Avatar Will Break Titanic's Record By Valentine's Day
KalElFan
Record" thread is hereby reborn eight days later. It's an event
of biblical proportions, following up on my Ode and Opus post
in the wee hours this morning. :-)
One of my favorite Avatar moments from before the movie was
even released was Jon Stewart interviewing Sigourney Weaver
on the Daily Show. Just checked and it was the Monday before
the Friday December 18 release, so December 14.
So there was Jon Stewart with Sigourney, and he's either
joking a bit or genuinely in awe, while he's doing this "Is
he a Wizard?" shtick, referring to James Cameron. His
context was much like mine became last week. He had a
preamble which was basically that the movie initially looked
like it was set up to fail, but now a miracle where it's gonna
be huge, Huge, HUGE I tell you. So how's this happened,
Sigourney? C'mon, you can tell me... is James Cameron
secretly a Wizard?
At the time I thought it was just so much PR guacamole.
That Jon Stewart was doing his version of Larry King and
praising a movie or its star. Or perhaps just trying to help
this particular movie get over that $250-$300M hump so
it wouldn't become Heaven's-Gate infamous as a financial
disaster, whether deserved or not.
But now I realize James Cameron actually is a Wizard. :-)
He must be. It's the only explanation. :-)
Anyway, the projections for this weekend's box office
were off. Virtually everyone was expecting at least a
20% or so drop. The last equivalent weekend in 2000,
in terms of New Year's Day being a Friday, showed a
pattern that would have led to bigger drops than that.
But giving the movie some benefit of the doubt given
its performance the first two weeks, maybe a 20%
drop and so about $60 million. Instead the estimate
has come in at $68.3 million, a less than 10% drop,
and Fox has been conservative with these estimates.
Projecting out, I think $36 million for Monday to
Thursday this week, and $40 million for next weekend,
is also quite conservative. That'd actually be a close
to $50% drop over last weekdays, and then just over
a 40% drop next weekend. I think it's actually way
too pessimistic, but let's assume that because it is the
end of the holiday season.
After that, I think week over week drops of 25% is
again a conservative prediction. Other movies manage
that and Avatar is performing like the strongest movie
of all time. Latent demand and repeat business will
keep driving it, with no huge competition out there
for months. A few movies will of course emerge as
$100-$200 million mini-blockbusters before May, and
Book of Eli may even win its first weekend on Jan 15-17.
But there's nothing to really put any dent in Avatar's
prolonged run.
That 25% decline, week over week, after those fairly
conservative predictions for this week, would result in
Avatar breaking Titanic's record on Valentine's Day.
Run the numbers yourself and that's what you'll get. I
think there's a good chance it does it before then.
So I've gone out on a limb and predicted it. :-)
Ar Q
"KalElFan" <kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote in message
news:7qca4c...@mid.individual.net...
I saw it on IMAX 3D theater and plan to see it again just before its run
on IMAX is over. I have a question for people seeing it on regular 3D.
How does it impress you? And why didn't you see it on IMAX 3D?
erilar
"Ar Q" <Arthu...@hottmail.com> wrote:
> I saw it on IMAX 3D theater and plan to see it again just before its run
> on IMAX is over. I have a question for people seeing it on regular 3D.
> How does it impress you? And why didn't you see it on IMAX 3D?
That's all very well if you live in a big city. Out here in the boonies
we don't have 3D, much less Imax. But I thought it was a great movie in
plain old 2D.
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
cloud dreamer
> In article<m_idnVBUzoVJttzW...@earthlink.com>,
> "Ar Q"<Arthu...@hottmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I saw it on IMAX 3D theater and plan to see it again just before its run
>> on IMAX is over. I have a question for people seeing it on regular 3D.
>> How does it impress you? And why didn't you see it on IMAX 3D?
>
> That's all very well if you live in a big city. Out here in the boonies
> we don't have 3D, much less Imax. But I thought it was a great movie in
> plain old 2D.
>
Not enough population in my city for an Imax either...but we did have
the 3D version and no regular version.
:]
Anim8rFSK
"KalElFan" <kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
What has this got to do with rec.arts.tv again?
--
Tiger Woods has just been named "Athlete of the Decade"
His chosen event? The Broad Jump.
Pete
Ar Q <no spam> wrote:
>
>I saw it on IMAX 3D theater and plan to see it again just before its run
>on IMAX is over. I have a question for people seeing it on regular 3D.
>How does it impress you? And why didn't you see it on IMAX 3D?
>
like A.O.Scott, I tend to think it's "Star Wars" all over again!
The thing is that, as other have noted, the 3D isn't gimmicky here --
it just makes you feel like you're looking through a window into that
world, and intensifies the realism.
