-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
(NYTIMES) The $500 million gamble on James Cameron's Avatar.
- Thread starter Ripclawe
- Start date
- Status
PhoenixDark
Banned
PrivateWHudson said:
Want to bet? I think ban bets are outlawed here, but I'll definitely take an avatar bet. Seems apt
Krev said:
His technology obsession is frighteningly similar to George Lucas' bullshit from a decade ago, and interviews reveal that he has his head equally as far up his ass. At least Lucas could cut an exciting trailer though -- even the marketing for AVATAR seems flat and perfunctory. Story looks dull and predictable, designs are unappealing/cliche......and of course "YOU'RE NOT IN KANSAS ANYMORE LOLOLOLOL"
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
Its only fitting that the detractors of AVATAR that think it will bomb are the same GAF folk that shit on Spielberg and consider him to be mediocre. His last film before Indy 4 was Munich - one of the best pieces of his filmography.
LoganKnight4949
Member
Scullibundo said:
I think Avatar will bomb financially.
I hope Avatar DOESN'T bomb financially.
I have faith in the fact that I will enjoy Avatar because I like Cameron and all of his work pretty much and I'm a sucker for Alien/Future Sci-Fi.
I think Munich is one of Spielberg's best.
BOOM. I just totally shit on your entire theory buddy.
Scullibundo said:
The question was " If we can't trust him to make a kickass sci-fi action epic, then who CAN we trust?"
I facetiously answered "Steven Spielberg". Please tell me where I said anything about him being a mediocre director (shit, for that matter tell me where I said Avatar would bomb). I don't trust Spielberg with big sci-fi pictures anymore, but that doesn't mean he can't produce great stuff when he wants to.
GoutPatrol
Forgotten in his cell
Scullibundo said:
Most people aren't saying that it will not make money, but that is will suck. I think it looks crappy myself.
PrivateWHudson
Member
PhoenixDark said:
Name your terms. I'd wager that AVATAR clears $250 million domestically.
PhoenixDark
Banned
PrivateWHudson said:
If I win, you use whatever avatar I choose for you. If I lose, I use whatever avatar you choose for me.
Avatar won't cross $250 million in the US
PrivateWHudson
Member
PhoenixDark said:
Deal. For one year.
Yes, there are a number of possible viewpoints here:
1 - Avatar is going to be great, Avatar is going to make lots of money (or be a modest success)
2 - Avatar is going to be great, Avatar is going to fail / bomb / underperform
3 - Avatar is going to suck, Avatar is going to make lots of money (or be a modest success)
4 - Avatar is going to suck, Avatar is going to fail / bomb / underperform
1 - Avatar is going to be great, Avatar is going to make lots of money (or be a modest success)
2 - Avatar is going to be great, Avatar is going to fail / bomb / underperform
3 - Avatar is going to suck, Avatar is going to make lots of money (or be a modest success)
4 - Avatar is going to suck, Avatar is going to fail / bomb / underperform
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
You've obviously never been on the set of a movie shot on 35mm. Incredible amounts of time are wasted just taking care of the cameras. It's boring as fuck for that reason alone.Nachkebia said:
Your actors were on a roll when you needed to reload? Too fucking bad.
Then there's the cost of film... the cost of scanning for the digital intermediate...
You can see the actual footage at full-quality, or extremely high-quality as you shoot, or in playback at any time.
The cameras need less light, which means less/smaller lighting gear, which means faster setups and less crew.
D-SLRs that shoot HD video (with great low-light performance) mean you can shoot anywhere without a permit. (harder at night, though)
The quality of the cameras in development now shits all over film, too, but that's just icing.
1941. Spielberg was a joke... briefly.border said:
akachan ningen
Member
After seeing the trailer, there's no way I'd go out to see this. I'll netflix it.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
Jibril said:
What do you mean lately? Have you even seen Munich?
And he was not infallible in the 80s. 1941 and Temple of Doom say hi.
ArachosiA 78
Member
Wow, I can't believe the hate this movie is getting here. Most people here are gamers, and most gamers are nerds, and most nerds love sci-fi...yet it seems most people here are rooting for Avatar (the biggest, most ambitious sci-fi movie since Terminator 2) to fail. Makes no damn sense to me.
I expect this movie to be huge, and quite possibly a cutrural phenomenon the likes of which we haven't seen since Titanic and Star Wars before it. It is going to have mass appeal to a wide age group and both sexes, and many people are going to see it multiple times. While there's no way in hell it will beat Titanic's record, it has a good shot of taking second place.
I expect this movie to be huge, and quite possibly a cutrural phenomenon the likes of which we haven't seen since Titanic and Star Wars before it. It is going to have mass appeal to a wide age group and both sexes, and many people are going to see it multiple times. While there's no way in hell it will beat Titanic's record, it has a good shot of taking second place.
