AVATAR - See it in 3D if you haven't! #1 Movie All-Time Domestic & Worldwide!

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Sliver

You didn't even see it so how can you say you didn't like it?

This Dances with Wolves comparison as some way of discrediting the movie is getting so old. You guys are aware there are only so many story lines available to a story teller, right? Avatar as a story is engaging - unless you don't want to be engaged lol. Let alone how incredible it is visually.

I disagree 100% that there are only so many story lines, and any other writer I've discussed that theory with agrees that it's bull. It's a theory always espoused by a) high-school english teachers attempting to overly simplify things for their students, or b) people defending really predictable and derivative books or movies.

And engaging? Take the story, take away all of the effects and all of the art direction, and would that really, honestly engage you? Is it really anything more than saturday-morning cartoons have to offer? The story basically serves to move the movie along from setpiece to setpiece and incredible setting to incredible setting, and it's successful only to the extent that it doesn't get in the way of those things, which are the focus of this movie. Can you remember (without looking it up) any of the lines of the film, verbatim? I can remember only one of them.

I liked the movie. I was completely entertained by it. But if you look at it objectively and separate out the acting, writing, art direction, and effects, I don't see how you can't conclude that some thing were tremendously well done and others were just the minimum that the movie needed to get by.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by octothorp

I disagree 100% that there are only so many story lines, and any other writer I've discussed that theory with agrees that it's bull. It's a theory always espoused by a) high-school english teachers attempting to overly simplify things for their students, or b) people defending really predictable and derivative books or movies.

And engaging? Take the story, take away all of the effects and all of the art direction, and would that really, honestly engage you? Is it really anything more than saturday-morning cartoons have to offer? The story basically serves to move the movie along from setpiece to setpiece and incredible setting to incredible setting, and it's successful only to the extent that it doesn't get in the way of those things, which are the focus of this movie. Can you remember (without looking it up) any of the lines of the film, verbatim? I can remember only one of them.

I liked the movie. I was completely entertained by it. But if you look at it objectively and separate out the acting, writing, art direction, and effects, I don't see how you can't conclude that some thing were tremendously well done and others were just the minimum that the movie needed to get by.

You couldn't be more wrong. It's studied extensively and my understanding is the jury is not out on this - there are a finite amount of stories and they have all been told. I remember studying this specific topic in an English theory class at the UC in the late 90s on my way to my English degree.

There are infinite ways to tell stories, however, which may be what you're talking about.

[Hack&Lube]

Just for fun because this movie is unique and awesome...

The Complete List of Sources Avatar is Accused of Ripping Off

Cultural interpretation of the story also varies across the world. For many cultures, Avatar has very different meanings. For Chinese audiences (who have never heard of Dances with Wolves or Pocahontas or Fern Gully), the military contractors destroying the tree was symbolic of the Chinese government bulldozing villages and forcing people out of their ancestral homes.

[flip]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Just for fun because this movie is unique and awesome...

The Complete List of Sources Avatar is Accused of Ripping Off

Cultural interpretation of the story also varies across the world. For many cultures, Avatar has very different meanings. For Chinese audiences (who have never heard of Dances with Wolves or Pocahontas or Fern Gully), the military contractors destroying the tree was symbolic of the Chinese government bulldozing villages and forcing people out of their ancestral homes.

Only problem is that list fails to mention all the stories and art that those stories and art have ripped off.

Pretty much all literature, art and film rips off somebody else or in the very least are influenced, often heavily, by other ideas which in some way are rip offs of other ideas, which are influenced by other previous ideas etc.

Reminds me of that ######ed pic posted earlier of how Avatar is just a rip off of Disney's Pocahontas but fails to recognize that Disney ripped their story off from others.

While Octothorp has a point that there are original stories left, it doesn't change the fact that no ideas are free of influence. (which in a way does make them not original)

[Kybosh]

Originally Posted by flip

Only problem is that list fails to mention all the stories and art that those stories and art have ripped off.

Pretty much all literature, art and film rips off somebody else or in the very least are influenced, often heavily, by other ideas which in some way are rip offs of other ideas, which are influenced by other previous ideas etc.