I passed on IMAX for a couple of reasons. For one thing, I'd have had
to cross the Bay to find a theatre, and presumably undergo the hassle
of buying advance tickets. (I walked right in to an excellent seat
for my 3D matinee.) And I really am not sold on the "IMAX Experience"
-- and its extra cost -- for that sort of show yet. I really like the
documentary stuff I've watched in that format and OmniMax, but I tried
one of the Harry Potters in IMAX and was distinctly underwhelmed.
...Possibly for one thing because I hadn't realized beforehand that
"3-D" meant only one scene...!
I may get round to checking the IMAX version eventually, when the crowds
have gone down a bit. But I certainly figure to see it a second time.
-- Pete --
--
============================================================================
The address in the header is a Spam Bucket -- don't bother replying to it...
(If you do need to email, replace the account name with my true name.)
============================================================================
lorinc...@yahoo.com
> "KalElFan" <kalel...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote in message
We have lots of digital 3D in my current neck of the woods, but don't
even have faux-Imax let alone the real thing. It was impressive in
digital 3D, but unfortunately not a great movie overall. I can name
5-6 James Cameron movies that I liked better, including Titanic. The
only way I would pony up to see it again is in 15/70 IMAX 3D.
I originally thought that there was no way it would be able to surpass
the 600 million Titanic box office, but with the 3D premiums and 12
years of substantial ticket inflation, it just might do it. The 14-
plex in my home town converted several screens to digital just in
anticipation of this film, and is charging a $3 premium for it, on top
of matinee tickets which are up to a whopping $7.25! I'm glad I left
for greener pastures.
-beaumon
cloud dreamer
The 14-
> plex in my home town converted several screens to digital just in
> anticipation of this film, and is charging a $3 premium for it, on top
> of matinee tickets which are up to a whopping $7.25! I'm glad I left
> for greener pastures.
I don't think they charged extra because it was digital, but because it
was 3D.
I've paid extra for the 3D...but no extra for other digital films that
have come to my local theatres.
..
KalElFan
news:GNydnQE0i6qD2tzW...@lmi.net...
> ... as other have noted, the 3D isn't gimmicky here -- it
> just makes you feel like you're looking through a window
> into that world, and intensifies the realism.
Whether 2D or 3D, I think the "window into that world" and
intensifying the realism is a big key to the movie's success. Way
back in the concept stage as it was described, and even in the
promotion in recent months, I didn't think this movie had much
chance of even cracking the Top 10 all-time. Mainly because
the look and feel of the movie was too vaguely reminiscent of
Final Fantasy and Beowulf and the like -- an odd-looking CGI
SF movie that not enough people would embrace.
The realism of what Cameron created -- the Avatar world --
is at the core subtle and based as much or more on the story
and backstory as it is on the CGI and 3-D technology. It
isn't a 100% CGI world that gets dumped on the audience
and they're just asked to accept it. It's a "conventional" real
world 140 years hence as we're introduced to it, familiar-
looking humans on a mission to the moon of another planet
in another star system.
Then the "Avatar" element is added in, effectively biological
spaceships of sorts that certain individual humans assigned
that task use so they can interact with the Na'vi, Pandora's
indigenous population.
Probably the single thing I was most impressed with is how
incredibly well that premise works and was implemented
here, and the enormous creative scope it provides for
future stories set in this universe. Because it's all anchored
the way it is, I think moviegoers are subconsciously seduced
into buying into the 10-ft-tall aliens and the whole Pandora
world. It eviscerates the "uncanny valley" effect as well as
anything could, and makes 98% realistic CGI completely
engrossing rather than something we can't quite buy into,
or even get turned off by because it isn't that extra 2% of
the way there to "real". The missing 2% is fully offset by
the suspension of disbelief we need anyway to accept that
the Na'vi, these 10-ft tall blue aliens, exist. (One key scene
in the movie I won't describe here also reinforces that.)
More than one poster has criticized the movie as being a
ripoff of Pocahontas and/or Dances With Wolves. There
was one poster on another forum I ran across steadfastly
insisting it ripped off both and the irony completely flew
over his/her head. There are lots of influences here as
there is with any story, and themes do recur in fiction,
but there's never been anything like this.
Even Star Wars, as you cite A.O. Scott mentioning and
which Avatar has different similarities to for other reasons,
lacked the literal connection to Earth for example. It was
pure fable, and that's fine but great SF has always had a
relevance and connection to Earth in some way. Avatar
has established direct access to that without losing the
alien worlds and even galaxy far far away feel in much
of this first movie at least.
So I think it's a much better story than some have given it
credit for, as one reflects on it. It's just that it's so visually
impressive that we notice that more, and don't realize the
story actually underpins it -- makes it possible for all the
technology to work as well as it does here.
Merrick Baldelli
<kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>By popular demand, last decade's "Avatar Might Break Titanic's
>Record" thread is hereby reborn eight days later. It's an event
>of biblical proportions, following up on my Ode and Opus post
>in the wee hours this morning. :-)
[rest snipped]
And yet -- still doesn't have anything to do with
rec.art.sf.tv.
