatars sucess.
James Cameron in the new Editors Guild magazine: “You don’t cut a 3-D movie just like you don’t write a 3-D movie or compose shots in 3-D…More people are going to see Avatar in 2-D anyway, so the edit is the edit; it has to stand on its own.”
Meaning, the movie is the movie, regardless of the format.
It has to stand on its own, but at the same time, he also said (in an interview with Variety back in ’08) that it’s important to know how to effectively use 3D — you reduce the stereoscopicness (?) on fast motion and quicker edits, you increase it on slower edits or shots that are relatively static. In other words, you don’t want to be Michael Bay with footage that has greater stereo vision. So you do need to plan a bit, particularly with your live-action footage. That’s why I think movies that retrofit themselves for 3D won’t be as entirely effective as AVATAR is.
“JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH was also created in 3D (using the same Pace Fusion cameras, no less) but it didn’t generate nearly the buzz or awareness because the movie was a generic family adventure movie that never connected beyond its core audience.”
Really? It’s the only summer film to open with at least 20 million and do 5 times opening in Hollywood history. Clearly it didn’t connect.
Not sure the point you’re trying to make, Jeff.
First of all, look at the context, it’s an editing journal. His point is that editing is editing and language is language, regardless of how it’s seen.
But, obviously, the 3D is fundamentally important, otherwise he wouldn’t have spent years and money designing the Fusion system and 3D delivery and promoting his advancements both in 3D and mo-cap as a game changer.
Avatar isn’t a movie — it’s a demo reel for a new system and workflow from capture through VFX through exhibition.
However, I will say this, Cameron’s use of 3D, as in shooting it just like he would’ve, primarily, if it was 2D, is one of the reasons I found it visually boring. The way he shot Avatar was very much based around a mid-90s sensibility in terms of composition, lighting and editing.
This is why I keep pointing to U2-3D. Pellington took the opportunity expand upon filmic vocabulary, using layered graphics juxtaposed against stereoscopic photography to create an experience that was fundamentally unlike anything done before. He used 3D as 3D.
And that’s why Cameron’s contributions to movies are purely technical. He looks at 2001: A Space Odyssey as a great inspiration. But he lacks the will to ever create anything that innovative on a conceptual or intellectual level that fundamentally alters the language.
Mutiny, I agree with your last point. My earlier post is that I agree with DP that the movie would have been a hit/event in 2D anyway since that’s how most people are seeing it worldwide. Granted, this also might be my own wishful thinking because I’m kind of sick of 3D and hope it’s a trend that dies.
blah blah blah, mutiny, your pathetic crusade against cameron is a crashing bore and you’re a pretentious prat who doesn’t know nearly as much as you think you do.
go talk to yourself in a mirror, you’ll have a captive audience that dares not disagree with your opinion
“But he lacks the will to ever create anything that innovative on a conceptual or intellectual level that fundamentally alters the language.”
the revolutionary water tentacle in ‘the abyss’ and the liquid metal T2 are just two examples amongst many conceptual innovations cameron has contributed to modern cinema
Those are technical innovations. Not conceptual or intellectual.
nope. conceptual means you imagine it in your head and find a way to create it on the screen; you have NO IDEA what you’re talking about
oh, and i’ve seen some of your work, mutiny. you should be working on getting the basics down instead of criticising genuinely talented people as if you’re some arbiter of film-making excellence
Leah, you love Avatar.
That’s nice.
But you’re acting like a raving lunatic.
Go outside for some fresh air.
When people talk “conceptual,” it’s usually synonymous with intellectual. “Conceptual art”, for instance, usually implies the intellectual idea takes precedence. My comparison to 2001, which Cameron cites, was that it’s a highly intellectual film, whereas Avatar was designed to be understood by 6-year olds.
no, mutiny, you’re acting like a raving asswipe and you are so full of yourself it’s spilling out the top and stinking up the joint
i love avatar, as well as thousands of other movies. that has nothing to do with calling you on your pretentious ‘i know everything’ bullshit
“When people talk “conceptual,” it’s usually synonymous with intellectual. “Conceptual art”, for instance, usually implies the intellectual idea takes precedence. My comparison to 2001, which Cameron cites, was that it’s a highly intellectual film, whereas Avatar was designed to be understood by 6-year olds.”]
wtf? that makes NO sense. i work in production design, jackass, and i know EXACTLY what ‘conceptual’ means, so suck on it. you are some piece of work
Do you have anything else to offer, Leah, besides curses and personal insults?
All of my opinions are calm and thought through. The fact that you can’t do the same shows how weak your argument is.
“All of my opinions are calm and thought through. The fact that you can’t do the same shows how weak your argument is.”
so, because you are insufferably passive aggressive, you think that makes you some kind of expert on film?
how are my arguments not ‘thought throughout’ exactly, because they disagree with yours?
because i’m not a pretentious twat who just calls it like it is instead of being a pompous prat like you?
Thank you for making my point.
Reread what you just wrote. It’s a screeching personal attack calling me a “twat.”
You haven’t intelligently replied to anything I’ve written in this topic or the 3D one.
condescension. last refuge of the narcissistic mind.
