...but...then you haven't read/read enough of the Sherlock Holmes stories.
ITT: Grimnoc revitalizes and re-writes the statement "I've made films, what have YOU done?"
thread crap. I won't push the point.
Prime, I think one reason why it is different because of AVATAR's importance to the film industry. While I haven't seen black dynamite, I can assume that the film didn't set out to change the way films are made.
AVATAR is slightly controversial, mad expensive, and made by a man who claims ownership to an absurd amount of Hollywood records and achievements. The more 'gusto' a project has about it - production and promotion alike - the more people are going to passionate about arguments for or against said product.
That's how it has been in my experiences, anyways.
Snark, I don't think it is a moot point. The reception of this 'new' presentation technology is hardly met with the same excitement as it did when movies introduced sound, or color. but regardless, with everyone having their fun with my statements, it still doesn't change the fact that using the 'adjusted for inflation' chart is a completely inaccurate way to look at overall success and income generation of a modern film.
As of today, AVATAR is the highest grossing film of all time in the worldwide ranks. It's over. Stop bickering about it and go home.
Avatar earned an additional $36 million this weekend, climbing to $552.8 million domestically and surpassing "The Dark Knight's" $533.3 million domestic haul. If it continues to drop in the 20-percent range as it has the last few weekends this time it only fell 16 percent it's on track to is top Titanic's $600.8 million by mid-February.
Worldwide, Avatar is also the second-highest grossing movie of all time at $1.8 billion, trailing "Titanic" by less than $7 million.
Rank Title Studios Worldwide gross Year
1 Avatar 20th Century Fox $1,843,802,321 2009
2 Titanic Paramount Pictures/20th Century Fox $1,842,879,955 1997
Per Wikipedia, which appears to have sourced the daily returns from boxofficemojo.
ITT: Grimnoc revitalizes and re-writes the statement "I've made films, what have YOU done?"
False, false, a million times false. The statement "I've made _____ , what have you made/done" is rightly criticized as it tries to negate a person's argument by claiming that their opinion in invalid purely because of their lack of experience/work with said subject matter.
What I did is quite different. I was stating your claim was incorrect not simply because I've read the stories and you haven't, but rather because the facts and personalities of the characters are well established (by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle) and contrary to your claim of them being very unlike the movie.
Simply put, you're wrong not because I say you're wrong, but because Sir Arthur Conan Doyle through his writings says you're wrong.
And as we know, with film as with every other artistic medium, the amount of money it makes indicates its overall quality. Just as the amount of people who like it indicates the same.
Chris - I forgot to mention, I DID listen to that VFXShow. It was outstanding. That was actually the first episode of VFXShow I had listened to (finally) and now I'm hooked. A great program, and it had wonderful insight from David and Mark.
Lynx, Just finished listening to a couple more you need to listen to, first one was Luxology's Modcast on Avatar, just David and Brad talking more casually and David goes on a few good rants that are really interesting and plenty more good information. The other one is a three part series from FXGuide(same guys, more-or-less behind The VFX Show) on Avatar. The first episode is Mike talking to Joe Letteri, senior vfx supervisor at Weta. Second one Mike talks to _the John Knoll_ from ILM about their part and there's a third episode coming. Subscribe to FXGuide while you're there, trust me it's worth it and these guys go deep into vfx, film and the business of vfx with every episode.
And as we know, with film as with every other artistic medium, the amount of money it makes indicates its overall quality. Just as the amount of people who like it indicates the same.
At this point, it is almost silly. The only argument most people have left is BAWWW MONEY DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING, LOOK AT INFLATION, POROLOLOL.
The film is a commercial success, and has recieved acclaim form viewers and critics alike.
With the combination of this unseen level of consumer consistency, combined with award considerations and winnings, and finally consumer and critical appreciation, I simply don't see how there can be much of an argument left for 'the film isn't that good, money doesn't indicate that it is good'. You can't expect me to believe that so many movie-goers, so many critics, and all of the achievements earned for the film so far are all consistently wrong about the true quality of the film. The vast minority dislike the film. Something just isn't right about all of that, if the argument is still that 'the film isn't very good'.
OK, here's something new to consider - here are all of the major scenes that were cut from AVATAR to save for time:
Everyone that dislikes AVATAR for the story - would these additions have helped your perception of the film? Though this wouldn't improve the quality of writing, this would certainly have helped with character development and helping explain motives behind things. The school massacare scene, while a simple short addition, would have really boosted understanding of the Na'vi's hatred and mistrust of the skypeople. The drunk scene helps develop the sadness and anger Tsu-tey originally has toward Jake for 'taking' Neytiri from him. (this bugged me, despite those two fated to be together, everyone kind of shrugs it off that Neytiri is into Jake).
