_Avatar_, directed by James Cameron

I GIVE MY SOUL TO THE DEEP, IN EXCHANGE FOR 100 BAZILLION DOLLARS

i still really don't get it, but he also arranged for me to be laid off apparently so BOW DOWN BEFORE THE ONE YOU SERVE

but he also arranged for me to be laid off

you were part of the staff on Pandora?

(le fikshunal planit)

nah, i just mean he spoke with the powers that be and had me put on the dole to teach me a lesson

what did you do?

what the hell

he has a billion dollars folks
i am suggesting he is using it to crush those that doubt him
i am explaining a joke

it was well formed

sorry to hear that

my best to your family

they're working in the furry mines now

Avatar is also just like Titanic in that I don't personally know anyone who has been to see it, and yet it's the hugest movie in the world. I smell conspiracies!

Do they ever do these charts in terms of tickets sold rather than highest gross? Because, yeah, a big movie that a lot of people are going to see in IMAX at 2010 ticket prices is naturally going to gross an assload of cash. But I'd really be interested to see how many individual people paid money to see it.

Avatar is also just like Titanic in that I don't personally know anyone who has been to see it

You just aren't asking.

I know boxofficemojo tracks domestic rankings adjusted for inflation (Avatar is currently #26, Titanic #6, Gone with the Wind #1), but I don't see anything based on number of tickets.

boxofficemojo has an estimated tickets page, altho it's the same as their adjusted gross page and doesn't take avatar's high ticket price into account.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm?adjust_yr=1&p=.htm

if you added $3 to the average price of avatar's tickets, it would have around (7.35/10.35 * 76.8M =) 54.5 million tickets sold, placing it around #78.

Yeah, that sounds more like it. I know no one is claiming this, but I really have a hard time believing that Avatar is totally kicking the box office world's ass in terms of breaking ticket sale records.

Avatar 2 is being produced with a new filmmaking technology that will allow theater owners to project it against the nighttime sky! Of course, you're going to have to shell out an extra $4,000 for the disposable jetpack that will allow you to see it with the clarity with which it was meant to be seen...

Oh, look at that! We've broken another box office record!

i mean its making mad dollars but compare 3-d price today to reg tick price in 97

(the boxofficemojo page also ignores roadshow prices, doesn't adjust rereleased movies correctly, and probably a bunch of other things. i highly doubt fantasia was that popular.)

I think I remember reading that Fantasia was hugely popular. Disney and feature-length animation were very new at that point, and a feature-length animated Disney film that wasn't aimed solely at kids in 1940(?) would've surely been a big draw.

Hugely popular in its first run, I mean.

in Britannia the 3D glasses are a one time cost. Avatar costs as much as any other non-3D movie. Though yeah in general the gross is inflated because of that. not that Fox gives a flying shitting fuck.

Wikipedia:
Fantasia was originally released by Walt Disney Productions itself rather than RKO Radio Pictures, which normally distributed the Disney films, and exhibited as a two-hour and twenty minute roadshow film (counting the intermission) with reserved-seat engagements. The film opened to mixed critical reaction and failed to generate a large commercial audience, which left Disney in financial straits.

apparently the film didn't really pay off until 1969

yeah, i think it was a serious gamble that never really paid off until it hit rerelease xp

Well, that shut me up. Ha ha.

Fantasia + pot = profit

If only stoned kids had been around in the '40s to save it.

haha xp

http://media.photobucket.com/image/%25252760s%20fantasia%20poster/angral/fant.jpg

Avatar should have had a poster like this.

Fox said 72 percent of worldwide sales for “Avatar” came from 3-D screens. If Mr. Dergarabedian’s estimates are correct, the movie has accounted for roughly 56 million admissions in domestic theaters to date.

That is about the same number of tickets that “Titanic” had sold at this point in its theatrical run, he said.

But “Titanic” played and played, remaining in theaters until September 1998 and racking up about 128 million admissions. “Avatar” still needs a very long tail to surpass the number of viewers who saw “Titanic.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/movies/awardsseason/27record.html

Avatar Will Take Ya Far!

On Tuesday Tom Rothman, a chairman of the Fox film operation, said the global success of “Avatar” carried a lesson beyond economics. “It tells you all of us on the planet have more things in common than we have dividing us,” Mr. Rothman said.

man, it's like the end of Return Of The Jedi over there, aint it

I shudder trying to imagine what the Fox executive equivalent of "Yub Nub" is

Indigo & Ivory

http://queserasara.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/scrooge-mcduck.jpg

It tells you all of us on the planet have more things in common than we have dividing us

Fantasia + pot = profit

Still love the release poster for the 1969 run

http://www.judasposters.com/images/posters/Fantasia.jpg

i never read the NYer piece but what i wanna know is: did Cameron/WETA license/patent/whatever any of the technology used in this thing? because it seems to me that the investment strategy for this thing probably had more to do with how it might change ~movie-making~ not just how well it might do at the box office.

because as a technological proof of concept it's pretty fucking impressive, and i can't help but believe that SOMEone stands to make a ton of money from all the tech they developed to make it happen

I remember reading that the 3D cameras were invented by Cameron

i'm sure that what's patentable has been patented, but as with ILM just developing the expertise is a significant asset. the team will fan out over the years but for now, basically, if you want to do something like this, you'll need to talk to someone who worked on avatar, and if you want to get your picture made this decade it's going to make more sense to pay them to do the work in a feasible timeframe than to have your team learn on the job.

Or you could just book Weta and relax.

wait isn't that what i just said?

This is two years old now, but a good read iirc (I just pulled it out of my bookmarks and haven't reread it, so apologies if is sucks): http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117983864.html?categoryid=2868&cs=1

You know what I think.

-- Jim out

A 3-D film immerses you in the scene, with a greatly enhanced sense of physical presence and participation.

ORLY

I believe that a functional-MRI study of brain activity would show that more neurons are actively engaged in processing a 3-D movie than the same film seen in 2-D.

well hey why don't you actually do a study 'cause tbh i don't give a shit what you believe.

wait isn't that what i just said?

Well yeah but I was just giving the short version. :-D

I believe that a functional-MRI study of brain activity would show that more neurons are actively engaged in processing a 3-D movie than the same film seen in 2-D.

This must be why JC made the plot/story/acting so dumb and unsubtle, because the 3D takes extra brainwork.

quiet I'm busy processing 3d blue tits

Well yeah but I was just giving the short version.

I do go on... just wanted to make sure I hadn't accidentally said the opposite or something ;-)