(and you are a twat. the fact you don’t realise this is the very reason why you are such a twat)
“the revolutionary water tentacle in ‘the abyss’ and the liquid metal T2 are just two examples amongst many conceptual innovations cameron has contributed to modern cinema”
“nope. conceptual means you imagine it in your head and find a way to create it on the screen; you have NO IDEA what you’re talking about”
“oh, and i’ve seen some of your work, mutiny. you should be working on getting the basics down instead of criticising genuinely talented people as if you’re some arbiter of film-making excellence”
“i love avatar, as well as thousands of other movies. that has nothing to do with calling you on your pretentious ‘i know everything’ bullshit”
“that makes NO sense. i work in production design, jackass, and i know EXACTLY what ‘conceptual’ means”
all these comments are perfectly valid replies to what you wrote and/or brilliantly insightful on a molecular level
Quote #1: Once again, when I said “conceptual,” I was referring to intellectual.
Quote #2: See above.
Quote #3: More curses and insults.
Quote #4: See #1 and #2. Apparently not. Concept art is different than conceptual art. One is about presenting an aesthetic design, the other is about an intellectual idea. I keep explaining to you that I’m referring to the latter.
Why don’t you two just fuck and stop all this faux angry gameplay?
i know exactly what concept art and conceptual art are, mutiny
conceptual art is rooted in using ideas, materials and formats outside the realm of ‘traditional art’. there a many expressions of conceptual art, but using the water tentacle as an example, this a perfect example of conceptual art because it required thinking outside the ‘traditional’ box, expanding the realm of possibility to present something in a unique way using new technology to create a rather beautiful, original depiction of moving water.
plus, this whole idea that cg is ‘tech’ not driven by artistic and intellectual creativity is absolute bollocks espoused by people who do now understand how much artistic endeavour is required to render cg imagery.
sorry, who do ‘not’ understand
JBD: yuck!
Actually, Leah, I create tons of CG for my own work, and I do it all myself. In 2D and 3D space. I know very well what goes into it.
Again, I’m talking intellectual ideas. The water creature was brilliantly creative for its time. But that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about conceptual as in the movie itself. It’s the very obvious difference between, again, 2001 and Avatar. One is a movie that to this day people are still baffled by, the other was made by Cameron specifically so his 6 year old could understand it.
Weekend actuals by Boxofficemojo.com: Avatar 75.6M (best 2nd weekend ever), Holmes 62.4M, Alvin2 48.9M
Mutiny – While I don’t agree about Cameron’s will, you’re on the money about the rest. Film is a medium for Cameron to explore technology, where technology allowed Kubrick to explore film. The common ground is both were trying to reach mass audiences, the difference is if Cameron had a better medium to do it with, he would take it. The proof is in his theme park work.
you’re changing your argument as you go along, mutiny
you said:
“And that’s why cameron’s contributions to movies are purely technical. He looks at 2001: A Space Odyssey as a great inspiration. But he lacks the will to ever create anything that innovative on a conceptual or intellectual level that fundamentally alters the language.”
first you said Cameron’s contributions are purely technical; then you said say he lacks the will to creative anything innovative on a conceptual level. but the water tentacle IS conceptually creative, as is the liquid metal in T2, so artistically and conceptually creative and innovative as to change the face of film-making forever by introducing effective cg ARTISTRY to the mainstream. cameron is a perfect example of sublime artistry married to technology
“And that’s why Cameron’s contributions to movies are purely technical.”
backpedaling now:
“The water creature was brilliantly creative for its time. But that’s not what I’m talking about.”
and further:
“I’m talking intellectual ideas.”
“One is a movie that to this day people are still baffled by, the other was made by Cameron specifically so his 6 year old could understand it.”
first of all, your assumption is that confusing = intellectual, which is possibly the most pretentious thing you’ve said yet.
second, you are misquoting. cameron said he wanted to make a movie kids could dig, so much so that he showed it to his six year old. he did NOT say the film was geared towards a six-year-old intellect, you’re just being a pompous ass by saying such a thing. does a six year old understand the concept of manifest destiny, imperialism, technology in the pursuit of greed vs. knowledge and insight, etc etc etc? this whole ‘avatar’ is intellectually vapid is just willful ignorance on the part of those who don’t like it. is it as deep as 2001? well, i’d say 99% of movies aren’t as deep as 2001, so if that’s why you’re so pissed at ‘avatar’, you have a mighty long list of flicks to be pissed off at
and what a surprise that martin s chimes in to agree with mutiny! so martin, still sticking with the ‘avatar is abyss redux’ lunacy?
Leah, let me explain something that you don’t seem to get. I don’t dislike James Cameron. I went into Avatar prepared to like it and specifically defend it against critics who felt the visuals couldn’t compensate for its poor plotting and clumsy themes. But, for me, the problem is that I just wasn’t into the movie’s visuals. That’s really all there is to it.
Your circular, incomprehensible arguments are boring me. So I’m bowing out now. Enjoy.
Saying Avatar is a demo reel is definitely going too far though, come on. It’s like saying Star Wars or 2001 are just demo reels for special effects of their day, or A Fred Astaire musical is just a demo reel to show he can dance. That’s just snobby.