At this point, it is almost silly. The only argument most people have left is BAWWW MONEY DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING, LOOK AT INFLATION, POROLOLOL.
I believe what people are tying to say is that if we are going to start saying that the amount of money a movie makes is a decent barometer for judging its quality then we ought to at least be fair with talking about how much it really made.
The only way to do that (especially when comparing it to movies in the past when the money supply was significantly 'less') is to adjust for inflation. It's simple economics. When the money supply is increased the value of a 'unit' of money is decreased, and thusly the value of a set amount of money decreases (unless that same amount of money is increased to be an equal ratio to the total that it was before).
The thing is this: It's a great success because of its tech novelty.
If the same exact movie had been made, with the same script, same director, same actors, but with no 3D, and with puppets and make-up instead of CGI, it would have tanked.
By the same token, if they had released a completely different movie, with different actors, and a different plot, but with the same CGI and 3D tech, it still would have done well.
Another thing is: Appeal, for whatever reason, is the only thing for which sales is a good measure. So, the movie has appeal. That does not necessarily mean that it is a quality movie. Just think of all the things in this world which are of low quality, yet have great appeal. Our whole consumer culture right now is facinated with low-quality crap.
Even when adjusted for inflation, Britney Spears has made more money off of her music than Beethoven ever did, does that mean that Spears is the higher quality artist?
Even when adjusted for inflation, Britney Spears has made more money off of her music than Beethoven ever did, does that mean that Spears is the higher quality artist?
The thing is this: It's a great success because of its tech novelty.
If the same exact movie had been made, with the same script, same director, same actors, but with no 3D, and with puppets and make-up instead of CGI, it would have tanked.
By the same token, if they had released a completely different movie, with different actors, and a different plot, but with the same CGI and 3D tech, it still would have done well.
Another thing is: Appeal, for whatever reason, is the only thing for which sales is a good measure. So, the movie has appeal. That does not necessarily mean that it is a quality movie. Just think of all the things in this world which are of low quality, yet have great appeal. Our whole consumer culture right now is facinated with low-quality crap.
Even when adjusted for inflation, Britney Spears has made more money off of her music than Beethoven ever did, does that mean that Spears is the higher quality artist?
Agreed.
*Though, I would like to point out that I don't care if someone likes something I consider to be "low-quality crap", because I know that I like things others may consider "low quality crap." It is, however, worthwhile to be able to objectively grade something you love.
**For instance, I love H.P. Lovecraft. He's tons of fun and a fantastic storyteller, but his dialogue sucked. See? Easy, peasy.
I still don't get it - do you guys not understand what I said, why 'adjusting for inflation', despite being simple economics, is a moot point in regards to cinema? It is not a reliable benchmark for many different reasons, and it is foolish to say that its box office worth is decreased because of inflatation and past releases. Did my comment go completely ignored?
CB, is that not a legitimate point? Can Hollywood progress age-old techniques, and not be aplauded for it? In an industry that rehashes the same old crap for years on end, a film finally throws a wrench in the cogs, should that not be recognized as an outstanding achievement? Film should be recognized for its technical achievements in presentation as much as it should be recognized for its storytelling merits. Film is, by its nature, a visual medium. Story is only half the battle, the rest is presentation. If a film is a technical marvel, then that is just as legitimate reason to recognize it as its story can be.
I agree that appeal doesn't equal quality, but I have to wonder when the appeal is this universal, that the appeal may actually be merited. A hype machine couldn't have lasted this long and still kept this kind of consistency, and all of these people cannot possibly be happy with repeated viewings of a crappy film.
So we can't use money earned as a indication of the quality of the film. I am OK with that. however, when such a high volume of critics and movie-goers agree that the film is good, and a handful of people insist that it is garbage, why should that argument be any more valid?
The point of all this is over my head. I thought it was an OK movie and could not give a fuck less what the critics think nor how much money the movie has made.
however, when such a high volume of critics and movie-goers agree that the film is good, and a handful of people insist that it is garbage, why should that argument be any more valid?
Not all movie-goers agree that the film is good and not all critics know what they're talking about (and their opinions certainly don't matter any more than the average movie-goer). I hear patrons leaving auditorium 10 every day, and the split of positive reactions to negative reactions are about 50/50 from what I've observed.
Of course, since I'm part of the supposed "handful" of people who thought the story itself was static and uninteresting and the characters were bland and uncreative I'm prone to see more validity in arguments along those lines.
I didn't ignore your thoughts regarding the adjusted grosses, I simply don't agree with your dismissal of them.
The thing is this: It's a great success because of its tech novelty.
If the same exact movie had been made, with the same script, same director, same actors, but with no 3D, and with puppets and make-up instead of CGI, it would have tanked.
By the same token, if they had released a completely different movie, with different actors, and a different plot, but with the same CGI and 3D tech, it still would have done well.