Alex Connolly
Member
the walrus said:
Ridley Scott. He's meant to be working on the film adaptation of Joe Haldeman's The Forever War, and if that doesn't blow the lid off the sci-fi genre in regards to cinema, then I'm turning in my card. Alien and Blade Runner are great. This should be, too.
kame-sennin
Member
faceless007 said:
Read this article: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10/26/091026fa_fact_goodyear
Cameron's a huge douche. The movie's not going to bomb, though.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
Pylon_Trooper said:
When we see it is another story. Also, one should note that the only reason Scott decided to return to sci-fi is because of what Cameron showed him of AVATAR. The Forever War will be shot using the same tech Cameron has developed.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
On the plus side, this thread will be much easier to locate and sift through when it comes the time for many GAF members to eat crow.
SpeedingUptoStop
will totally Facebook friend you! *giggle* *LOL*
Joker Revenge, Part Two: Cameron's Requiem.Scullibundo said:
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
Ripclawe said:
The movie is clearly a homage to The Star Wars Holiday Special. The planet looks much like the Wookie homeworld, and like the Wookies, the Navi are fighting to free their people. The Navi will no doubt work hard to celebrate their version of life day.
and some elderly navi will no doubt get off on a video of Diahann Carroll.
I don't find the movie attractive because the trailer drills these stupid cliches into your head from the get-go. Yeah, a lot of movies have cliches, but they usually can work when its not drilled into your head throughout the movie. This movie does it in the goddam trailer. The trailer is supposed to make you want to watch the movie for the world its going to explore, not the message that they will be trying to send to you. Instead of making me think about the sci-fi, the new world, or the new species, all I'm constantly reminded are these stupid Last Samurai, Ewoks vs. the Empire, Pocahontas, and Dances With Wolves themes, and I just think, "Been there, done that."
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
SpeedingUptoStop said:
Nah, no way this would be as good as the Heath Ledger is joker announcement thread.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=110889
Anyways I do think the movie is going to underperform. I can't wait to see it myself, but I just don't feel a mass market appeal from the trailer. I think it will be good. It does seem like Dances with Wolves in space, but I loved Dances with Wolves, and I love sci-fi.
The sci-fi fan in me is the one that really wants to see it.
Tim the Wiz
Banned
I make it a point to always bet on JC. Avatar will make bank.
As to the quality of the film, from what I've seen at the IMAX preview and in the trailers, I think it's superb on a technical level, but I do have my doubts about the design of the Na'vi and the believability of the romance story. My expectations are that it will be a film of middling quality, but a great ride nonetheless.
As to the quality of the film, from what I've seen at the IMAX preview and in the trailers, I think it's superb on a technical level, but I do have my doubts about the design of the Na'vi and the believability of the romance story. My expectations are that it will be a film of middling quality, but a great ride nonetheless.
ArachosiA 78 said:
Probably because the footage released thus far falls way short of the ridiculous hype that preceded it. People put their faith in the project and were let down, and have little interest in investing anymore hope. This was to be the movie that changed everything, but it kinda just looks like 45% Aliens, 45% The Spirits Within, 10% Delgo. The heavy focus on technology is almost a minus, considering that at this point technology has ruined Lucas, Zemeckis and (to a lesser extent) Spielberg. The film looks so inorganic, too. It's worth noting that you can have a bunch of fake dragons fighting fake helicopters, yet it never has the impact of T2's semi-truck smashing through an overpass and falling 30 feet.....or Dark Knight's truck flip. The Matrix wowed people because it was a blending of real footage and CG and camera technology......once they went over the top with the sequels there was less memorable action. CG is just an expensive cartoon, and it's a little hard to be impressed with a cartoon.
I'm not sure how it is this film will really capture the popular imagination, just because there's something so weird and off-putting about all the art design.
bafflewaffle
Member
cant talk for anyone else but I hate gaming, nerds and scifi equallyArachosiA 78 said:
(yes I play video games sometimes, but Im not proud of it)
you saying that like its a bad thingZaptruder said:
bafflewaffle
Member
to me genre movies that try to make some big pretentious statement on the world are more offensive than dumb unambitious fun movies-COOLIO- said:
Grant DaNasty
Neo Member
That $500 mil figure is BS. A lot of the money spent was developing 3D tech that Fox can use in future movies as well as license to other studios. It'll be profitable for years to come.
Nature will triumph over technology.-COOLIO- said:
You can overcome your disabilities.
The wisest are the ones who are most simple.
Have you ever heard the wolf cry to the blue corn moon?
Or asked the grinning bobcat why he grinned?
Can you sing with all the voices of the mountains?
Can you paint with all the colors of the wind?
Ok, land is still a resource. I'm still not referring it to being associated with the Iraq war because both involve land. They're both about extracting a particular valuable resource that is not available on the domestic front. And the eventual problems that it will bring on the group that thinks it will be very easy.-COOLIO- said:
Any movie about a technological superior army taking on a weaker group for a specific extractive resource will be compared to the Iraq war in this day and age.
Unless you think that the humans will actually win in this movie, like the European settlers did...
- Status