“But, for me, the problem is that I just wasn’t into the movie’s visuals. That’s really all there is to it.”
that’s hilarious, mutiny. read through this thread at all the insults aimed at avatar and cameron, and all you wanted to say was ‘i wasn’t into the movie’s visuals and that’s all there is to it?
why not just say that then and be done with it? why rail at avatar and cameron over and over and over and over… it’s like you can’t stand the fact that not everyone dislikes the movie and you have to make them pay.
there are several people here who aren’t keen on avatar and you don’t see them trying to take it down in every thread throughout the entire thread over and over and over, so i think there something more going on with your persistent attacks beyond: ‘i just didn’t like it, that’s all’
Setting aside the invective, I think this is an interesting discussion. I agree that Cameron is not a “conceptual” or intellectual filmmaker in that his emphasis is not on philosophical concepts as opposed to emotion and visceral impact. Intellectually, the world of Avatar is about as shallow as a disney cartoon like Little Mermaid or Lion King. His concept of an alien intelligence is laughable next to say the impregnable mystery Tarkovsky’s Solaris or the severe logical rigor of 2001, which mutiny mentions. I’m redder than Santa when it comes to corporate destruction of the environment for profit, but I get that Cameron’s argument in Avatar isn’t exactly subtle (although I agree with it in most details). But I don’t think it’s a matter of lack of will on Cameron’s part. I think that’s just not the kind of movie he particularly wants to make. As a criticism of Cameron’s movie’s I find it misses the point. If we look at the movie Avatar is and not pick out all it’s faults, it’s pretty damn awesome. It’s like criticizing Led Zeppelin for not being cutting edge enough. I saw the movie on an average sized 2D screen, and I was nailed to the seat. It sells Cameron a little short to say merely that he does genre, but the main thing is that he does hugely enjoyable popular entertainments. It doesn’t matter if the story is simple or predictable. Avatar is such an immersively entertaining movie that your anticipation of the story only adds to it’s pleasure.
I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying mutiny, but I don’t think that Cameron’s mis-en-scene is dated at all. There have been many scenes of flight in film, but I can’t think of anything as viscerally thrilling as Sully’s first flight with the dragon. And the sort of liquid tracking shots as they are running through the trees and forest at night, the ground lighting up beneath them…So to conclude, I wouldn’t call Cameron a conceptual filmmaker at all. I do think he’s very good at bringing in some interesting scientific/historical/political concepts that serve to motivate the story and add some flavor, but he’s not primarily interested in that. I would call Cameron a visionary filmmaker, and one of the very best at that.
James Cameron is George Lucas with a better internal editor.
But both of them are fairly mediocre storytellers. They both lack nuance and are about as subtle as a sack full of doorknobs to the crotch.
Sam Raimi and Jackie Chan and The Three Stooges and slasher movies also lack nuance. I’m fine with that, who wants every movie to be 2001?
Leah, my comments in this thread started out regarding 3D, and how 3D would be altering the equation in filmmaking and so on. That’s why Dave started another topic just to discus 3D.
Then you swooped in out of nowhere to start attacking me.
I’ve stated plenty of times in previous threads that I was underwhelmed by the visuals. That said, the only thing the movie had to offer was visuals. And that, too, was part of my debate with Dave.
what a load of self-serving tosh that statement above is.
every single avatar thread you come in for pompous jab after pompous jab. here’s some of your avatar-bashing throughout this particular thread where you claim to be ‘innocently’ discussing 3-D:
“Gonzo, I’m not so sure how Avatar will hold up 20 years from now. The reason Star Wars IV held up was because of the characters, not the production, which is dated. Avatar is all production, and it’ll be surpassed within 5 years easily. Ultimately, I think it will be a technological footnote.
1) Avatar is all production. Nobody’s discussing the great story or characters — they’re discussing the “experience”, which means production and 3D projection. I said Star Wars remained popular because of its characters — Avatar doesn’t have any memorable characters, and it will easily be technologically passed.
And no, I didn’t have a great time at Avatar. I thought it was boring and I didn’t care for the visuals…
Gonzo, you could take any random 5-minute chunk from Apocalypse Now, play it on repeat for 3 hours, and I’d probably find that more interesting than Avatar.
I initially compared Avatar to PM as a negative. But, at least on some level, we agree it’s an accurate comparison.
Avatar isn’t a movie — it’s a demo reel for a new system and workflow from capture through VFX through exhibition.
…The way he shot Avatar was very much based around a mid-90s sensibility in terms of composition, lighting and editing.
And that’s why Cameron’s contributions to movies are purely technical. He looks at 2001: A Space Odyssey as a great inspiration. But he lacks the will to ever create anything that innovative on a conceptual or intellectual level that fundamentally alters the language.”