Reminds me of that ######ed pic posted earlier of how Avatar is just a rip off of Disney's Pocahontas but fails to recognize that Disney ripped their story off from others.

While Octothorp has a point that there are original stories left, it doesn't change the fact that no ideas are free of influence. (which in a way does make them not original)

This is a weird way to look at it though. There are only about eight basic story plots in total and they are continually recycled. Avatar (or any movie) shouldn't have to acknowledge all the other stories that came before it with the same/similar basic plot elements.

[flip]

Originally Posted by Kybosh

This is a weird way to look at it though. There are only about eight basic story plots in total and they are continually recycled. Avatar (or any movie) shouldn't have to acknowledge all the other stories that came before it with the same/similar basic plot elements.

I totally agree. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of people saying Avatar isn't original.

Name me 5 movies in the last 10 years that have ZERO influence in them. And we are just talking about story. Think of all the influences with regards to musical score, directorial methods and style, cinematography etc.

[Kybosh]

Originally Posted by flip

I totally agree. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of people saying Avatar isn't original.

Name me 5 movies in the last 10 years that have ZERO influence in them. And we are just talking about story. Think of all the influences with regards to musical score, directorial methods and style, cinematography etc.

You can't. Any creative work is heavily influenced by something that came out previously.

I subscribe to the theory that any creative work can be heavily influenced by something else but can still be good. Hell, I like some remakes of movies more than the originals (ie. Dawn of the Dead).

[flip]

Originally Posted by Kybosh

You can't. Any creative work is heavily influenced by something that came out previously.

I subscribe to the theory that any creative work can be heavily influenced by something else but can still be good. Hell, I like some remakes of movies more than the originals (ie. Dawn of the Dead).

You are preaching to the choir man, I've defended Avatar dozens of times using these same arguments and people just ignore it and throw out the Dances with Wolves card and say the movie is a rip off.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Sliver

You couldn't be more wrong. It's studied extensively and my understanding is the jury is not out on this - there are a finite amount of stories and they have all been told. I remember studying this specific topic in an English theory class at the UC in the late 90s on my way to my English degree.

There are infinite ways to tell stories, however, which may be what you're talking about.

I'm guessing you're talking about the Polti theory that there are 36 or so plots that every drama can be classified into, or a similar system? Same with Bookner's seven plots. I can accept that, but I think it's a widely misused idea. Let's separate out classification vs. differentiation. I can classify every animal into one of 36 different kinds of animals (phyla). But it's completely arbitrary to say that this is the only meaningful classification; it's just an easy number to get your head around. If I'm talking about animals, what's to say that phyla is a more meaningful classification than class, order, family, genus, species, or sub species. Just because you can classify all plots into these categories doesn't mean that plots are sufficiently described by the classifications.

Take an example like, say, No Country for Old Men; if you're using Polti's classification (and I admit, I had to look it up, it's been years since I've used it) it would probably fit the 'pursuit' category. But if someone asks me what NCFOM is about and I say, 'pursuit', I've done a pretty crappy job of describing it. And it also means that you don't feel a need to draw a distinction between, say NCFOM and say, North by Northwest, and about a thousand other movies. So we need to delve deeper. And I can say it's a movie about a villain pursuing a hero and a lawman pursuing the villain. This is a classification the plot fits into, but it still does not adequately describe the plot; not even close.

Or take Heart of Darkness and Apocalypse Now; based on the same story, but do they share the same plot? The protagonist killing Kurtz vs. the protagonist simply observing his death is a massive plot difference that completely changes the meanings of the two works.

I know that classification systems are useful for analysis and I've been on that side of it too. But don't confuse two stories fitting into the same plot classification as being the same as two stories sharing the same plot.

[SteveToms]

I ain't ever going to see it. Never ever.

[Weiser Wonder]

I waiting for Nehkara to buy me a ticket to raise the number of tickets sold.

[Itse]

I actually tried to go see it last week, but there were no convenient showtimes, and now it seems they've stopped showing it.

Oh well, it'll propably be on TV a few times, maybe I'll catch it there.

Kind of hard to care, still waiting to meet anyone who thought it was good.

...Wait, I'm wrong, there's still one place showing it in Helsinki.

