The Trouble City Forums
Avatar post-release discussion - Printable Version

+- The Trouble City Forums (http://citizens.trouble.city)
+-- Forum: Specific Cinema (http://citizens.trouble.city/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: Films in Release or On Video (http://citizens.trouble.city/forumdisplay.php?fid=78)
+--- Thread: Avatar post-release discussion (/showthread.php?tid=120288)



- therewillbezodiac - 01-25-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Merriweather
View Post
"Widely loved" and "unanimous praise" are not the same thing. And again, AMERICAN IDOL is widely loved. MacDonalds is widely loved. Celine Dion is widely loved.

American Idol, McDonalds and Celine Dion are widely loved without unanimous critical praise. Avatar has both. If you're going to compare it to widely loved crap - at least compare it to widely loved crap that has the critical praise Avatar has.

Like The Beatles, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, or Casablanca.

Oh look, my list of randomly picked popular things is better than yours.


- jake - 01-25-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Merriweather
View Post
"Widely loved" and "unanimous praise" are not the same thing. And again, AMERICAN IDOL is widely loved. MacDonalds is widely loved. Celine Dion is widely loved.

EDIT: Holy shit, what is with you people? Please don't act as if I'm the only person in the world who doesn't like this film.

I can't stand it outside of a "okay, that was pretty" perspective, but there's no way in hell I'm going to engage anyone in conversation about Avatar ever again in my life if I can help it oh god I just sort of did it


- andrew merriweather - 01-25-2010

*bangs head on keyboard*

I give up. Are we all now of the opinion that TITANIC is a landmark in cinema and a great feat because so many people loved it and it got so many glowing reviews at the time?

Get out, Jake! Get out NOW!


- phil - 01-25-2010

STFU Jake YOU ARE RUINING TEH SPECIAL EVENT


- phil - 01-25-2010

I agree with the Survivor chick that Avatar is preferable to cancer.


- ben thomas - 01-25-2010

Well, I'm not gonna bring my personal taste regarding Titanic into the debate but I'd argue that yes, Titanic is a landmark in 20th century cinema. But not necessarily for the reasons you state.

ETA: Did I just break this thread?


- andrew merriweather - 01-25-2010

But not AIDS.

EDIT: To Phil. Clearly, AIDS was not a landmark of 20th century cinema.


- steve moonrocket - 01-25-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Merriweather
View Post
But not AIDS.

EDIT: To Phil. Clearly, AIDS was not a landmark of 20th century cinema.




- andrew merriweather - 01-25-2010

Goddammit!


- therewillbezodiac - 01-25-2010

Titanic is definitley a landmark of 20th Century Cinema. Like Avatar, it may not be a work of staggering artistic weight, but it is excellent at what it sets out to do. I think there's a lot of things we could be complaining about more then well executed, entertaining mass appeal blockbusters. Like poorly executed, boring mainstream blockbusters.

Regardless of anyone's personal opinions, I think one would be lying to themselves if they didn't recognize that in fifty years Avatar and Titanic will still be talked about classics.


- phil - 01-25-2010

People call Forrest Gump a classic now. No argument there.


- andrew merriweather - 01-25-2010

I will see you here in fifty years. If people are still talking about AVATAR as a classic, I will eat my own spleen.


- therewillbezodiac - 01-25-2010

Are there any other films, EVER, that have dominated the box office at the level Avatar has and NOT become a classic?

I'm not saying that high box office gross=classic, but box office domination on this level almost always does.

Avatar will be the highest grossing movie of the decade. I know I'm getting into dicey territory (money=QUALITY!), but has there ever been a highest grossing film of the decade that didn't end up being an easy classic?


- andrew merriweather - 01-25-2010

Q: What's the difference between PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: DEAD MAN'S CHEST and a world-changing classic?
A: About a billion dollars.


- jake - 01-25-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Merriweather
View Post
I will see you here in fifty years.

yeah thread's on a personal killfile for me now since this is probably merely the tip of the asperg

...But I'll probably still end up in here somehow.


- princess kate - 01-25-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Merriweather
View Post
Q: What's the difference between PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: DEAD MAN'S CHEST and a world-changing classic?
A: About a billion dollars.

That is not fair.

POTCMC was terrible

AVATAR blew me away.

EVERYONE I know who has seen it loved it. Even my 85 year old dad. I have coworkers who are in their 60s who have been twice.


- danko - 01-25-2010

So let's say it's true, the movie sells thanx to the hype.
Which brings the question:
WHY the hype to begin with?