--
-=-=-/ )=*=-='=-.-'-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
_( (_ , '_ * . Merrick Baldelli
(((\ \> /_1 `
(\\\\ \_/ /
-=-\ /-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
\ _/ Who are these folks and why have they
/ / stopped taking their medication?
- Captain Infinity
Anim8rFSK
Merrick Baldelli <mbal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 14:36:09 -0500, "KalElFan"
> <kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>
> >By popular demand, last decade's "Avatar Might Break Titanic's
> >Record" thread is hereby reborn eight days later. It's an event
> >of biblical proportions, following up on my Ode and Opus post
> >in the wee hours this morning. :-)
> [rest snipped]
>
> And yet -- still doesn't have anything to do with
> rec.art.sf.tv.
He's just not listening, is he?
Mac Breck
> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 14:36:09 -0500, "KalElFan"
> <kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>
>> By popular demand, last decade's "Avatar Might Break Titanic's
>> Record" thread is hereby reborn eight days later. It's an event
>> of biblical proportions, following up on my Ode and Opus post
>> in the wee hours this morning. :-)
> [rest snipped]
>
> And yet -- still doesn't have anything to do with
> rec.art.sf.tv.
And yet -- still doesn't have anything to do with *TV* , ...and
[rhetorical] who cares if it breaks Titanic's record or
not?[/rhetorical]
--
Mac Breck (KoshN)
-------------------------------
"Babylon 5: Crusade" (1999) - "War Zone"
Galen (to Gideon): "I've been penalized before for helping other
people. I've been trying to decide whether or not I should risk it
again."
Extravagan
> Merrick Baldelli wrote:
>> And yet -- still doesn't have anything to do with
>> rec.art.sf.tv.
>
> And yet -- still doesn't have anything to do with *TV*
And yet -- half the posts in this newsgroup don't have anything to do
with TV.
rdclark
>
> I saw it on IMAX 3D theater and plan to see it again just before its run
> on IMAX is over. I have a question for people seeing it on regular 3D.
> How does it impress you? And why didn't you see it on IMAX 3D?
Saw it in a podunk North Carolina mall cinema on a very small screen
(which we therefore sat very close to), but it was 3D, and it was
awesome (a word I use intentionally to mean "I was filled with awe").
We will see it again at an Imax now that we've returned to
civilization, and I look forward to buying the 2D Blu-ray so that I
can examine the film in detail.
KalElFan
news:7ad07d5a-829e-4c06...@q41g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> ... I look forward to buying the 2D Blu-ray...
The description of the "Real D 3-D" technology used for the
Avatar regular digital showings (i.e., not for IMAX 3-D) says
among other things that it's the simplest for theaters because it
requires only one projector.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_D_3D
I haven't read up on it enough to know all the reasons why this
3-D version could not be converted for use on Blu-Ray players.
I suspect the frame rate of the images aimed at the left and right
eyes is the main one. The equivalent Blu-Ray DVD would have
to be able to effectively overlay two separate signals I guess,
and the TV accept them. In any case their site also has a page
indicating home systems are in development.
http://www.reald.com/Content/in-the-home.aspx
Now *that* would be a popular Avatar DVD down the road,
and megabucks for FOX.
The final weekend numbers were about the same as the
estimated $68.3 million, about $190,000 higher at $68.49
million and change. There are various sites that post this
information but boxofficeguru was first with the Avatar
number.
KalElFan
news:UKOdnR-PgNAxkt_W...@supernews.com...
> ... still doesn't have anything to do with *TV*...
I've made an extensive case throughout the prior thread and
in that Ode and Opus one why this Avatar discussion is on-
topic in the two TV groups as well. For example the movie
will be available for home viewing and PPV later this year.
We discuss upcoming TV events all the time. Paid-for home
viewing has also become arguable as part of "adjustments" to
the box office gross issue. There've been ads and clips and
trailers and promotion for the movie all over TV. Avatar is
a de facto multimedia franchise. A box office record like
Titanic's doesn't get broken every day and the record-chasing
is already becoming a multimedia event in itself. The 3-D
issue will apply to home viewing, it's just a matter of when.
So there've been many TV-related connections and they've
been present throughout the discussions. Sigourney Weaver
being interviewed by Jon Stewart on the Daily Show on Dec.
14 took up a good portion of my first post to this thread. My
post just before this one had a link to the page on that 3-D
company's site concerning their developing home viewing
technologies.
It's not my job to educate you wannabe netcop nitwits, but
consider yourselves educated. And hypocrites all, to varying
degrees. Your whining is itself off-topic and achieves nothing.
As I noted in one post that got a LOLOL laugh from Newport,
Anim8r is a serial offender when it comes to off-topic threads.
He's a mini-version of what Baldelli used to be part of with a
small clique on the Enterprise group that overran it with off-top
chat streams, hundreds and hundreds of back and forth one-line
responses and so on.