(oh, and by the way? please explain how 2001 fundamentally altered the language of film)
“My comparison to 2001, which Cameron cites, was that it’s a highly intellectual film, whereas Avatar was designed to be understood by 6-year olds”
so, no repetitive digs at avatar, huh? you ‘swoop in’ to attack avatar tirelessly in every thread, so i ‘swoop in out of nowhere’ (yes, i’m lurking in cyberspace waiting to get you, poor little mutiny!) to call you on your persistent, sanctimonious ‘but i didn’t like it and my opinion is the correct one!’ tiresome crap.
every single thread about avatar you come in to poop on it over and over and over with the same exact comments you’ve already trotted out 10 times before…what a bore. and to what end exactly? to appear ‘edgy’ and ‘hip’, because you’re a film-maker? give me a break. you and feraci should make a film together, man that would be a riot. “pretension: the movie”
Leah, every quote from me that you just posted confirms exactly what I said I said.
I stand by everything you just re-posted.
I don’t know what your damage is (though it seems quite severe), but I think it’s time you moved on.
I would think a movie with good reviews that’s headed toward $1B WW can afford somebody who doesn’t like it and is willing to say so, and say why.
“I would think a movie with good reviews that’s headed toward $1B WW can afford somebody who doesn’t like it and is willing to say so, and say why.”
but remind me again why do you feel the need to say it over and over and over and over and over in every thread, practically in every comment? this says more about your need to dominate with your opinion than your thoughts about the film
(did the lord of the manner just tell me to ‘move on’? nice one)
I don’t know, maybe I missed it but is anyone going to mention how freckin’ expensive it is to go to the movies these days? Forget 3D or make some inflation adjusted argument, there’s been a substantial increase in the cost of a ticket. I’m sure it’s not just the Cen City AMC that’s gone up $2.50 in under 18 months. I know other places where the cost is a couple of bucks more than they were a couple of years ago.
At what point do key players start to look at some other numbers besides grosses and rentals? Hypothetically, I’m not sure getting the same gross w/say 10% fewer tickets sold is a positive thing. I mean at what point does erosion trump margin? I just feel like there some error that’s not being factored in and maybe we don’t see the displacment moving along with on a full clip but say 2-3 years from now there are no Avatars, LOTR’s or Potter and Hangovers, how bad will things be before anyone starts to notice?
Leah, usually I think Mutiny is pretentious and irritating, but on this argument he’s right: Cameron isn’t and has never been a big conceptual innovator. Kubrick, Hitchcock, Antonioni, Godard, those are the guys who reshaped the language of cinema. Cameron, Zemeckis, Jackson, those are the guys telling the same stories but with more expensive toys. It does take skill and imagination to come up with the CGI concepts they’re telling, and technical innovation is nothing to sneeze at, but it’s two different categories.
well, i don’t entirely agree, jeff, because: (and i’ll stick to cameron here rather than bring peter and zemeckis into the mix)
a) kubrick, hitchcock and co. aren’t entirely ‘original storytellers’ either, they’ve stood on the shoulders of those storytellers/film-makers who came before them;
b) you’re making a deeply flawed assumption, which would appears to be rife: that computer generated imagery is just ‘technical innovation’ and isn’t every bit as artistic and conducive to conceptual design as ‘traditional’ film-making and story-telling, that CGI is just a technical skill somehow removed or inherently bereft as a conceptual art form.
how can one argue that CGI is NOT reshaping the language of cinema? has it been used to best effect? no, and one could argue that in many instances it has been used to the detriment of good, coherent storytelling, but throwing out the baby with the bathwater is nuts. we are only beginning to discover the potential of CGI; i find it fascinating that people are so snobbishly willing to consign it to the ‘NOT TRUE ART!’ bin on the cusp of what is potentially an artistic and design revolution (and i say this as an artist and NOT a computer graphics artist, so my dog isn’t in the race so to speak and if anything i stand to lose professionally) hindsight to this transitional era of film-making is needed before conclusions can be drawn.
damn, i just can’t type fast enough, i’ll have to finish the rest later, duty calls!
This isn’t really what anyone’s talking about nor is this a BYOB, but on the subject of Cameron:
I’m in full-blown CAMERON MANIA lately, breaking out all his classics on DVD, some for the first time in years.
T1 is something I’ve seen HUNDREDS of times dating back to sixth grade 1985; It NEVER gets old, works every time, lean, mean, awesome… I guess when you’re a kid you focus on Arnold and the gunplay, but DAMN are Michael Biehn and Linda Hamilton **great** and heartbreaking; Biehn DEFINITELY deserved to be a bigger star (not that he didn’t go on to some nice roles and isn’t a fanboy god to this day.)
Hadn’t seen TERMINATOR 2 in ages; Kinda wish the DVD weren’t the Cameron director’s cut. The Biehn flashback scene is terrific and he should’ve left it in, but too many of the other scenes just pad and drag out the midsection. I’ll still take the original any day of the week, but T2 holds up pretty incredibly for a 1991 movie, a few goofy haircuts and some GNR video lighting schemes aside.