Who *forces* people who see the movie to go out and "hype it" to others?
I certainly never suggested anyone to go see Transformers 2 after having seen it myself.

But I went 2 times to see Avatar, and pushed a friend of mine to go (as I wrote in an earlier post). This guy NOT ONLY loved it unconditionally, but he pushed his parents to go see it too, and they totally loved it as well
See a pattern here?
[sure it was a smart move to make it enjoyable by all demographics]

Of course, some of those caught by the hype machine will end up NOT liking it or hating, even though they added to the total gross.

But the "hype machine" itself seems to be finding *new fuel* constantly.
Now, why is that, if I may ask?


- andrew merriweather - 01-25-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jake
View Post
yeah thread's on a personal killfile for me now since this is probably merely the tip of the asperg.

Please don't tell me you took that seriously.


- therewillbezodiac - 01-25-2010

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/pira...ad_mans_chest/

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/avatar/

Big difference in quality. Pirates 2, like Transfomers 2, made money because the first one of each was well liked. Avatar is making a billion more with an original property and getting better reviews.


- andrew merriweather - 01-25-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Princess Kate
View Post
That is not fair.

POTCMC was terrible

AVATAR blew me away.

This kinda sums up the whole damn argument here.

EDIT: If we're going to use rottentomatoes as a source, I would say there are far more films on there with a higher rating than 82%. What are those films classed as? Superduperunanimously praised?


- therewillbezodiac - 01-25-2010

If 85% of critics are giving something a positive review (and most of the positives are raves), that's pretty close to unanimous praise.


- ryan c.b. - 01-25-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by danko
View Post
So let's say it's true, the movie sells thanx to the hype.
Which brings the question:
WHY the hype to begin with?

Who *forces* people who see the movie to go out and "hype it" to others?
I certainly never suggested anyone to go see Transformers 2 after having seen it myself.

But I went 2 times to see Avatar, and pushed a friend of mine to go (as I wrote in an earlier post). This guy NOT ONLY loved it unconditionally, but he pushed his parents to go see it too, and they totally loved it as well
See a pattern here?
[sure it was a smart move to make it enjoyable by all demographics]

Of course, some of those caught by the hype machine will end up NOT liking it or hating, even though they added to the total gross.

But the "hype machine" itself seems to be finding *new fuel* constantly.
Now, why is that, if I may ask?

This. ? WOM getting people to see it means shit if the WOM is terrible.

Also: OPINIONS WOO


- princess kate - 01-25-2010

BTW, re: hype.

I joined this site in August. The first thing I talked about on here practically was AVATAR. Everyone said there was no hype or word of mouth. As late as November, I was told there was "no awareness of the film"

I was told that the film might even tank because "no one knew what it was, or who James Cameron was"

I was told that the time remaining was not enough to hype the public up.

So which is it?

Either it's successful because of hype, or there was no hype. You guys can't change your story now that the movie is the #1 film of all time.


- count floyd - 01-25-2010

Oy. They're talking about current hype, or word of mouth. Same thing.

The film seemed somewhat off the radar before release. And it had an excellent but not mind-blowing opening weekend. It took off after that.


- damon houx - 01-25-2010

Arguably, more critical thought is devoted to Jackie Brown these days than Titanic. Titanic will always be known as a very successful picture, as will Avatar, but in terms of being canonical, both will be defined as popular favorites that aren't totally terrible, but exist in a rarified air of cultural phenomenons more than great. There is nothing going on under the surface, and neither would crack a Sight and Sound top 100 poll.

When people look at Oscars, it's easy to say Raging Bull is a better film than Ordinary People, or Goodfellas over Dances with Wolves. Similar principles exist here.


- ben thomas - 01-25-2010

Merriweather, I just wanna address two things and I really don't want this to come off as animosity, cos I'm not ragging on your right to disagree with me.

It seems like your terminology is defeating a lot of the conversation here. First you asked if Titanic would be considered by some in here as a landmark film. Regardless of personal opinion, it holds an inportant place in the pantheon of recent studio filmmaking and certainly its own decade. Does this mean it is a classic? Different question. Making money hand over fist and altering the course of a decade of cinema makes it a landmark. A classic is something that can be constantly reevaluated by subsequent generations of viewers and come out on top as something that persists to engage, entrall and inspire discussion.

Avatar is a modern landmark in cinema. That doesn't make it a classic. Only time will tell on that front and - honestly - I'd err on the side of it not surviving as a classic.