> [rhetorical] who cares if it breaks Titanic's record or
> not?[/rhetorical]
Rhetorically or not, any idiot can ignore a topic if they have
nothing substantive to contribute. If you haven't noticed,
lots of people are interested in Avatar. The movie and its
box office performance are being discussed everywhere.
Various spinoff discussions result that some find interesting.
Anyone can also feel free to trim crossposts in any response.
These are unmoderated groups. Erilar chose to drop the main
movie group rec.arts.movies.current-films (where it's clearly on
topic but maybe erilar doesn't subscribe to that group), but
kept the rec.arts.sf.tv group a few of you think it's off-topic on.
So take that up with erilar if you want to keep being pointless.
If I respond to a post where the crossposts have been trimmed,
I make a judgment call on whether to restore any/all crossposts
or not. Any poster responding can do the same. In the Ode and
Opus thread, Greg responded solely on rec.arts.sf.movies, to the
war on terror segment of that post and specifically the Rasmussen
poll. Johnston had a response to the same segment but only on
rec.arts.tv. He invoked the TV series 24. Newport and David
had responses to that. I have a response in draft, but it'll restore
crossposts to avoid duplication. It'll deal with Avatar, 24, and
the War on Terror. In fact that may be the renamed subthread
title.
Some of you seem to have the mistaken impression crossposts
per se are bad. I don't know where you got it but that's bullshit.
It depends on the context. I'm subscribed to all four groups in
the crosspost list and have made the case why the discussions
have been on-topic in all of them. You don't have to like it, but
ignoring the threads you aren't interested in would seem the
simplest solution because the whining won't change it.
Patty Winter
In article <7qf9iq...@mid.individual.net>,
KalElFan <kale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Mac Breck" <macthe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:UKOdnR-PgNAxkt_W...@supernews.com...
>
>> ... still doesn't have anything to do with *TV*...
>
>I've made an extensive case throughout the prior thread and
>in that Ode and Opus one why this Avatar discussion is on-
>topic in the two TV groups as well. For example the movie
>will be available for home viewing and PPV later this year.
>We discuss upcoming TV events all the time. Paid-for home
>viewing has also become arguable as part of "adjustments" to
>the box office gross issue. There've been ads and clips and
>trailers and promotion for the movie all over TV.
*Everything* gets mentioned on TV sooner or later. That doesn't
make those subjects on-topic for a TV discussion group.
> Sigourney Weaver
>being interviewed by Jon Stewart on the Daily Show on Dec.
>14 took up a good portion of my first post to this thread.
Fine, then post a quick comment about upcoming "Avatar"-related
appearances and stop there.
Patty
Sarah B
it yet, and don't know anyone who has, but all reviews and articles
I've read about it don't say a word about great characters,
interesting plot, or any kind of emotional response.
All they talk about is, "The CGI is great!"
Is that all it takes to be the highest grosser any more? Some people
thought 'Titanic' was cheesy, but it had moments of breathtaking
beauty, and characters that resonated with people. Everybody was
talking about Jack and Rose, and the tragedy of the sinking.
Star Wars is, well, Star Wars. The story was uplifting and
fantastic. Everybody talked about how it was such a feel-good movie
and a return to good old-fashioned storytelling (I was 13 when it came
out.)
'Avatar'? Nothing about characters or the plot, except both are
unremarkable. (it's a retread of the old "beautiful innocent culture
raped by the bad white man" chestnut). It's all about the CGI.
Spectacular to look at, awesome, etc. But how is that making $1
billion? Are people going to see it 20, 30, 40 times like they did
Titanic and Star Wars?
Invid Fan
<pat...@wintertime.com> wrote:
> In article <7qf9iq...@mid.individual.net>,
> KalElFan <kale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >"Mac Breck" <macthe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:UKOdnR-PgNAxkt_W...@supernews.com...
> >
> >> ... still doesn't have anything to do with *TV*...
> >
> >I've made an extensive case throughout the prior thread and
> >in that Ode and Opus one why this Avatar discussion is on-
> >topic in the two TV groups as well. For example the movie
> >will be available for home viewing and PPV later this year.
> >We discuss upcoming TV events all the time. Paid-for home
> >viewing has also become arguable as part of "adjustments" to
> >the box office gross issue. There've been ads and clips and
> >trailers and promotion for the movie all over TV.
>
> *Everything* gets mentioned on TV sooner or later. That doesn't
> make those subjects on-topic for a TV discussion group.
>
It's used as the excuse for all the political threads :)
--
Chris Mack "If we show any weakness, the monsters will get cocky!"
'Invid Fan' - 'Yokai Monsters Along With Ghosts'
Patty Winter
In article <040120101947340960%in...@loclanet.com>,
Invid Fan <in...@loclanet.com> wrote:
>In article <4b427aee$0$1600$742e...@news.sonic.net>, Patty Winter
><pat...@wintertime.com> wrote:
[extraneous text deleted]
>> *Everything* gets mentioned on TV sooner or later. That doesn't
>> make those subjects on-topic for a TV discussion group.