Also, "#1 movie all-time" is kind of stretching it, since that's counting just dollars and not adjusted for inflation. Also, the premium-priced tickets add quite a bit.

Avatar is actually #15 all-time both in number of tickets sold and inflation-adjusted gross, which are both much more significant numbers than unadjusted gross. There's little little chance it will ever reach Star Wars numbers (178 million), and it might even have a hard time passing Titanic (128 million tickets sold).

Gone With the Wind with 200 million tickets sold is pretty much untouchable. (And to think that was released back when the world's total population was only 2.3 billion...)

"Unadjusted gross" is talked about only because it's the easiest record to break.

Check out http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm and
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime...st_yr=1&p=.htm for your updated movie sales trivia.

Basicly, to be the true #1 moneymaker in movie history, Avatar still has to more than double it's gross.

Avatar is extremely popular, no doubt, but #1 all-time? Unlikely.

(Edited a couple of times, sorry.)

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Itse

Avatar is actually #15 all-time both in number of tickets sold and inflation-adjusted gross, which are both much more significant numbers than unadjusted gross. There's little little chance it will ever reach Star Wars numbers (178 million), and it might even have a hard time passing Titanic (128 million tickets sold).

That's domestic North American gross, since you are in Finland, wouldn't you be more interested in the international gross?

I don't think they have numbers adjusted for inflation but in terms of international gross, Avatar has to be top 5 at $2.467 Billion. If that's not enough to make someone curious to see it, to each his own.

Originally Posted by Itse

I actually tried to go see it last week, but there were no convenient showtimes, and now it seems they've stopped showing it.

Oh well, it'll propably be on TV a few times, maybe I'll catch it there.

Kind of hard to care, still waiting to meet anyone who thought it was good.

Interestingly in Finland, Avatar hasn't even passed Ice Age yet.

1 Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs $4,971,898
2 Avatar $4,923,292

Maybe no one cares or they didn't show it in 3D in Finland? Maybe there's no Imax there? Over here, it's still packed over the weekends and you need to show up 45 min early at least to get a decent seat. Imax is still full, even on a weekday. I wouldn't actually bother watching this on TV. The whole point is the visual experience. IMHO, if you're not watching in IMAX in 3D, you are missing the experience and you miss the point of the film.

[awildermode]

Now, Ice Age...that is original story telling.

[Hack&Lube]

I think that in the end, all the negative reaction from people who keep repeating the dances with wolves argument or keep saying it's lame is a reaction against how popular and successful the film and they are trying to defend how different their tastes are against the social barometer.

I personally have NEVER seen the Titantic and I probably never will just because I thought it was lame in 1999. It's probably exactly the same reason and you know what? It's totally irrational. It is probably an awesome movie and it would change my mind if I saw it.

For Avatar, I really was not sold by the posters and trailers and the blue people/furries. It all looks like crap on a TV screen or computer monitor and I had low expectations for it. Personally, I would go as far as saying that it's not worth watching on a small screen. It has to be seen in 3D at the least, and in the largest screen possible (IMAX) because the film is more about the visual experience than any story or narrative. I decided to watch it since I am a fan of Cameron and I wanted to see what the fuss was about with this 3D technology he had been working on for 10 years to get to this point and it changed me completely after seeing it.

Watching Avatar is like taking a ride on a rollercoaster. It doesn't look like much from the ground. You have to get on it and ride it all the way through. Watching Avatar on a TV screen or monitor at home in 2D would be like watching a rollercoaster from the ground. It's a visual ride moreso than a film that I would say is a must see, but because it's such an awesome ride, it's something that you should definetely do.

[Komskies]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

I think that in the end, all the negative reaction from people who keep repeating the dances with wolves argument or keep saying it's lame is a reaction against how popular and successful the film and they are trying to defend how different their tastes are against the social barometer.

I personally have NEVER seen the Titantic and I probably never will just because I thought it was lame in 1999. It's probably exactly the same reason and you know what? It's totally irrational. It is probably an awesome movie and it would change my mind if I saw it.

