Comments on: More Avatars

By: Jason

Jason — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 05:39:46 +0000

Justin, I haven’t read your blog for a while so I didn’t see your question. I just googled that list. I don’t remember the website. There were several websites that had it and I just chose one. It is really interesting though. Notice how Titanic sold only 130,900,000 compared to Gone With The Wind at 283,100,000. How on earth did Gone with the Wind sell so many tickets? Really! If anyone can answer that question I really want to know the answer. It was so long ago and there were so many less theaters and even so fewer people!

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 06:24:34 +0000

I’m late to the debate, but I just have to say that Avatar in 3D at the IMAX was pretty freakin’ awesome. Yeah, not a very original story or anything, but it was technically astounding. It will, at least, deserve the technical category Oscars it will surely win.

By: nic

nic — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:34:03 +0000

Justin, curious as to your opinion of this very short film (four and a half minutes):

http://www.neatorama.com/2010/02/03/nuit-blanche/

Stuff like this fascinates me.

By: nic

nic — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 16:44:13 +0000

Perhaps it was from this link that I put in a comment on your Past & Present post:

http://www.thrfeed.com/2010/01/avatar-ticket-sales-.html

By: Jake

Jake — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 08:04:52 +0000

@jason: i too saw that list. I think it was on yahoo. It had avatar at 26 if i remember correctly.

By: justin

justin — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 06:56:06 +0000

That is an interesting tid bit. I was looking for somewhere that would show me ticket sales. Where did you find this?

By: Jason

Jason — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 02:54:52 +0000

Here is an interesting tid bit:

Most ticket sales of all time:

1 Gone with the Wind 283,100,000
2 Snow White & the Seven Dwarfs 225,300,000
3 Star Wars Fox 176,900,000
4 E.T. 158,000,000
5 101 Dalmatians 143,100,000
6 Bambi 140,800,000
7 Titanic 130,900,000
8 Jaws Universal 128,600,000
9 The Sound of Music 119,300,000
10 The Ten Commandments 117,800,000

By: nic

nic — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 23:28:05 +0000

This sheds a LOT of light on the subject. Gracias.

By: justin

justin — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 20:36:33 +0000

First off, movies can be art and entertainment simultaneously, they don’t have to be one or the other. Film is an art form though, and just like any other art form, there are good and crappy pieces.

For a movie to be best picture quality, or to be great filmmaking it has to be good in all aspects of filmmaking. Those aspects include, writing, directing, editing, acting, character development, and it doesn’t need to be an original plot. No country for old men is an amazing and recent example. It is almost flawless across all different aspects of filmmaking, and it’s plot isn’t original. It’s based on a book of the same name, and almost adapted verbatim. Maybe to make it more clear we will compare Avatar and the real best picture of the year, The Hurt Locker.

Avatars visual effects–amazing
The Hurt Lockers visual effects–great
Avatarts plot–unoriginal but entertaining
the Hurt Lockers plot–great
Avatars writing–mediocre at best
The Hurt Lockers writing–great
Avatars characters–flat and cliche
The Hurt Lockers characters–interesting, round, and deep
Avatars acting–mediocre
The Hurt Lockers acting–great
Avatars directing–great
The Hurt Lockers directing–great

When you compare them like this does it make more sense? The Hurt Locker is better in almost every aspect of filmmaking with the exception of visual effects. Avatar’s visual effects are the best of any by a long long way, there is no doubting that. Does this make more sense?

By: nic

nic — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:38:40 +0000

I want some education on this, too. Judging from Justin’s post, I think three criteria are good dialogue, deep characters and original plot. And I’m assuming that a film ought to be approached as art, not entertainment. Am I completely off on this?