>>
>It's used as the excuse for all the political threads :)
Yeah, I know. :-(
Anyway, I've made my point so will be killfiling this one...
Patty
nick
> What I'd like to know is, is the movie really any good? I haven't seen
> it yet, and don't know anyone who has, but all reviews and articles
> I've read about it don't say a word about great characters,
> interesting plot, or any kind of emotional response.
>
> All they talk about is, "The CGI is great!"
>
CGI is, or the 3D, I never felt any emotional attachment to what I was
watching. Great characters, interesting plot, emotional response.
None of the above. Obviously people are getting something out of the
it but if there's any of the impact Titanic had on the whole world,
I'm not sensing it. Unless of course overseas people are watching it
as an allegory about the Americans getting their asses kicked for
their colonial aggressiveness. A good time can be had if that's what
you're getting out of Avatar.
erilar
<16156e1c-2268-4fe7...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Sarah B <sarah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What I'd like to know is, is the movie really any good? I haven't seen
> it yet, and don't know anyone who has, but all reviews and articles
> I've read about it don't say a word about great characters,
> interesting plot, or any kind of emotional response.
Opinions vary. I don't bother to go to a movie theater often, but I
went to see this and enjoyed it hugely. I didn't think "cgi", I just
thought "neat world, great characters, enjoyable story" AND I saw it in
trotsky
> In article <4b427aee$0$1600$742e...@news.sonic.net>, Patty Winter
> <pat...@wintertime.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <7qf9iq...@mid.individual.net>,
>> KalElFan <kale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> "Mac Breck" <macthe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:UKOdnR-PgNAxkt_W...@supernews.com...
>>>
>>>> ... still doesn't have anything to do with *TV*...
>>> I've made an extensive case throughout the prior thread and
>>> in that Ode and Opus one why this Avatar discussion is on-
>>> topic in the two TV groups as well. For example the movie
>>> will be available for home viewing and PPV later this year.
>>> We discuss upcoming TV events all the time. Paid-for home
>>> viewing has also become arguable as part of "adjustments" to
>>> the box office gross issue. There've been ads and clips and
>>> trailers and promotion for the movie all over TV.
>> *Everything* gets mentioned on TV sooner or later. That doesn't
>> make those subjects on-topic for a TV discussion group.
>>
> It's used as the excuse for all the political threads :)
>
But not the threads by the insipid assholes talking about killfiles.
trotsky
As if on cue....
Anim8rFSK
Patty Winter <pat...@wintertime.com> wrote:
> In article <040120101947340960%in...@loclanet.com>,
> Invid Fan <in...@loclanet.com> wrote:
> >In article <4b427aee$0$1600$742e...@news.sonic.net>, Patty Winter
> ><pat...@wintertime.com> wrote:
>
> [extraneous text deleted]
>
> >> *Everything* gets mentioned on TV sooner or later. That doesn't
> >> make those subjects on-topic for a TV discussion group.
> >>
> >It's used as the excuse for all the political threads :)
>
> Yeah, I know. :-(
>
> Anyway, I've made my point so will be killfiling this one...
>
>
> Patty
The thread or Kal-El?
trotsky
Is pushing the envelope of technical acheivement any less important than
memorable characters or a memorable story? What's the one thing people
remember from Welles' "A Touch of Evil"? Granted that's a great movie,
but that's not what it's remembered for. "Nosferatu" was great, but the
most memorable thing about that was Murnau's amazing shot of Schreck
rising straight up as stiff as a board. I'm not going to say too much
because I haven't seen "Avatar" yet, but when enough people describe it
as a technical marvel I'm inclined to believe that Cameron got his
three, four, or five hundred million dollars worth.
Ar Q
> "Mac Breck" <macthe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:UKOdnR-PgNAxkt_W...@supernews.com...
>
>> ... still doesn't have anything to do with *TV*...
>
> I've made an extensive case throughout the prior thread and
> in that Ode and Opus one why this Avatar discussion is on-
> topic in the two TV groups as well. For example the movie
> will be available for home viewing and PPV later this year.
Good point. But expect some Nazi to give you hard time.
Mac Breck
In that case, you can post just about anything in rec.arts.tv. If you
try hard enough you'll be able to manufacture a reason to make it seem
somehow applicable, however strained and tenuous the connection may be.
>> [rhetorical] who cares if it breaks Titanic's record or
>> not?[/rhetorical]
>
> Rhetorically or not, any idiot can ignore a topic if they have
> nothing substantive to contribute.
Perhaps I should have eliminated the question mark, as it's really just
a statement that I don't care if Avatar breaks Titanic's record or not.
I presume I am allowed to say such things, right? I am allowed to
indicate a stance, to voice an opinion? FWIW, I'm reading this in rast
and rat.