Secondly, comments like *bangs head on keyboard* infers a frustration that we that like/love it are misguided or that you're trying to convert us in some way. I'm sure this isn't your true intention, i'm just saying how it can come across.


- diva - 01-25-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Merriweather
View Post
Hurm.

Holy moly. Are you literate? Credit does not equal quality. Terminator 2 is a shitty movie in terms of quality, but I give it credit for bringing people into the theater. People wanted to see robots fighting. Similarly, I give Avatar credit for attracting people to the theaters. This is separate from content quality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil
View Post
I agree with the Survivor chick that Avatar is preferable to cancer.

Phil to the rescue, again.


- count floyd - 01-25-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben Thomas
View Post
Merriweather, I just wanna address two things and I really don't want this to come off as animosity, cos I'm not ragging on your right to disagree with me.

It seems like your terminology is defeating a lot of the conversation here. First you asked if Titanic would be considered by some in here as a landmark film. Regardless of personal opinion, it holds an inportant place in the pantheon of recent studio filmmaking and certainly its own decade. Does this mean it is a classic? Different question. Making money hand over fist and altering the course of a decade of cinema makes it a landmark.

Serious question, was there really anything game-changing about TITANIC? Its performance--modest opening and ridiculously long tail--was completely antithetical to the pump-and-dump strategy that bloomed in the decade following. If anything, it was the exception that proves the rule. The only film I can think of that tried to directly ape TITANIC's appeal was maybe PEARL HARBOR.

AVATAR, of course, could prove to be far more influential, obviously for 3D cinema and perhaps for broadening the audience for science fiction.


- damon houx - 01-25-2010

Titanic played like an homage to a lot of older movies and genres, not so much the game changer that Terminator 2 or Avatar are.


- ben thomas - 01-25-2010

I think what made Titanic special is largely what makes Avatar special - it cost so bloody much, we waited for it for so bloody long and everyone thought it would be and wanted it to be bollocks.

But it was grand, epic spectacle, the likes of which we hadn't seen for years. Don't get me wrong - I have infintely more problems with Titanic than I have with Avatar and I don't own it, would rarely choose to watch it. But it was absolutely essential at the time, an experience for the cinema, to be shared with others perhaps even several times. And it got people to go in droves, people who hadn't been to the cinema in years.

It also showed that a long, expensive film, even one that ends largely on a downer (a foregone conclusion at that), could still be successful, massively so. It was a phenomenon, something that can't be predicted, bottled or formulated.

Except, maybe Cameron has found a way to do it. Because, and be honest, did anyone expect Avatar to do this business? I would say it should have been much more niche than something like Titanic (surely not as many chicks go to sci-fi action spectacles, certainly if my flatmates and girlfriends of the last few years are anything to go by).

ETA: Yes, Pearl Harbour exists largely because of Titanic. But don't underestimate the effect Titanic's success had on projects like Gladiator and - by extrapolation - the Lord of the Rings films. It put big, long, fantastic films back on the map.


- count floyd - 01-25-2010

I really don't think LOTR's success has anything but the most tenuous connection to TITANIC. It was greenlighted and well into pre-production before TITANIC was released. And outside of them both being very long (and maybe a certain kind of earnestness to their stories), there is almost nothing similar about them.

Again, Cameron has clearly figured something out, twice is not a coincidence. But since we're basically arguing about how "important" AVATAR will be, I don't think TITANIC is a useful example since no one has been able or really even tried to duplicate its success except for Cameron.


- MichaelM - 01-25-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Count Floyd
View Post
I really don't think LOTR's success has anything but the most tenuous connection to TITANIC. It was greenlighted and well into pre-production before TITANIC was released.

LOTR did not even start filming until mid 1999. Titanic was released in December 1997. Pre-production had started for LOTR in 1998, but I don't think they finally decided on it being three films (instread of two) and filming all three simultaneously until after Titanic's success.


- Richard Dickson - 01-25-2010

Jackson and company were writing the script for the two-film version as early as 1997. Weinstein proposed the one-film version in '98, and New Line approved the three-film version later that year. But I don't think the timing with Titanic was anything more than coincidental.


- greg clark - 01-25-2010

I'd make an argument that Back to the Future had more to contribute to the way Lord of the Rings was shot than Titanic ever did.


- nexus-7 - 01-25-2010

If Titanic had any effect on LofR, it was related to running times, and I don't think that seems that far fetched.