But it's infinitely more pleasant if you do get to screw blue people.
James Cameron's "Avatar" (grading and discussion)
- Thread starter chrisspringob
- Start date
But - it was the only way to be sure.
Eh, I think it's a stretch to think that movie studios aren't well aware of the fact that audiences are fine with CGI principals - we've all already watched Gollum, King Kong, Spider-Man, Superman, Yoda and on and on. It's the actors who are worried about CGI principals - not the audience. All the audience wants is for the visuals to be convincing - whether it's CGI or not means little.
And, sorry T'Baio, but are you honestly trying to say that after Titanic Cameron needed to worry about getting funding for his next film project? He could have said "I'm going to make a movie where teeny green monkeys fly aeroplanes around and around until they throw up" and any studio in Hollywood would have said, "That sounds great, Jim, m'boy, here's a check."
Frodo was not nearly as ignorant as Jake, and he's a hell of a lot more heroic. He knew of Bilbo's experience with the ring, he'd been friends with a great wizard for many years, and he knew a good bit about elves. Sam and the other Hobbits functioned some as an expository device - but LotR was far more clever in bringing the audience into its fantasy world than Avatar was. It throws you right into the history of Middle Earth from the first frame, then whisks you to the Shire, with no explanation, only a bit of Bilbo's story to connect the two. Avatar introduces you to a hero who knows nothing and has no reason to be there except that he shares his twin brother's DNA. Then everything we learn about the Na'vi we learn because of clumsy exposition with someone explaining them to Jake. Frodo stands up to take the Ring because he can't bear to see the strife it causes. Even though he doesn't know the way to Mordor and he knows the burden of the Ring, he still steps up. Jake is "chosen" for no reason, and is haplessly (and dishonorably) carried along by events until he suddenly tames the mighty Turok because... the writers needed him to.
Jake didn't seem to have much problem with gathering military intelligence for the colonel so the Marines could blow up the tree. I guess his morality is just a bit slow.
Anyway, he told the Na'vi he was switching sides because he fell in love with the forest, which is even flakier than switching for better legs. Vietnam was a beautiful jungle too, but I don't think "the plants were pretty" would've held much water at a court martial for treason. Germany is likewise very beautiful and filled with great beer and pretty women, but I don't think many American GI's switched sides and joined the Waffen SS.
I think the plot's laziness about making the villains plausible is causing this problem. By overdoing the theft, land grab, genocide angle, it leaves the hero originally complicit in the crimes, as if nobody had yet figured out that blowing up an alien village for fun and profit is not a laudable activity.
But it's infinitely more pleasant if you do get to screw blue people.
How many times do I have to say this?
Just because necrophilia is a victimless crime doesn't make it okay!!!
Just wanted to get that off my chest.
That's a very revisionist statement. Past success is no guarantee of future success. FOX had to be convinced before they splurged the almost $300m production budget for Cameron's space adventure. They did go around to several studios, it was not an easy sell. Sure FOX decided to give $10m to develop some tech and some test footage to show if it was possible to accomplish, and only after seeing that did FOX sign up - after involving lots of risk-sharing partners. (They mo-capped and rendered a 3-4 min test footage of when Jake & Neytiri meet, played by two other actors)
Titanic could have gone to hell, and Avatar certainly was looking like an iffy production before the film premiered, with tepid trailer reaction. And Cameron's next project may well bomb, who knows.
Those are either supporting characters (Gollum, King Kong, Yoda) or people who are played by actors except for stunts and similar fare. Avatar wants to give us a CGI lead, in a live-action movie.
Could this have been done before, with the earlier tech - similar to Gollum, say? Probably, but it hadn't, and it is still an uncertain area.
300 million dollars is a lot of money even by Hollywood standards - and contrary to common assumption, the studios don't have unlimited sources of funding. That Cameron is Cameron made it possible for him to get that kind of money - perhaps no one else could have - but it doesn't mean that it was a foregone conclusion. The people in charge had to have more than just faith that it would earn out.
What Cameron proposed to do here - with the CG is ambitious on a scale beyond anything represented by LOTR or Spider-Man. Now that he's succeeded, it will certainly be easier for other directors and producers to get backing for this kind of thing, because studios will have real evidence that it can be profitable. This is why Avatar is such a game-changer.
