|
On January 08 2010 14:44 L wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2010 08:59 StorkHwaiting wrote:On January 08 2010 08:50 L wrote:On January 08 2010 08:46 StorkHwaiting wrote:On January 08 2010 08:03 Archerofaiur wrote:Muwahahahaha With no sign of letting up, Avatar is poised again to stay on top of the box office this coming weekend, maintaining its stronghold on attendance.
For the past three weeks, the blockbuster has been a record-breaking hit in the US and internationally over the holidays. Currently, in the US Avatar accounts for 84 percent of online ticket sales heading to its fourth weekend at the box office.
The film is now the number-three all-time worldwide box office behind The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King and Titanic. It's reached the $1.1 billion mark in revenue with the strong overseas reception. In 2009, Avatar took the second spot for the year's box office after only two weeks in release. Director James Cameron could eclipse his own Titanic. Go ahead haters. Feel elitist like you know how to make a great movie and James Cameron doesnt. Cause as we all know the real problem is with all the "braying masses" who dont know true value like you do :p Twilight made $400 million dollars in ticket sales. This must mean Twilight is a superior movie to every other movie that grossed less than $400 million in ticket sales right? Because ticket sales should be the ultimate arbiter in what's considered quality. Clearly the quality of a piece of work has no impact on its popular reception, right? It really doesn't. A quality piece of work will have improved chances at popularity but there is no direct correlation whatsoever. Or else how would you explain the phenomenon of "classics" that were unread in their day and only became famous centuries after the author died? How would you explain the fact that they're now famous? Oh shit. Conceeded the point.
Nice spelling there, Einstein. Make sure put in half a second of effort next time when you're trying to make fun of someone. That way, even if you look petty, at least you'll look competently petty.
p.s. There are plenty of great books that never ended up with much popularity. It happens. A LOT. That's why you have an entire concept of sleeper hits. Great films/books/etc that went under the radar. Then again, I probably shouldn't bother responding to you. You're the same guy who just sits around trolling the Naruto thread with intentionally dumb posts.
|
I can see why you like stork
must love being 2nd rate at trolling
|
On January 09 2010 02:43 inertinept wrote:
I can see why you like stork
must love being 2nd rate at trolling
Fail analogy. 2nd best != 2nd rate.
|
I edited out 2nd best to 2nd rate
troll posts cant be correct
|
I will put my 2 cents in, and hopefully add some original thought to this entertainingly heated debate haa.
In my opinion the argument that box office sales is somehow a strong indicator of a movie's quality is crazy. If you look at it, most movies doing remarkable box office sales are the ones with licenses of franchises with big followings. Also mass appeal isn't even the same thing as quality.
As far as looking for holes in the plot, I don't think this movie is really one in which you can justify critisizing things like that. I mean, when they introduced the name of the resource "unobtanum" or w/e I just accepted the fact that the story of pandora is mainly an excuse to have humans on another planet, which I was totally fine with, because honestly, it all looked so cool/fresh to me... like those are things I could not see otherwise.... It's Not trying to be too serious or scientifically credible IMO.
I also found this movie funny because of the satire. Things like having money for all of this military equipment and not spinal repair ie. American healthcare inequality. And then the army//business people asking the scientists "what are you smoking?" when they said the trees are connected. I found this really funny because I know people who say stuff like this...
The most important thing to me though, as a person with mild ADHD, who usually just zones out through movies that aren't immersive with their ambiance, was just how distinct the feeling I had when watching this movie was, I was just charmed in some way, like when i first watched pulp fiction. With all of the bio illuminescence and new interesting character designs.
My complaint would be, the blockbuster cheesiness/cliches. Overall though, considering all the flaws this movie is able to overcome with sheer visual and immersive effect, make it far from overhyped imho.
|
The movie's box office sale IS a strong indicator of a movie's quality but in the reverse way. A movie making millions of dollars will naturally try to reach out to as many people as possible which results in an over-polished, capitalistic product trying to please the masses with no remorse. Culture has nothing to do with making money and having a target audience instead of expression - even if it is the 'whole world' - makes a movie extremely disgusting in my eyes.
The masses are idiots and they follow blindly what the advertising market tells them to like. So yes, high box office sales should rather be an argument a movie that sucks, not for praising it.
|
On January 09 2010 03:41 Shauni wrote:
The movie's box office sale IS a strong indicator of a movie's quality but in the reverse way. A movie making millions of dollars will naturally try to reach out to as many people as possible which results in an over-polished, capitalistic product trying to please the masses with no remorse. Culture has nothing to do with making money and having a target audience instead of expression - even if it is the 'whole world' - makes a movie extremely disgusting in my eyes.
