Avatar Might beat Titanic for the #1 Highest Grossing Spot

[AnonymouseUser]

----Spoiler-----

You're doing it wrong.

Spoiler

Anyone feel like standing up and yelling

"Tiiiiiimmmmmmmmmmmbbbbbbbbbbbbeerrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!"

When the tree falls?

Fixed

 

[iGas]

Ah, so they might be showing it in 3D but not IMAX then? For the best experience, I should seek out an IMAX 3D venue?

Is this consensus?

I'm not sure if all IMAX theatres in the US is true IMAX.

The true IMAX in the local theatre here is 63x80 feet screen, or equivalent of 6 stories building in height and 80 feet wide. It is not the largest screen in the world (true IMAX screen average size is around 65'x85')

IMAX film is 70mm format (70mm x 48,5mm), or roughly X8.3 the area of 35mm. In this quality the colour is absolutely amazing and practicaly grain less. Even in 2D, the experience is breath taking, 3D is so life like that it more than worth the measly $22 per ticket (I would paid $60-$70 to see good 3D movie in IMAX format).

35mm is the standard film size for regular movies (sometime they are stouted as high quality film), however many films are shot in half frame format (1/2 area of 35mm) to save money then master in 35mm format for colour saturation thus lower the quality, slightly gainier & colour isn't as vivid.

 

[ultimatebob]

Meh... I'll wait for it to come out on BluRay. Any movie this over-hyped never lives up to expectations.

 

[Muse]

Meh... I'll wait for it to come out on BluRay. Any movie this over-hyped never lives up to expectations.

Shucks, I didn't see Titanic until years after it came out and it was an immediate favorite of mine. Admit it, it isn't just hype much less over hype. I have not seen it yet but I know there are a lot of very hyped movies that don't make it at the box office, many of them costing a lot of money to make. That this movie is breaking records says something!

 

[Muse]

I'm not sure if all IMAX theatres in the US is true IMAX.

The true IMAX in the local theatre here is 63x80 feet screen, or equivalent of 6 stories building in height and 80 feet wide. It is not the largest screen in the world (true IMAX screen average size is around 65'x85')

IMAX film is 70mm format (70mm x 48,5mm), or roughly X8.3 the area of 35mm. In this quality the colour is absolutely amazing and practicaly grain less. Even in 2D, the experience is breath taking, 3D is so life like that it more than worth the measly $22 per ticket (I would paid $60-$70 to see good 3D movie in IMAX format).

35mm is the standard film size for regular movies (sometime they are stouted as high quality film), however many films are shot in half frame format (1/2 area of 35mm) to save money then master in 35mm format for colour saturation thus lower the quality, slightly gainier & colour isn't as vivid.

I'd like to see it in IMAX, but guess I won't at least not now: I have a $25 guest card (Regal Group theaters) given me by my last employer that I've never used. I don't usually go out and see a movie, I buy or borrow DVDs (don't have Blu-Ray). The fact that this is 3D has me wanting to go out and see it, not the fact that it's the latest thing, I don't give a hang about that. The local Regal Group theater that's showing it is a small cineplex, I'm certain it's not IMAX! There is an IMAX 3D theater showing Avatar within 5 miles, though. Oh, well. Hopefully the little cineplex has got the 3D down and decent sound and the annoyances are at least tolerable.

 

[MrMatt]

HELLO THERE :awe:

You may recognize me from the thread I'm about to bump :awe:

So happy we have an ignore list now. May your cock rot off and be eaten by a shitty blue animation with no backing plot to support it.

 

[lifeobry]

So happy we have an ignore list now. May your cock rot off and be eaten by a shitty blue animation with no backing plot to support it.

:awe:

 

[HybridSquirrel]

its because the tickets cost 4 times as much.

 

[Eli]

Up over 430mil domestic.

 

[Muadib]

Ah, so they might be showing it in 3D but not IMAX then? For the best experience, I should seek out an IMAX 3D venue?

Is this consensus?

I don't know if it's a consensus, but IMAX should be experienced at least once. http://www.imax.com/

A warning about their site: They list normal 3D theaters as IMAX theaters in my area.

 

[jonks]

Hey everyone, did you like Avatar? That's because you're a racist:

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/movies.ap.org/some-see-racist-theme-alien-adventure-avatar-ap

eh, looks like this was covered in another thread.





racist.

 

[aldamon]

True. The IMAX 3D at Marbles in Raleigh is the real deal and we had a great time this weekend. All shows were sold out.

I'm not sure if all IMAX theatres in the US is true IMAX.

 

[Udgnim]

I watched the 2D version and while not a bad movie, I think I'm missing a lot not seeing the 3D version. the CG is definitely impressive, but the movie needs the 3D aspect to make it memorable and lessen the effect that Avatar is a futuristic version of Pocahontas.

 

[Muse]

I don't know if it's a consensus, but IMAX should be experienced at least once. http://www.imax.com/

A warning about their site: They list normal 3D theaters as IMAX theaters in my area.

Yup, I figure I should be skeptical of theaters represented as IMAX. Maybe call them up and ask them for the dimensions of their screen. Likely the person I'd talk to once getting past the automated system wouldn't know, though. Hopefully they could connect me to someone who does know. Well, seems to be the thing to try.

 

[Muse]

One more viewing:

Saw it yesterday in 3D, not IMAX, although it was more than the cineplex setting I anticipated. It was a cineplex but the theater looked like it could accommodate a few hundred and the screen must have been around 30' x 50'.