Another thing is: Appeal, for whatever reason, is the only thing for which sales is a good measure. So, the movie has appeal. That does not necessarily mean that it is a quality movie. Just think of all the things in this world which are of low quality, yet have great appeal. Our whole consumer culture right now is facinated with low-quality crap.
Even when adjusted for inflation, Britney Spears has made more money off of her music than Beethoven ever did, does that mean that Spears is the higher quality artist?
""Our whole consumer culture right now is facinated with low-quality crap.""
Kind of a blanket statement, no? You know the saying, "one man's garbage is another man's treasure." Who gets to decide what quality goods are? A bunch of stuffed shirt critics? A bunch of self important actors who claim to be "in search of the human condition?" How about James Lipton? He seems like a cool cat, he is an acting professor, surely he is the most qualified.
Here lies the problem, its all subjective, and you know what, I think its refreshing when the critics and the masses agree every now and then. Lets face it, critics are critics because they crave validation that their opinion should be more valued than everyone else's. Often a critic will resist convention just to maintain the facade that they are somehow more enlightened to what makes great art than the average consumer.
Return of the King, was that garbage because a load of people saw it not that long ago? How about Dan Brown Novels, or Stephen King, or JK Rowling, is it all garbage because the masses find appeal in it?
Is a Phish fan more artistically sophisticated than a Green Day fan, I'm just wondering....
Saying that any 3D special effects extravaganza would have done just as well is dismissive to the cinematic accomplishments of AVATAR.
Comments
ITT: Grimnoc revitalizes and re-writes the statement "I've made films, what have YOU done?"
thread crap. I won't push the point.
Prime, I think one reason why it is different because of AVATAR's importance to the film industry. While I haven't seen black dynamite, I can assume that the film didn't set out to change the way films are made.
AVATAR is slightly controversial, mad expensive, and made by a man who claims ownership to an absurd amount of Hollywood records and achievements. The more 'gusto' a project has about it - production and promotion alike - the more people are going to passionate about arguments for or against said product.
That's how it has been in my experiences, anyways.
Snark, I don't think it is a moot point. The reception of this 'new' presentation technology is hardly met with the same excitement as it did when movies introduced sound, or color. but regardless, with everyone having their fun with my statements, it still doesn't change the fact that using the 'adjusted for inflation' chart is a completely inaccurate way to look at overall success and income generation of a modern film.
As of today, AVATAR is the highest grossing film of all time in the worldwide ranks. It's over. Stop bickering about it and go home.
As of today, it's in second place.
Game on.
fixt
Rank Title Studios Worldwide gross Year
1 Avatar 20th Century Fox $1,843,802,321 2009
2 Titanic Paramount Pictures/20th Century Fox $1,842,879,955 1997
Per Wikipedia, which appears to have sourced the daily returns from boxofficemojo.
False, false, a million times false. The statement "I've made _____ , what have you made/done" is rightly criticized as it tries to negate a person's argument by claiming that their opinion in invalid purely because of their lack of experience/work with said subject matter.
What I did is quite different. I was stating your claim was incorrect not simply because I've read the stories and you haven't, but rather because the facts and personalities of the characters are well established (by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle) and contrary to your claim of them being very unlike the movie.
Simply put, you're wrong not because I say you're wrong, but because Sir Arthur Conan Doyle through his writings says you're wrong.
But that beat is bumpin.
http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010/01/25/avatar-passes-titanic-to-set-world-wide-box-office-record/
'official' numbers weren't in for the weekend until Monday, and technically, 'officially' everything was locked down today.
I don't think AVATAR will have any problems besting Titanic domestically.
Also, China:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8480954.stm
Lynx, Just finished listening to a couple more you need to listen to, first one was Luxology's Modcast on Avatar, just David and Brad talking more casually and David goes on a few good rants that are really interesting and plenty more good information. The other one is a three part series from FXGuide(same guys, more-or-less behind The VFX Show) on Avatar. The first episode is Mike talking to Joe Letteri, senior vfx supervisor at Weta. Second one Mike talks to _the John Knoll_ from ILM about their part and there's a third episode coming. Subscribe to FXGuide while you're there, trust me it's worth it and these guys go deep into vfx, film and the business of vfx with every episode.
Do we need to call the waaaahmbulance?
You may if you like, I suppose...
The film is a commercial success, and has recieved acclaim form viewers and critics alike.
With the combination of this unseen level of consumer consistency, combined with award considerations and winnings, and finally consumer and critical appreciation, I simply don't see how there can be much of an argument left for 'the film isn't that good, money doesn't indicate that it is good'. You can't expect me to believe that so many movie-goers, so many critics, and all of the achievements earned for the film so far are all consistently wrong about the true quality of the film. The vast minority dislike the film. Something just isn't right about all of that, if the argument is still that 'the film isn't very good'.