But just checked out TRUE LIES? Holy shit, that’s WAY, WAY more awesome than I remembered. For some reason I’ve always remembered that midsection as REALLY sexist and unpleasant and cruel, Arnie just humiliating Jamie Lee. But it’s much more innocuous than I remembered, actually kind of sweet if kinda clueless; Schwarzenegger and Curtis are so likable, and Paxton is such an AWESOME idiot, it’s much broader and more affectionate than the misogyny I remembered. But the last 35 or 40 minutes of nonstop action are INCREDIBLE, some of Cameron’s best shit ever, the same kind of jaw-on-the-floor spectacle you have to wait two hours for in Avatar. All these years I’ve kinda thought Cameron was a little goofy for thinking ANYONE would want a sequel to TRUE LIES, but now I’m wishing he would’ve gotten to it. Almost every element of that movie just SLAYS, *so* much better than I remembered it… Plus NOW if they did the sequel Eliza Dushku would be a trillion times hotter than she was in her jailbait years.
Leah, I still have to disagree with you here: “how can one argue that CGI is NOT reshaping the language of cinema?”
I mean, it is and it isn’t. I went and saw Sherlock Holmes today, and for the first time I saw the full Clash of the Titans trailer, and it’s chock full of CGI and actually looks a lot more fun than I thought it would, but: it’s still the exact same story as the Ray Harryhausen version, just with BIGGER and MORE AMAZING! special effects. If you want to talk about it in terms of language, this is a case where the vocabulary might be changing, but the grammar is exactly the same as a movie from 28 years ago.
When I or Mutinyco are talking about filmmakers who made big conceptual leaps, we’re talking about the use of framing/color/movement/whatever to do things that really had never been done before. James Cameron could have made Avatar in 1933 using stop-motion and mattes and 3-strip technicolor and the story and emotional experience would be essentially the same (correcting, of course, for the fact that Avatar is very much a movie of the 2009 political moment). But Antonioni making L’Avventura, or Godard making Breathless, or Chantal Akerman making Jeanne Dielman, those are all conceptual films that would have been unheard of in 1933. Technological innovation and conceptual innovations are different things, and very few filmmakers can do either, and even fewer can try both.
Jeff, I understand your point and agree but don’t you think that CGI changes what filmmakers choose put the emphasis on? Especially weaker ones who like to show off and use story to suit they effects insted of the other way around?
Sure this isn’t exactly a new problem but the extant to which it is prevalent is new(ish).
The language is the same but the fashion is different. They fimmakers are stressing different syllables.
Gonzo, are you suggesting that CGI is leading to a degeneration of cinema?
After all, Godard has been saying ‘cinema is dead’ for a few decades now.
Godard sucks. Never saw a single movie by this pretentious, bitter old Eurotrash douche, and neither has ANYONE IN THE WORLD; Not like they showed his BULLSHIT on HBO in 1985. Sick of hearing about this old tool like he ever did shit but run his mouth. VIVA LA RICHARD GERE VERSION OF BREATHLESS, at least it had a HOT CHICK and wasn’t OLD AND BORING.
Also: TAYLOR SWIFT is the HOTTEST WOMAN IN THE HISTORY OF THE PLANET YEP YEP, AS GOOD AS KSTEW AND MEGAN, YOU SHOULD BOW TO HER. YEP.
clearly if you read what i’ve previously written, i never argued that cameron is some genius of conceptual innovation in the history of cinema, i merely argued that mutiny was wrong when he posited that all cameron’s films are ‘purely technical’ and he has ‘no ability to create anything innovative on a conceptual or intellectual level’, which is simply a matter of opinion for one thing, and debatable for another.
not all gifted filmmakers make big conceptual leaps but many gifted filmmakers make small leaps along the way that provide momentum for the radical to occur (and even who is considered to have made such leaps and to what effect is debatable and subjective in itself, usually with benefit of hindsight). whatever cameron has or hasn’t achieved, in terms of his role in the advent of film CGI and for clearly thinking outside the realm of traditional, accepted film design techniques in creating the images of the tentacle and liquid metal T2, insisting that such innovation is merely a technological leap and not also a conceptual one is short-sighted, because with the advent of CGI, conceptually ANYTHING is now possible.
“I mean, it is and it isn’t. I went and saw Sherlock Holmes today, and for the first time I saw the full Clash of the Titans trailer, and it’s chock full of CGI and actually looks a lot more fun than I thought it would, but: it’s still the exact same story as the Ray Harryhausen version, just with BIGGER and MORE AMAZING! special effects. If you want to talk about it in terms of language, this is a case where the vocabulary might be changing, but the grammar is exactly the same as a movie from 28 years ago.”
no, no, you are totally missing my drift, jeff, and not thinking outside your ‘film history’ square. the ‘titans’ example is a perfect one for how CGI is being used mundanely, routinely, as a replacement for in-camera special effects, sets, etc. of course that’s not conceptual innovation.
let me ask this: since conceptual leaps have occurred thru the history of cinema at various times under the influence of various cultures and philosophical/artistic viewpoints and movements, all inextricably tied to tech innovation to make such conceptual innovation physically possible, why is it so hard to imagine the exact same thing in regards to film and the future of computer generated imagery?
absolutely ANYTHING is possible with such a tool at our disposal, any type of visual presentation, composition, photography, design, amazing unique storytelling; the fact is, nobody is exploring the medium to anything close to full potential yet, everything so far has been conservative with as i previously mentioned CGI used mostly as a replacement for in-camera effects or ‘family’ animation, and now avatar ushering in a new era of possibility.
but to think this anywhere near the LIMITATION of CGI is to be wearing blinkers; as an art form it’s in its infancy and we always learn to walk before we can run; the only real limit now is the imagination, and it doesn’t get more conducive to conceptual innovation than that.
can you at least admit that re: CGI, what is possible for film cannot yet be known, the jury is still out, and like i said earlier time is needed for perspective in looking back at this transitional era in film-making and to what revolutions in film-making it may lead?