Steve Newport
be killfiling this one...
------------------------------
Not TV related.
Steve Newport
on TV sooner or later. That doesn't make those subjects on-topic for a
"Avatar"-related appearances and stop there.
You are one boring, bossy bitch.
Steve Newport
wannabe netcop nitwits, but your whining is itself off-topic and
achieves nothing. As I noted in one post that got a LOLOL from Newport,
Anim8r is a serial offender when it comes to off-topic threads.
And killfile announcements.
Steve Newport
Some prompted by one of the many politcal *channels.*
Steve Newport
off-topic and achieves nothing.>>>
----------------------------------
In that case, you can post just about anything in rec.arts.tv. If you
try hard enough you'll be able to manufacture a reason to make it seem
somehow applicable
SN: But you don't even have to. Just say no.
trotsky
I beg to differ--I envision Patty in a dominatrix outfit when she posts.
trotsky
Not sanity related either.
David E. Powell
> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 14:36:09 -0500, "KalElFan"
>
> >By popular demand, last decade's "Avatar Might Break Titanic's
> >Record" thread is hereby reborn eight days later. It's an event
> >of biblical proportions, following up on my Ode and Opus post
> >in the wee hours this morning. :-)
>
> [rest snipped]
>
> rec.art.sf.tv.
I wonder if they will made a series?
> --
> -=-=-/ )=*=-='=-.-'-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> _( (_ , '_ * . Merrick Baldelli
> (((\ \> /_1 `
> (\\\\ \_/ /
> -=-\ /-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> \ _/ Who are these folks and why have they
> / / stopped taking their medication?
> - Captain Infinity
Merrick Baldelli
<David_Po...@msn.com> wrote:
>I wonder if they will made a series?
Dancing with Blue Wolves: The series? Not seeing that happen
any time in the near future.
Greg Goss
><David_Po...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I wonder if they will made a series?
I heard on the radio, sometime in the past week, that Cameron is now
going to make a trilogy.
The data port on all animals makes no sense in general -- this needs
more exploration in a larger story.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
Steve Newport
Not sanity related either.
----------------------------------
They just live to killfile.
trotsky
> From: gms...@email.com (trotsky)
> I envision Patty Winter in a dominatrix outfit when she posts.
> ----------------------------------
> She could manage to make even that boring.
You might be right. Somehow "Bark like an off-topic dog!" doesn't have
much of a ring to it.
KalElFan
set out was $76 million domestic for the Monday to Sunday
(today) period. Results are in and weekdays did worse
but the weekend better than the splits I gave. The total
turned out to be just under $77 million, so a bit higher
than the scenario I gave. Avatar as of today has grossed
just over $429 million domestic. Worldwide, it's already
well over a billion dollars and #2 behind Titanic.
From here on in I suggested that 25% drops, week over
week through Valentine's Day, was conservative. Titanic
actually averaged 5% week over week drops during the
equivalent period in 1998. This weekend Avatar dropped
only 18%-19% for the combined Saturday and Sunday
period, the only two plausible comparatives because last
Friday and prior was all holiday season. So the 25% is
very achievable and if Avatar is able to do that it'll break
Titanic's record right on Valentine's Day.
If Avatar reduced drops to 5% as Titanic was able to do,
it'll actually be at $750M+ domestic by Valentine's Day,
$900M+ three weeks later when it loses its IMAX venues,
and it'll probably make it to $1 billion domestic. I'm not
predicting that, but what's absolutely incredible is that it
CANNOT be 100% ruled out at this point.
KalElFan
news:16156e1c-2268-4fe7...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> What I'd like to know is, is the movie really any good?
> ... all reviews and articles I've read about it don't say a
> word about great characters, interesting plot, or any
> kind of emotional response.
>
> All they talk about is, "The CGI is great!" ...
The CGI is great and superficially it's what people see
and notice more. So they tend to mention it first and the
discussion becomes about that, and then some may think
that's all there is.
It's amazing how effectively the story and the SF and the
technology work so well together here. I'm convinced it
should win Best Picture. Cameron got a Directors' Guild
nom this week. I think he and Avatar will get nominated
by the Academy too, and it's between him and The Hurt
Locker, directed by his ex-wife (Kathryn Bigelow, not
Linda Hamilton).
Here's a very good example of that "emotional response"
you were mentioning after some spoiler space...
K
E
Y
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
H
E
R
E
Towards the end of the movie there's a scene where Neytiri,
the Na'vi princess played by Zoe Saldana, meets Jake, the
paraplegic ex-marine played by Sam Worthington, in his
human form. It may well be the key scene in not just the
movie but the entire Avatar franchise, because it's not just
an "emotional response" apex, it captures how incredibly
great the story and the SF and the technology are here.