OK, here's something new to consider - here are all of the major scenes that were cut from AVATAR to save for time:
http://io9.com/5446538/everything-that-was-cut-from-avatar-sex-drugs-and-suicide
Everyone that dislikes AVATAR for the story - would these additions have helped your perception of the film? Though this wouldn't improve the quality of writing, this would certainly have helped with character development and helping explain motives behind things. The school massacare scene, while a simple short addition, would have really boosted understanding of the Na'vi's hatred and mistrust of the skypeople. The drunk scene helps develop the sadness and anger Tsu-tey originally has toward Jake for 'taking' Neytiri from him. (this bugged me, despite those two fated to be together, everyone kind of shrugs it off that Neytiri is into Jake).
Thoughts?
I believe what people are tying to say is that if we are going to start saying that the amount of money a movie makes is a decent barometer for judging its quality then we ought to at least be fair with talking about how much it really made.
The only way to do that (especially when comparing it to movies in the past when the money supply was significantly 'less') is to adjust for inflation. It's simple economics. When the money supply is increased the value of a 'unit' of money is decreased, and thusly the value of a set amount of money decreases (unless that same amount of money is increased to be an equal ratio to the total that it was before).
If the same exact movie had been made, with the same script, same director, same actors, but with no 3D, and with puppets and make-up instead of CGI, it would have tanked.
By the same token, if they had released a completely different movie, with different actors, and a different plot, but with the same CGI and 3D tech, it still would have done well.
Another thing is: Appeal, for whatever reason, is the only thing for which sales is a good measure. So, the movie has appeal. That does not necessarily mean that it is a quality movie. Just think of all the things in this world which are of low quality, yet have great appeal. Our whole consumer culture right now is facinated with low-quality crap.
Even when adjusted for inflation, Britney Spears has made more money off of her music than Beethoven ever did, does that mean that Spears is the higher quality artist?
Uh, clearly yes.
Agreed.
*Though, I would like to point out that I don't care if someone likes something I consider to be "low-quality crap", because I know that I like things others may consider "low quality crap." It is, however, worthwhile to be able to objectively grade something you love.
**For instance, I love H.P. Lovecraft. He's tons of fun and a fantastic storyteller, but his dialogue sucked. See? Easy, peasy.
CB, is that not a legitimate point? Can Hollywood progress age-old techniques, and not be aplauded for it? In an industry that rehashes the same old crap for years on end, a film finally throws a wrench in the cogs, should that not be recognized as an outstanding achievement? Film should be recognized for its technical achievements in presentation as much as it should be recognized for its storytelling merits. Film is, by its nature, a visual medium. Story is only half the battle, the rest is presentation. If a film is a technical marvel, then that is just as legitimate reason to recognize it as its story can be.
I agree that appeal doesn't equal quality, but I have to wonder when the appeal is this universal, that the appeal may actually be merited. A hype machine couldn't have lasted this long and still kept this kind of consistency, and all of these people cannot possibly be happy with repeated viewings of a crappy film.
So we can't use money earned as a indication of the quality of the film. I am OK with that. however, when such a high volume of critics and movie-goers agree that the film is good, and a handful of people insist that it is garbage, why should that argument be any more valid?
-Bobby
Not all movie-goers agree that the film is good and not all critics know what they're talking about (and their opinions certainly don't matter any more than the average movie-goer). I hear patrons leaving auditorium 10 every day, and the split of positive reactions to negative reactions are about 50/50 from what I've observed.
Of course, since I'm part of the supposed "handful" of people who thought the story itself was static and uninteresting and the characters were bland and uncreative I'm prone to see more validity in arguments along those lines.
I didn't ignore your thoughts regarding the adjusted grosses, I simply don't agree with your dismissal of them.
""Our whole consumer culture right now is facinated with low-quality crap.""
Kind of a blanket statement, no? You know the saying, "one man's garbage is another man's treasure." Who gets to decide what quality goods are? A bunch of stuffed shirt critics? A bunch of self important actors who claim to be "in search of the human condition?" How about James Lipton? He seems like a cool cat, he is an acting professor, surely he is the most qualified.
Here lies the problem, its all subjective, and you know what, I think its refreshing when the critics and the masses agree every now and then. Lets face it, critics are critics because they crave validation that their opinion should be more valued than everyone else's. Often a critic will resist convention just to maintain the facade that they are somehow more enlightened to what makes great art than the average consumer.
Return of the King, was that garbage because a load of people saw it not that long ago? How about Dan Brown Novels, or Stephen King, or JK Rowling, is it all garbage because the masses find appeal in it?
Is a Phish fan more artistically sophisticated than a Green Day fan, I'm just wondering....
Saying that any 3D special effects extravaganza would have done just as well is dismissive to the cinematic accomplishments of AVATAR.