If studios backing movies like the next Star Trek or Batman or the Spider-Man reboot aren't now determined that they be shot in 3D they're taking a much greater risk than in committing to it - in fact, they're arbitrarily setting a ceiling on just how successful those films can be.
What Cameron proposed to do here - with the CG is ambitious on a scale beyond anything represented by LOTR or Spider-Man. Now that he's succeeded, it will certainly be easier for other directors and producers to get backing for this kind of thing, because studios will have real evidence that it can be profitable. This is why Avatar is such a game-changer.
If studios backing movies like the next Star Trek or Batman or the Spider-Man reboot aren't now determined that they be shot in 3D they're taking a much greater risk than in committing to it - in fact, they're arbitrarily setting a ceiling on just how successful those films can be.
I think that any of these including Abrams, are going to be rethinking how they film their next feature, and especially rethink how each scene will look. I think for a little while story will not be as important to any of them.
Brit
Well, I finally broke down and watched Avatar (in 3-D). I went in with low expectations because I've been seriously put off by the super hype this movie has been getting since it was first announced.
Simply put, Avatar is Fern Gully meets Dances with Wolves with a heavy dose of coincidences, contrivances, stereotypes, and predictables, all covered in James Cameron jerk-off special effects. Complete with telling, not showing scriptwriting. A pity because it was visually beautiful, had a few interesting concepts, and a solid cast, but the writing and execution were horrible.
Simply put, Avatar is Fern Gully meets Dances with Wolves with a heavy dose of coincidences, contrivances, stereotypes, and predictables, all covered in James Cameron jerk-off special effects. Complete with telling, not showing scriptwriting. A pity because it was visually beautiful, had a few interesting concepts, and a solid cast, but the writing and execution were horrible.
It's going to become the most successful movie in U.S. history sometime in the next week or so; it already holds the world's record.
I'll probably get out and see it again next week.
I'll probably get out and see it again next week.
Adjusted grosses mean nothing other than as a means to try to win an argument in a bar. They assume that all things other than the price of a ticket are equal in the two instances being compared, which is never true enough to matter.
Weird that people post the link to the adjusted grosses table without considering what some of the disclaimers to the right of it actually mean and what else they imply.
Weird that people don't ask the next question about such adjustments and weird that they assume no one else will either.
Weird that people keep looking for ways to undercut the obvious, overwhelming success of Cameron's movies. Guess they've got to say something.
QFT
I am really tired of this argument,
This is a dead issue, because of WORLDWIDE SALES now.
"AVATAR"-$ 2 billion Plus.
"Gone with the Wind"- Adjusted for inflation $1.5 Billion.
What you think the USA is the only market, we learned that in 2009 with Star Trek you need to appeal to the WHOLE world if you want to make a ton of money and be successful in cinema these days.
This argument on adjusted for inflation is stupid and pointless, AVATAR is the new cinematic king of the hill.
7th weekend at number 1 too.
LOL @ the dismissal of adjusted ticket prices. True, it's not the be-all, end-all marker for "ultimate success" for a movie, but it still holds merit (the Gone With the Wind figure is for the US only, btw. I dunno what the figure is worldwide). The simple fact is, Avatar is the most successful movie of all-time (worldwide and, within a matter of days, within the US), in terms of dollars grossed. That's a significant accomplishment. But in terms of tickets sold? Not so much. At least in the US. Give Avatar the credit it's due -- but at least keep that credit in perspective.
EDIT (re: Gone With The Wind):
BOM has no Worldwide Adjusted figures, but ...
US Unadjusted = $198M
US Adusted = $1.5B
Worldwide Unadjusted = $400M
So it's reasonable to estimate that the worldwide adjusted would be in the neighborhood of $3B+
EDIT (re: Gone With The Wind):
BOM has no Worldwide Adjusted figures, but ...
US Unadjusted = $198M
US Adusted = $1.5B
Worldwide Unadjusted = $400M
So it's reasonable to estimate that the worldwide adjusted would be in the neighborhood of $3B+
Yet the whole world gobbled it up because they are absolute idiots.
The storytelling was no worse than the massive plot contrivances in the new Star Trek movie, and yet I don't consider myself an idiot for liking that film, either.