This morning I ran across a post over on the boxofficemojo
boards (I only read it occasionally, I'm not registered to post
there). There was a guy from Singapore I think it was, but
in any case someplace overseas, describing how he turned
to his girlfriend during this scene and she was tearing up at
it. There's a line Neytiri says to him upon recognizing him
in his human form -- "My Jake" -- and that's what got her.
Of course the boyfriend just coincidentally happened to be
looking over at her at the time. Right. :-)
Anyway, it's very effective as a love story, and as Jake's
story because we explore Pandora mostly through his
perspective. As his Avatar becomes more real to him than
his human form, over the course of 3+ months being his
Avatar every waking moment, he becomes Na'vi Jake.
Because of the wonders of Pandora, and the way it can
make the Avatar transfer permanent, he can even become
Na'vi Jake for good.
It's a great SF premise as well though. The Avatars are
used as biological spaceships if you want to conceptualize
it that way. They aren't virtual or a video game, they're
100% physically and mentally real and can interact normally
with any indigenous population in an otherwise inhospitable
environment. For example where the gravity is too strong
or weak, or the atmosphere not quite right. If Cameron
wanted to show us Earth in a sequel, Neytiri and Jake both
could be in human form there, using Avatars. Or they
could each have different alien Avatars on another moon
in the system Pandora is part of.
There are also strong hints of Intelligent Design in Pandora
itself, another SF road ready to be travelled in sequels. It
needn't be "God" per se, perhaps some ancient advanced
civilization that engineered this particular system alone.
There could easily be a Star Wars triple trilogy of movies
(Lucas was said to be contemplating a sequel trilogy at
one point) and Avatar would still have tremendous scope
for more. Wherever there's interaction between species
as there could be in every incarnation, Avatars can be part
of it.
Greg Goss
>It's a great SF premise as well though. The Avatars are
>used as biological spaceships if you want to conceptualize
>it that way. They aren't virtual or a video game, they're
>100% physically and mentally real and can interact normally
>with any indigenous population in an otherwise inhospitable
>environment. For example where the gravity is too strong
>or weak, or the atmosphere not quite right. If Cameron
>wanted to show us Earth in a sequel, Neytiri and Jake both
>could be in human form there, using Avatars. Or they
>could each have different alien Avatars on another moon
>in the system Pandora is part of.
The Avatars are insanely expensive. I think somewhere it's said that
only something like sixteen of them have been made. You're not going
to see extra ones built on a casual basis going forward.
The only reason Jake is there is that the Avatar is custom built for
its operator, and Jake's twin brother got murdered in a mugging just
before the ship left for Alpha Centauri. Jake's brain is the only one
on Earth that will match the insanely expensive Avatar that's already
been built.
Anim8rFSK
"KalElFan" <kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
> Box office update here.
And this has what to do with rec.arts.tv or rec.arts.sf.tv? Oh, yeah,
nothing.
--
As Adam West as Bruce Wayne as Batman said in "Smack in the Middle"
the second half of the 1966 BATMAN series pilot when Jill St. John
as Molly as Robin as Molly fell into the Batmobile's atomic pile:
"What a way to go-go"
Invid Fan
> There could easily be a Star Wars triple trilogy of movies
> (Lucas was said to be contemplating a sequel trilogy at
> one point)
All I know about episodes 7-9 is a comment Lucas made in answer to why
Luke doesn't end up with a girl: "You haven't seen the last three
movies!"
--
Chris Mack "If we show any weakness, the monsters will get cocky!"
'Invid Fan' - 'Yokai Monsters Along With Ghosts'
TBerk
> In article <7qup8gFc2...@mid.individual.net>,
>
> "KalElFan" <kalel...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
> > Box office update here.
>
> And this has what to do with rec.arts.tv or rec.arts.sf.tv? Oh, yeah,
> nothing.
>
> -
Well, look at the bright side; it didn't have William Shatner in
it....
berk
Mark Nobles
> On Jan 10, 2:11ÔøΩpm, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net> wrote:
> > In article <7qup8gFc2...@mid.individual.net>,
> >
> > ÔøΩ"KalElFan" <kalel...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
> > > Box office update here.
> >
> > And this has what to do with rec.arts.tv or rec.arts.sf.tv? ÔøΩOh, yeah,
> > nothing.
> >
> > -
>
> Well, look at the bright side; it didn't have William Shatner in
> it....
And maybe if it had, it would have had a real villain. One who wasn't
wasn't twirling his mustache and reveling in his transparently pure
evil. There could have been a little actual conflict inside Luke
between mining the unobtainium to save all life on Earth from the
plague unleashed by the Drakh, and saving the pastoral society of the
Na'vi despite their solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short lives in
harmony with nature. But that would have been a different movie, one
that told a story instead of just running a series of really pretty
pictures.
--
See, a reference to Babylon 5, making it relevant to the tv groups.