For Avatar, I really was not sold by the posters and trailers and the blue people/furries. It all looks like crap on a TV screen or computer monitor and I had low expectations for it. Personally, I would go as far as saying that it's not worth watching on a small screen. It has to be seen in 3D at the least, and in the largest screen possible (IMAX) because the film is more about the visual experience than any story or narrative. I decided to watch it since I am a fan of Cameron and I wanted to see what the fuss was about with this 3D technology he had been working on for 10 years to get to this point and it changed me completely after seeing it.

Watching Avatar is like taking a ride on a rollercoaster. It doesn't look like much from the ground. You have to get on it and ride it all the way through. Watching Avatar on a TV screen or monitor at home in 2D would be like watching a rollercoaster from the ground. It's a visual ride moreso than a film that I would say is a must see, but because it's such an awesome ride, it's something that you should definetely do.

Titanic has a scene with titties.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by octothorp

I'm guessing you're talking about the Polti theory that there are 36 or so plots that every drama can be classified into, or a similar system? Same with Bookner's seven plots. I can accept that, but I think it's a widely misused idea. Let's separate out classification vs. differentiation. I can classify every animal into one of 36 different kinds of animals (phyla). But it's completely arbitrary to say that this is the only meaningful classification; it's just an easy number to get your head around. If I'm talking about animals, what's to say that phyla is a more meaningful classification than class, order, family, genus, species, or sub species. Just because you can classify all plots into these categories doesn't mean that plots are sufficiently described by the classifications.

Take an example like, say, No Country for Old Men; if you're using Polti's classification (and I admit, I had to look it up, it's been years since I've used it) it would probably fit the 'pursuit' category. But if someone asks me what NCFOM is about and I say, 'pursuit', I've done a pretty crappy job of describing it. And it also means that you don't feel a need to draw a distinction between, say NCFOM and say, North by Northwest, and about a thousand other movies. So we need to delve deeper. And I can say it's a movie about a villain pursuing a hero and a lawman pursuing the villain. This is a classification the plot fits into, but it still does not adequately describe the plot; not even close.

Or take Heart of Darkness and Apocalypse Now; based on the same story, but do they share the same plot? The protagonist killing Kurtz vs. the protagonist simply observing his death is a massive plot difference that completely changes the meanings of the two works.

I know that classification systems are useful for analysis and I've been on that side of it too. But don't confuse two stories fitting into the same plot classification as being the same as two stories sharing the same plot.

Fair enough. I concede that it can be argued both ways. My 23 year-old self would probably want to debate this, but my 33 year-old self is more like "meh."

[awildermode]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

I think that in the end, all the negative reaction from people who keep repeating the dances with wolves argument or keep saying it's lame is a reaction against how popular and successful the film and they are trying to defend how different their tastes are against the social barometer.

I personally have NEVER seen the Titantic and I probably never will just because I thought it was lame in 1999. It's probably exactly the same reason and you know what? It's totally irrational. It is probably an awesome movie and it would change my mind if I saw it.

it is 'cool' to hate on Avatar, just like it is/was 'cool' to hate on Titanic.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

I was pretty anti Avatar, and I finally went to see it this past weekend.
It was pretty much what I expected.
It looked amazing, and the story, was something I wouldn't be too interested in seeing if it hadn't been wrapped in a 3D movie.

Was I entertained? Sure, it was fun to watch.
Will I see it again? Nope.
Does it deserve to win any awards for best picture? I don't think so.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Just for fun because this movie is unique and awesome...

The Complete List of Sources Avatar is Accused of Ripping Off

Cultural interpretation of the story also varies across the world. For many cultures, Avatar has very different meanings. For Chinese audiences (who have never heard of Dances with Wolves or Pocahontas or Fern Gully), the military contractors destroying the tree was symbolic of the Chinese government bulldozing villages and forcing people out of their ancestral homes.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmast...rge-lucas/649/

Speaking of STAR WARS, Lucas said, “There was no modern mythology to give kids a sense of values, to give them a strong mythological fantasy life. Westerns were the last of that genre for Americans. Nothing was being done for young people with real psychological underpinnings.” In the writing of anthropologist Joseph Campbell, Lucas had learned about the myths that pervade many disparate cultures, and it is this mythology that gives Lucas’s space age epic its timeless resonance. Both of the sequels and the one prequel continued in the same vein and with equally successful.