Attaboy, Avatar
I underestimated Avatar. While I had problems with it, I recognized it was a crowdpleaser But no way was I (or, to be fair to myself, almost anyone else) predicting it would be the biggest hit of all. With the latest weekend in, that looks more than possible.
The current champ, as you probably know, is Cameron's last film, Titanic. (The following numbers are not adjusted for inflation.) It made $600 million domestic and over $1.8 billion worldwide. That was in 1997, and since then no one's come close. Only one other film has even passed the $500 million domestic mark, and that's The Dark Knight with $533 million. Worldwide, it's less of a contest. Outside Cameron films, only three have hit the magic billion mark--Dark Knight, the second Pirates Of The Caribbean and the third Lord Of The Rings, and all of them are more than $700 million short of Titanic.
At present Avatar has made over $490 million domestic and looks like it's got another $100 million or so of play in it. Worldwide, it's already hit $1.6 billion, so will likely pass the tape there before it sets the domestic record.
Avatar, in some ways, is playing like Titanic. It opened very well, but didn't break any records. The point is it kept playing well. This is how the biggest hits are made. Sequels open huge and quickly drop. Big new action films tend to do the same. But game changers and record breakers are in it for the long haul.
PS I generally don't discuss the Golden Globes because they're a joke, but what I caught of them last night was repulsive. Before each commercial break, the announcer would ask if Avatar was going to win any of the big awards coming up. Such naked promotion during the telecast of one film just because it's a big hit is an insult. Guess that's what I get for watching the show.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:20 AM
8 Comments:
I had the exact same reaction to "AVATAR" that I did to "TITANIC"...
...namely, that it delivered on the level that I needed it to...
...even though I kept wishing it could be better.
In the case of "TITANIC", all I wanted from the movie was to experience the ship in a way I never had before. The movie delivered. At the same time, cartoon characters and clunky dialogue kept it from being a truly great movie.
In the case of "AVATAR", all I wanted from the movie was to experience an alien world in a way I never had before. The movie (in IMAX 3-D) delivered. At the same time, cartoon characters and clunky dialogue kept it from being a truly great movie.
In both cases, I sat there really hoping to get more emotionally involved, but never did.
I contributed to the #1 and #2 financial status of these films...
...but we get the movies we deserve, and if we don't demand more, we won't get more.
In the case of these 2 films, I stand guilty with the masses.
Todd
My family hasn't seen Avatar yet - no one is really excited to see it because story is usually very important to us, and fom what we've heard, the story is a rehash.
I guess I should note we didn't see Titanic in the movie theaters either (I caught it on HBO a long time ago). Again, the story isn't intriguing to us.
Nevertheless, I want to see if the newest 3D technology is really worth it. I have not been impressed with the 3D films I have seen so far. Maybe we'll go next weekend.
Todd:
I generally agree, but in one important way, Avatar is the opposite of Titanic.
Titanic starts with two hours of cliches, poorly drawn characters and bad dialogue amidst the great sets, but ends with an enthralling climax.
Avatar starts out fun and intriguing, and gets dopier and dopier as it goes along, until its ridiculous ending.
One other thing. What's happened to Cameron? He used to create fairly interesting, complex characters--for actions films anyway. In Titanic and Avatar, he's relied more on cliches. Especially his mustache-twirling villains.
When he won the Golden Globe for best picture last night, he had the nerve to explain that Avatar is about caring for mother earth. You know what, when I have ganglia coming out the back of my head that allow me to directly talk to dirt, then I'll agree. Until then, his loaded metaphor is just silly.
Denver Guy:
So story's important for you, and you avoid rehashes? Wow, you must have it really tough.
LaGuy:
Interesting observation about "TITANIC" and "AVATAR" being, in the way you described, opposites. I hadn't thought of this, and can't disagree.
I also agree about Cameron. As to what happened to him, perhaps an ego unchecked has truly made him, at least in his own mind, "king of the world". Unfortunately, we're all giving his suppostion financial support (which is all that matters in Hollywood).
Finally, I enjoyed your loaded ganglia comment. I'll add this to the "silliness" column: Here's a movie that trumpets its reliance on all-consuming technology telling us how bad all-consuming technology is.
Todd
P.S. One last comment. I saw Sigourney Weaver on Kimmel and she repeatedly touted a particular statistic. How many man-hours went into the making of 1 second of "AVATAR" screen time?
Would you believe 47??
I hope you're impressed, because I lied. The real statistic was this:
It took 47 man-hours of labor to create just one frame of "AVATAR".
That's 1/24 of a second.
I know movie-making is not a zero-sum game, but that's a lot of time, effort, and talent to go into just one picture.
Profitable? Perhaps.
But what are we, the audience, sacrificing?
You have a point ;-)
Nothing new under the Hollywood Sun. But still, there is some innovation now and then. I think my favorite movie from 2009 is Watchmen - having not read the graphic novel, I was completely drawn in with a mystery I didn't know the answer to before I sat down. And the characters were pretty unique too, even if comic book exagerations.
But your point is well taken - it is probably why I don't see that many films in theaters anymore.
It's funny you should bring up Watchmen, since I've recently been watching it on cable, and bemoaning how it doesn't work compared to the comic.
I understand that there is a lot more in the comic book, and that's why I'm glad I hadn't read the book first (though I intend to read it sometime this year). Could you envision a better adaptation of the graphic novel?
The film had to cut out a lot (some of the fun of the graphic novel is all the side-stuff it includes--newspapers articles, etc--plus things like kids' obsession with pirate comics in a world with real superheroes) but that's not the problem. If anything, the film is, for the most part, too faithful to the comic, recreating actual panels.
The problem I had, and I've had it with other graphic novel adaptations, is though you might thing the comics and movies are close, they're actually two very different forms, and what works in one doesn't necessarily work in the other.
Post a Comment
<< Home