The masses are idiots and they follow blindly what the advertising market tells them to like. So yes, high box office sales should rather be an argument a movie that sucks, not for praising it.
Lol... no... just no...
So, really? Are there that many idiots who listen to the ads? Cause I go by what friends say, how the critics rate it, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY how I think the movie will turn out. It's not that hard to tell if a movie will be decent or not.
|
On January 09 2010 03:41 Shauni wrote:
The movie's box office sale IS a strong indicator of a movie's quality but in the reverse way. A movie making millions of dollars will naturally try to reach out to as many people as possible which results in an over-polished, capitalistic product trying to please the masses with no remorse. Culture has nothing to do with making money and having a target audience instead of expression - even if it is the 'whole world' - makes a movie extremely disgusting in my eyes.
The masses are idiots and they follow blindly what the advertising market tells them to like. So yes, high box office sales should rather be an argument a movie that sucks, not for praising it.
Do you really believe that movies that get no coverage and go straight to video are more likely to be of higher quality than the ones that many people enjoy?
It doesn't strike me as a reasonable assumption that just because money is put into advertising a movie, that movie should automatically be worse than one where no advertising or less advertising was purchased. Especially when the budget of the advertised film is so much greater that the same or more amount of money is put into actually making the movie and the money put into advertising is ignored.
It also seems from what you write that visuals don't figure largely into your appreciation of a movie. Regardless of the popularity, movies made with more money tend to have superior visuals and cinematography. I certainly consider that an aspect of 'quality'.
|
On January 09 2010 03:41 Shauni wrote:
The movie's box office sale IS a strong indicator of a movie's quality but in the reverse way. A movie making millions of dollars will naturally try to reach out to as many people as possible which results in an over-polished, capitalistic product trying to please the masses with no remorse. Culture has nothing to do with making money and having a target audience instead of expression - even if it is the 'whole world' - makes a movie extremely disgusting in my eyes.
The masses are idiots and they follow blindly what the advertising market tells them to like. So yes, high box office sales should rather be an argument a movie that sucks, not for praising it.
I hope you are joking lol
|
On January 09 2010 03:41 Shauni wrote:
The movie's box office sale IS a strong indicator of a movie's quality but in the reverse way. A movie making millions of dollars will naturally try to reach out to as many people as possible which results in an over-polished, capitalistic product trying to please the masses with no remorse. Culture has nothing to do with making money and having a target audience instead of expression - even if it is the 'whole world' - makes a movie extremely disgusting in my eyes.
The masses are idiots and they follow blindly what the advertising market tells them to like. So yes, high box office sales should rather be an argument a movie that sucks, not for praising it.
worst argument in this thread lol
|
On January 09 2010 03:41 Shauni wrote:
The movie's box office sale IS a strong indicator of a movie's quality but in the reverse way. A movie making millions of dollars will naturally try to reach out to as many people as possible which results in an over-polished, capitalistic product trying to please the masses with no remorse. Culture has nothing to do with making money and having a target audience instead of expression - even if it is the 'whole world' - makes a movie extremely disgusting in my eyes.
The masses are idiots and they follow blindly what the advertising market tells them to like. So yes, high box office sales should rather be an argument a movie that sucks, not for praising it.
wtf
This makes no sense at all.
|
On January 09 2010 03:13 meteorskunk wrote:
As far as looking for holes in the plot, I don't think this movie is really one in which you can justify critisizing things like that. I mean, when they introduced the name of the resource "unobtanum" or w/e I just accepted the fact that the story of pandora is mainly an excuse to have humans on another planet, which I was totally fine with, because honestly, it all looked so cool/fresh to me... like those are things I could not see otherwise.... It's Not trying to be too serious or scientifically credible IMO.
Anyone who thinks the term 'unobtanium' is inconceivable has never spent any amount of time with either scientists or marketers. I realize it's supposed to be homage to older sci-fi, but either group coming up with a name like that is one of the most plausible things about the plot.