(man writing that gave me a crashing headache for some reason)
“James Cameron is George Lucas with a better internal editor.
But both of them are fairly mediocre storytellers. They both lack nuance and are about as subtle as a sack full of doorknobs to the crotch.”
What a load of pretentious bull. This really needs to be said for people like you are annoying, preachy, and, above all, wrong.
You clearly don’t understand what it takes, no what is required to make certain type of pictures at the highest level.
Cameron gets it. Lucas gets it better than people give him credit.
Cameron is a master storyteller. He may not have the biggest range (and this may be due poorly to his lack of desire to make arthouse films, ever) but they guy fits every criteria of auteur you can come up with (note that I am not a huge fan of the auteur theory).
And yes he is a lot more than just an action filmmaker and has made legitimate contributions of his own. He is an innovator. And when he steals he does it better than practically anyone.
People comparing him to Hitch or Kubrick miss the point entirely. And give too much credit to Hitch, which clearly shows their lack of film history. In any case I am currently to tired to go into this at any length.
And as for subtlety… go watch “American Graffiti” or that sex scene in “Avatar”.
“Gonzo, are you suggesting that CGI is leading to a degeneration of cinema?”
Ughhh, no and to me it’s a very shallow line of thinking. I think it’s by far the most abused and overused (by posers – not Spielberg or Cameron) of all current cinematic.
Weak directors will still be weak directors with. And the cinema will survive just fine, thank.
“After all, Godard has been saying ‘cinema is dead’ for a few decades now.”
Well, Godard been saying dumb things for decades so what else is new? He’s just jealous that he’s never gotten any finacial success and his most remembered work was written by Truffaut.
Andy Warhol’s comments on art and cinema are ten times as meaningful and Godard’s.
Also, in case it hasn’t been clear above I consider Cameron to be a conceptual innovator. T2 was pure conceptual innovation.
“Gonzo, are you suggesting that CGI is leading to a degeneration of cinema?”
Ughhh, no and to me it’s a very shallow line of thinking. I think it’s by far the most abused and overused (by posers – not Spielberg or Cameron) of all current cinematic “devices”.
Weak directors will still be weak directors with. And the cinema will survive just fine, thank you. I also think that with time directors will mature with the technology. Once they’ll see what is possible they will make better efforts.
“After all, Godard has been saying ‘cinema is dead’ for a few decades now.”
Well, Godard been saying dumb things for decades so what else is new? He’s just jealous that he’s never gotten any finacial success and his most remembered work was written by Truffaut.
Andy Warhol’s comments on art and cinema are ten times as meaningful and Godard’s.
Also, in case it hasn’t been clear above I consider Cameron to be a conceptual innovator. T2 was pure conceptual innovation.
TAYLOR SWIFT gives me a GIANT BONER and I don’t know how you MEN can live with yourselves that there are “MEN” out there like JUSTIN LONG who command celebrity p–sy and YOU DO NOT.
WHAT ONE MAN CAN DO ANOTHER MAN (SHOULD BE ABLE TO BUT CAN’T) DO.
LIFE ISN’T FAIR. Fucking SUCKS. I can ONLY get aroused for WOMEN WHO HAVE SAG CARDS, but most of them bang D-list douchebags.
LET’S ALL KILL OURSELVES. SAG POWER.
TAYLOR SWIFT
BOW TO HER. HOTTEST WOMAN OF ALLLLL TIME, EVEN HOTTER THAN K-STEW because she has LONG GIANT LEGS and IS TALL.
SWIFTY POWER, YOU ARE NOT BOWING.
WANT HER.
“And as for subtlety… go watch “American Graffiti””
Seriously? You pick out something he made 35 years ago as to why Lucas ‘gets it’ (present tense)?
I’ll grant you back in the 70’s and 80’s the dude had flair (and also benefited from strong artistic partnerships such as with Empire).
But have you slept through the last decade of his releases?
Foamy, that’s the only non-SW movie he made. Filmographywise I am not going that far.
And I get it, I’m supposed to think the prequels are terrible.
Tough luck.
And the “gets it” comment dealt with a lot more than just subtlety. Note: never said he was the greatest but it pains me to see him portrayed as an unsubtle hack. He can certainly be hackish but he hasn’t lost it yet.
Actually, Lucas is a pretty good example of what we were talking about regarding conceptual. Just compare THX, a lo-fi, but highly intellectualized film where Lucas was influenced by European innovation and avant garde cinema vs. Star Wars, which was designed to play to a mass audience and update classical myth storytelling.
I think that juxtaposition is pretty apt. It’s the difference between trying to do something new vs. repackaging something we already know. (And for the record, I don’t like Godard either.)