3D was cool. I wear glasses so I had to wear both sets, I tried both ways but the 3D stayed on top of my others. I kind of think the 3D would be better if I didn't have to wear two sets of glasses, that certain _irregularities_ wouldn't be there in that case.

The movie, well, in terms of theme, script and especially music, it didn't seem to be breaking new ground at all. In any case I'd say except for the music, which I thought sucked a lot of the time it did pull it all off very very well, and the visual and creative artistic aspects were off the chart. If you thought that Jurassic Park and any of the Star Wars movies were state of the art, well, they have to move over, way over.

There were around 6 people in the whole place! A couple of young girls moved into the row in front of me and started gabbing, and one of them brought out a cell phone or Blackberry or whatever and the glare was annoying me. I put my coat where it would block the glare. They seemed to have been repeat customers. Who knows how many times they'd seen it?

 

[Fenixgoon]

my brother and i (and possibly his wife) are going to see it today

 

[Locut0s]

Looks like it's going to be official!:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3id3e0b71b5f1a6df40dc998544184f47e

Boy was I off base on this. I didn't think it would necessarily make back it's entire production cost.

 

[lifeobry]

Looks like it's going to be official!:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3id3e0b71b5f1a6df40dc998544184f47e

Boy was I off base on this. I didn't think it would necessarily make back it's entire production cost.

Much of this board was off base on this. Lesson learned, never underestimate the Cameron :awe:

 

[Brovane]

Much of this board was off base on this. Lesson learned, never underestimate the Cameron :awe:

Yes never underestimate Cameron. It looks like Avatar is headed to be the first 2 Billion dollar+ movie.

 

[Arkaign]

Much of this board was off base on this. Lesson learned, never underestimate the Cameron :awe:

Well, I don't think he's infallible, but I was certainly wrong about Avatar's appeal. If you look at his career arc, he's going from relatively sophisticated to a Michael Bay level of quality, only with better FX.

I'll rate his IMDB listed films here, out of 5 stars (movie quality overall, acting, script, etc, not just a pretty picture)

Xexogenesis, Pirahna II, This Time it's War, Earthship 3d, misc other obscure or TV stuff : Didn't see

Terminator : 4.5/5 (for the time)
Aliens : 5/5 (a virtually perfect movie for the genre)
The Abyss : 4/5
T2 : 4.5/5
True Lies : 4/5
Titanic : 3/5
Avatar : 2/5



If the arc continues, his next film will make 6 billion dollars but be nothing but a picture of a diseased cock rotating in 3d for 4 hours.

 

[Kadarin]

I saw Avatar with my 70yo mother yesterday, and her opinion was that this was one of the best movies she has ever seen. While I think that's overstating it a bit, I definitely thought it was something special. The theater was sold out for multiple showings.

 

[lifeobry]

If the arc continues, his next film will make 6 billion dollars but be nothing but a picture of a diseased cock rotating in 3d for 4 hours.

I find it odd you enjoy some of his other movies and find Avatar so terrible. Avatar is comparable quality-wise to his other films in my estimation.

 

[Arkaign]

I find it odd you enjoy some of his other movies and find Avatar so terrible. Avatar is comparable quality-wise to his other films in my estimation.

Well, I gave it 2 out of 5 stars. The effects and usage of 3d and color, and overall technical details were outstanding, but just like the Transformers films, I can't give a good rating for just FX.

The story was derivative to extremes and utterly ridiculous at times. Yeah, we're going to perfect interstellar travel, yet not be able to solve simple problems at home or move our culture beyond 20th century USA stereotypes. Okay.

The acting was average to bad. I thought Sigourney Weaver turned in the best performance. Ribisi and that chick from Fast and Furious were just terrible.

The directing was technically decent, but again very unoriginal.

The sound was very good, though the music could have been better, that's not Cameron's fault though, Horner is normally better.

The length was somewhat excessive.

Anyway, a truly bad film I would give like .5 or 1 star to. I give Avatar 2 stars simply because it was obscenely unoriginal, and beyond FX had no real appeal as a film on it's own merits.

I really hope the next JC film is actually good on multiple levels. Titanic was a step above Avatar, but still felt a bit like a rail ride from one technical showpiece to the next, with a chick flick story filling the spaces between, along with an incredibly cardboard villain played by the capable Billy Zane.

 

[flexy]

bunch of haters and momo idiots...it was a great film, yes the story has been done before, but this was very entertaining...for some reason you idiot morons hate things for weird reasons. irony ensues while you type because you hit the pause on your japanese anime movie to criticize this film...

darn VB has no "thank you" button...lame...

Anway...the story was not less "lame" that 95% of other movie stories. LOTR, Star Wars, etc..etc... do me favor and examine their "story".

The "story" of LOTR can be summed up in a few sentences, STILL not making LOTR or Avatar a bad movie.

Its funny how there are people (especially here on ATOT) who gave rave reviews about the most retarded movies occasionally...but criticize Avatar because it didnt have a certain amount of "depth" or complexity. (Because all the other movies they watch are usually extremely deep and complex <--lol )

Avatar was a pretty good (if not excellent) movie on MANY levels, alone the level of CGI and details in the CGI...visuals, story etc... not perfect, but good on many levels for a fun 3 hours entertainment.

 

[flexy]

Yes never underestimate Cameron. It looks like Avatar is headed to be the first 2 Billion dollar+ movie.

rather him than seeing cr@p like "paranormal activity" making that much money.