Scientists love to come up with boring literal names and laugh at their irony (like naming a telescope the Very Large Array), and given the things the people who advertise nutritional supplements and shampoo come up with, it's not even remotely far-fetched. RDA could just call the stuff unobtanium to reflect how rare and hard to get it is for good public relations. Corporate investors eat that sort of thing up like candy.
|
Anyone who thinks the term 'unobtanium' is inconceivable has never spent any amount of time with either scientists or marketers
Thats true, I guess I just meant that it seemed a bit tongue in cheek. It seemed like a very simplistic explanation of Humans on some other planet I suppose...
|
On January 09 2010 06:37 meteorskunk wrote:Show nested quote +Anyone who thinks the term 'unobtanium' is inconceivable has never spent any amount of time with either scientists or marketers Thats true, I guess I just meant that it seemed a bit tongue in cheek. It seemed like a very simplistic explanation of Humans on some other planet I suppose...
The backstory (which I believe they were right to leave out of the movie) indicates it's a room temperature superconductor (which is abundant on Pandora but only exists in trace amounts in the solar system), which if real would be the holy grail of technology. 22nd century Earth uses it for mag-lev transportation, lossless electricity transmission, and generation of exotic forms of power. For example, the matter/antimatter engines that propel the ships to and from Pandora use magnetic containment fields made from unobtanium to prevent the engines from exploding. Also, the combination of a room-temperature superconductor and the magnetic fields caused by Pandora orbiting a gas giant provide a convenient and relatively well-grounded explanation for floating mountains, which is just a bonus.
If they had gone to any lengths to explain that stuff, people would have rightly criticized the movie for being too heavy on technobabble, but the rationale for why humanity would go through all the effort to get it is reasonably solid. Not only that, every character in the movie probably has a good idea of what it's for, so it would have been very awkward trying to shoehorn a place to explain it to the audience. Parker's friendly reminder to Grace that it's extremely valuable is less out-of-place because bosses remind their employees of priorities all the time.
You could argue that the money RDA is spending to finance an interstellar mining effort could have been better spent trying to research a way to manufacture unobtanium from materials that are more abundant in the solar system. But, given that Earth is apparently in a very sorry state, RDA is probably taking advantage of the situation to become a market leader in interplanetary exploration, exploitation, and colonization because they see the writing on the wall for humanity's future on Earth.
|
On January 09 2010 06:37 meteorskunk wrote:Show nested quote +Anyone who thinks the term 'unobtanium' is inconceivable has never spent any amount of time with either scientists or marketers Thats true, I guess I just meant that it seemed a bit tongue in cheek. It seemed like a very simplistic explanation of Humans on some other planet I suppose...
Better than saying that they were there looking for WMDs
HEYO
|
On January 09 2010 06:46 BanZu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2010 06:37 meteorskunk wrote:Anyone who thinks the term 'unobtanium' is inconceivable has never spent any amount of time with either scientists or marketers Thats true, I guess I just meant that it seemed a bit tongue in cheek. It seemed like a very simplistic explanation of Humans on some other planet I suppose... Better than saying that they were there looking for WMDs HEYO
I see what you did there. Loool.
Very clever (:
|
On January 09 2010 05:46 ZeroCartin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2010 03:41 Shauni wrote:
The movie's box office sale IS a strong indicator of a movie's quality but in the reverse way. A movie making millions of dollars will naturally try to reach out to as many people as possible which results in an over-polished, capitalistic product trying to please the masses with no remorse. Culture has nothing to do with making money and having a target audience instead of expression - even if it is the 'whole world' - makes a movie extremely disgusting in my eyes.
The masses are idiots and they follow blindly what the advertising market tells them to like. So yes, high box office sales should rather be an argument a movie that sucks, not for praising it. wtf This makes no sense at all.
How can you guys not understand? With millions of dollars in budget, there is great responsibility. The movie is not the directors ideal and the directors ideal alone, he need to please the audience (the masses), other staff and corporations who put their budget into the movie. The end result is often a straggling yet politically correct and morally acceptable product. A product without any soul left, the only thing remaining is a cold calculation of the expected income. Who wants to see such culture? Most of the world apparently...
|
Avatar is now the second highest grossing film of all time.
That is all.
|
This movie was perfect except for one part. The part where Jake suddenly knows that Pandora's jelly is flamable. But other than that, i had no english subtitles which made the movie more interestingly real ahah. ok great movie 10/10. Man oh man eevn the ending had a complete feeling. I wanna be avatar'ed bitchez
|
On January 09 2010 08:11 Shauni wrote:
A product without any soul left, the only thing remaining is a cold calculation of the expected income. Who wants to see such culture? Most of the world apparently...
you like to see more than everybody else
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://pic.yupoo.com/hecaitou/097716c5aa49/vmc3gl7u.jpg)