Cinema has always been dead when it comes to Godard. The dude is a total bore. The sooner he dies the better for cinema.
And Jeff, I gotta say you’re wrong about CG movies. Hitchcock did play around with cinema, but he was definitely telling the same story over and over. However, he was constantly working up the language of cinema.
Cameron could NOT have made Avatar in the 30s, because the 3D and presentation and effects are his version of rewiting the language of cinema. You could make the argument for Hitchcock…hey, he could have made Psycho without all of those tracking shots and cuts back in 1910 and it would have been the same story.
Zemeckis and Cameron and the CG innovators are rewriting the language of cinema every bit as much as Antonioni. Just saying it’s technical innovation doesn’t work for me…innovation is innovation.
Actually…
Here’s the thing. And I do enough VFX, albeit not on the level of anything like Avatar, so I understand the intellectual rigors required in terms of design, problem solving and math.
But it’s one thing to come up with an innovative effect, and another to do new things with film form and language. It’s like, maybe Stephen King comes up with a great idea for a ghost or a monster — but that’s pretty different than the formal innovations of say Joyce or Nabokov.
One current filmmaker I could point to who uses VFX, both digital and practical, in a manner that alters the form is Michel Gondry.
Unfortunately, there’s usually a split. Artists are either technical innovators or formal innovators. Very rarely does somebody contain both ends. Kubrick had it. Coppola. Fellini.
I think you could make an argument for Coppola, but at the same time to me he’s just taking old stories and technically doing them better…Godfather is a gangster melodrama and Apocalypse Now is a war movie. Done up with perfect technical finesse and a lot more nuance than you’d expect, but the stories are old hat. A lot of Coppola’s other movies are shot relatively standard and I don’t think he’s reinventing storytelling with The Outsiders, or Dracula.
And actually mutiny, your comparison to Lucas is weird, in a way. You’re saying that with THX Lucas was trying something new by doing what the Europeans were doing? I’d say Star Wars was just as innovative, in that he took a hoary old chestnut idea like Star Wars and cranked it up to 11, and did something different with sound.
I think if you’re going to say that Gondry alters the form of cinema by the use of his effects, you could say so is Cameron or Zemeckis.
I don’t think your analysis of anything you just stated is remotely accurate.
Lucas wasn’t doing what the Europeans were doing. I said he was influenced by European innovation (which was primarily formal and aesthetic) and avant garde, in particular Arthur Lipsett. THX was formally and aesthetically innovative, telling its story in an abstract manner. It’s very uncommercial.
Coppola almost never shoots in a standard manner. The Godfather might seem standard today because it’s been imitated so much, but the approach was radical for its time — the locked off cinematography and underexposed lighting, the casting of ethic actors, shooting on location, etc. All innovative. Especially Part 2, where there are parallel narratives. Apocalypse Now a standard war film? Have you ever watched it? One From the Heart standard? Or shooting a 1980s teen movie like The Outsiders as if it was a 1950s melodrama? Or Rumblefish as a lost-in-time Greek tragedy as photographed by the German expressionists?
If you think Coppola or Kubrick aren’t innovative, it’s probably because they were so innovative that everybody stole their ideas.
Ethnic not ethic…
Wow, Lex and Big Perm hate Godard. Shocker. But TRUE LIES is AWESOME!!!!!
“Andy Warhol’s comments on art and cinema are ten times as meaningful and Godard’s.”
Please point out Warhol’s coments on cinema. He has nothing to say and has said nothing on cinema. Read his diaries for some insight. Dude’s favorite show was THE LOVE BOAT which he guested on. So Warhol On Cinema? Ha ha…
I’ll take the guy whose film even inspired David Lean to jazz up LAWRENCE OF ARABIA with that incredible cut from the match to the desert. That’s a direct Godard influence. And BREATHLESS changed the course of American cinema.
And most of the CG innovations I see have little to do with anything but effects. “Hey, you see that room behind that guy? It’s a FAKE ROOM! And that guy? FAKE! Story? Character? Dialogue? Uh…fake?”
Cameron is a master at presentation.
The guy jammed two episodes of The Outer Limits together which became The Terminator. He was sued and had to acknowledge the works on one. He then took his original Terminator approach and reworked it for T2.
He followed Alien shot-by-shot while swapping spit between Ripley and Rambo to make Aliens.
He’s used the same Romeo/Juliet storyline for three films. He’s written the same leading grunt character for three films. Leah may not like the Abyss/Avatar parallels, but they exist.
“Please point out Warhol’s coments on cinema. He has nothing to say and has said nothing on cinema. Read his diaries for some insight. Dude’s favorite show was THE LOVE BOAT which he guested on. So Warhol On Cinema? Ha ha…”
Wow.
Ever heard of ‘sacrasm’? Geez.
“I’ll take the guy whose film even inspired David Lean to jazz up LAWRENCE OF ARABIA with that incredible cut from the match to the desert. That’s a direct Godard influence. And BREATHLESS changed the course of American cinema. ”
I’ll take your jumpcuts and will raise you Humphrey Bogart. So yeah, Godard has that and it’s a genuinly refreshing and influential sequence.
If you like Godard then good for you but don’t be suprised to see that a lot of otherwise fine people do not and find him grumpy and hypocritical. And ‘Breathless’ did not change the course of American cinema any more than it inspired ADD cutting style found on MTV.
Tarantino must like Godard for some reason.
Just because he’s said some dumb things doesn’t alter his cinematic significance anymore than dumb statements from other artists. The late 60’s Godard was a bore but the early filmmaker was marvellous. And he did alter 60’s American film. Look at THE GRADUATE or BONNIE & CLYDE or MEDIUM COOL or EASY RIDER or…
Well, I never said True Lies was awesome.
Hey Christian, if you love Godard and communism so much, go to Russia!
“Hey Christian, if you love Godard and communism so much, go to Russia!”
Right on comrade!
Hey mutiny…in my opinion, a lot of what you defend about Coppola is technical. If you’re going to say that what Lucas did with Star Wars with CG environments is a technical achievement, I’d counter with saying the lighting in The Godfather is the same. Also, maybe that lighting was striking for the time, but I think Orson Welles beat him to the punch. Locked off cinematography? How about every noir film shot in the 40s? I think Coppola just imitated the look of old noir, and sure at the time that was a bit radical, but there was a whole lot of precedent.
I’d stil say that Coppola is innovative technically, but not in the way of Antonioni. I don’t think shooting movies to look like older movies is really an innovation.
I think True Lies is kind of awesome. Far from his best movie, but I like it.
As far as the rest of this conversation goes…UGH.
I am curious to know if Lex’s late-night comments brush up against the terms of his blog parole, though.
Wel Jeff, we gotta fight about something. If we do not fight, do we exist?
Leah….will you marry me?
I am behind you in your love and enthusiasm for AVATAR.
However, I see and understand the arguments others are making re: Cameron, AVATAR, etc.
My take is that you can’t judge a Kit Kat by the standards of a banana. ALIENS is in my top 10 favorites of all time. I am an unabashed supporter of Cameron. I even like that he’s a prick who yells at annoying douchebags hounding him in airports. Fuck…I just like that he’s a prick. That’s refreshing, if you think about it.
However, he tells simple stories. Always has. BUT HE HE TELLS THEM REALLY FUCKING WELL. ALIENS was NOT a complex plot. The characters –aside from Ripley– were cliches.
(And one more time: HAN SOLO IS A CLICHE. LUKE, OBI WAN, BILLY DEE WILLIAMS…..ALL CLICHES!! I LOVE STAR WARS & EMPIRE, MIND YOU BUT DO NOT GIVE THE DAMN THING MORE CREDIT THAN IT’S DUE. THE WRITING IN A NEW HOPE REMAINS LEADEN.)
There is a HUGE difference between a badly told simple story and a well told simple story. Engaging an audience (or a large percentage) with a moldy old chestnut like the AVATAR plot takes real fucking skill, discipline, and focus. Week in and week out we see crap that fails to meet simple story goals. Do not underestimate how difficult it is to tell a clear, relatable story while balancing everything he did in AVATAR and TITANIC.
Further…would AVATAR benefit from a more complex storyline?? How? With the sensory overload, you can’t risk losing your audience. I’m pulling this out of my ass but would a MEMENTO sort of structure have worked in AVATAR? Or would it have lost 80% of the audience?
One more thing: I’d rather see a simple story told well than a poorly told, needlessly complex botch. It would have been REALLY easy to out-think himself on the screenplay.
Cameron is what he is, and he is one of a kind. He isn’t Kubrick, no. But that doesn’t make him any less valuable. He has become a man who builds experiences around basic storytelling. Why is that wrong? And if he were to reach and do something outside his wheelhouse AND FAIL, you guys will shit on him and tell him to go back to his Furry Smurf Sex movies (IO is a douche, but Furry Smurf Sex is FUNNY!).
It gets to why I love John Carpenter and the Ramones. This the JC that is Carpenter is a stubborn genre filmmaker. He makes the same thing time and again. His writing is sometimes wonky. But it IS WHAT HE IS. Ghosts Of Mars may be a bad movie but it’s a solid JOHN CARPENTER movie. There is nothing wrong with being what you are. Sure, it’s ok to record with Phil Spector. You got some great stories, and “Danny Says” is a spectacular tune.
But you’re the Ramones. Give me 10 more albums with the same perfect formula, a formula you have the fucking dna too. THAT is just fine.
Neko Case? Sing like your life depends on it. Don’t try and do a speed metal rock opera, ok?
John carpenter, give me another seige picture.
Cameron….more cutting-edge spectacle with proficient storytelling.
Haenke…PTA…Scorcese…Ang Lee….etc etc…you guys do your thing. But just understand what you do is no more valuable or better than cameron’s is, in it’s own way.
That’s just my take. Then again, I’m a bleeding heart liberal.
I call total bullshit on your analogy cleansteve.
So a efficient tasty well made and universally beloved Big Mac is on par with a Heston Blumenthal Fat Duck creation to a audience with refined palettes?
Elitism rules.
Can be, sure.