Hieronymus S. Freely
$ And maybe if it had, it would have had a real villain. One who wasn't
$ wasn't twirling his mustache and reveling in his transparently pure
$ evil. There could have been a little actual conflict inside Luke
$ between mining the unobtainium to save all life on Earth from the
$ plague unleashed by the Drakh, and saving the pastoral society of the
$ Na'vi despite their solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short lives in
$ harmony with nature. But that would have been a different movie, one
$ that told a story instead of just running a series of really pretty
$ pictures.
Spoken like someone who hasn't actually seen the fricking movie.
David E. Powell
That's not a bright side ;)
KalElFan
news:7quur8...@mid.individual.net...
Yeah, I had a draft section in the post responding to Sarah that
explained that backstory, at least your second paragraph there,
along with other things. But I cut it to get to the key emotional
response scene and the big picture SF.
As for your first paragraph, I think your interpretation is only
correct to the extent Avatars or course aren't supposed to be
cheap and easy to the point everyone can have them. But no
way what they've set up limits the writers in re-using it in this
case.
All kinds of ways it could be written that the cost made sense
in any specific scenario. But for example interest in Pandora
and the rest of the system there ought to have now increased
a thousand fold after the events depicted in this first movie.
It's almost like the Genesis planet in Star Trek, but without
any apparent doomsday downside associated with it.
KalElFan
message news:hie4pu$ojs$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> Mark Nobles wrote:
>
>> And maybe if it had, it would have had a real villain. One who wasn't
>> wasn't twirling his mustache and reveling in his transparently pure
>> evil. There could have been a little actual conflict inside Luke
>> between mining the unobtainium to save all life on Earth from the
>> plague unleashed by the Drakh, and saving the pastoral society of the
>> Na'vi despite their solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short lives in
>> harmony with nature. But that would have been a different movie, one
>> that told a story instead of just running a series of really pretty
>> pictures.
>
> Spoken like someone who hasn't actually seen the fricking movie.
Yeah, there's none of that save all life on Earth stuff in the movie,
nothing remotely like that that I can recall. I've only seen one other
post alluding to something like that and for all I know it may have
been Mark's. To the extent it's coming from any quasi-official
source (maybe it's just Mark saying what he'd preferred to see),
it may be some early draft of a script or supplemental material or
whatnot, which means virtually nothing.
KalElFan
news:ANIM8Rfsk-776D1...@news.dc1.easynews.com...
> And this has what to do with rec.arts.tv or rec.arts.sf.tv? Oh,
> yeah, nothing.
RARF! (Reassertion After Refutation Fails).
You did remind me of a link I had in draft though. I was going to
use it in a response to an Ar Q post.
http://www.thewrap.com/ind-column/fx-circling-tv-rights-avatar-12607
Looks like Avatar will be headed for FX, or at least they'll have
first right of refusal because it keeps it within Fox. Price will be
steep though because it's based on box office. :-)
Mark Nobles
> On rec.arts.tv "Hieronymus S. Freely" <hsdg...@foo.invalid> wrote in
> message news:hie4pu$ojs$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
> > Mark Nobles wrote:
> >
> >> And maybe if it had, it would have had a real villain. One who wasn't
> >> wasn't twirling his mustache and reveling in his transparently pure
> >> evil. There could have been a little actual conflict inside Luke
> >> between mining the unobtainium to save all life on Earth from the
> >> plague unleashed by the Drakh, and saving the pastoral society of the
> >> Na'vi despite their solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short lives in
> >> harmony with nature. But that would have been a different movie, one
> >> that told a story instead of just running a series of really pretty
> >> pictures.
> >
> > Spoken like someone who hasn't actually seen the fricking movie.
I've seen the frickin' movie. And I saw there was no story behind the
pretty pictures. Now I tell you what a story would be like, and then
you'd have a movie about something. But that's not the story I saw.
It's the one I wish I'd seen, or something like it. One with a real
conflict for the hero to resolve.
>
> Yeah, there's none of that save all life on Earth stuff in the movie,
> nothing remotely like that that I can recall.
Exactly the problem. Perhaps I am being too literal here. Why is
unobtainabium valuable?
> I've only seen one other
> post alluding to something like that and for all I know it may have
> been Mark's. To the extent it's coming from any quasi-official
> source (maybe it's just Mark saying what he'd preferred to see),
> it may be some early draft of a script or supplemental material or
> whatnot, which means virtually nothing.
It was probably me. I've seen a lot of people (well, mostly Fred)
bitching about it, but I've never seen anyone actually say what they
didn't like. All the magazine reviewers are, of course, down on their
knees worshipping Cameron's flashy pictures because he is, after all,
the king of the world - both this world and the world of whatever it
was called. But he failed to deliver a good story.
It's the classic story: boy meets girl, boy runs off with girl. Oh, but
don't you see there's something missing?
Hieronymus S. Freely
> KalElFan <kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>> On rec.arts.tv "Hieronymus S. Freely" <hsdg...@foo.invalid> wrote in
>> message news:hie4pu$ojs$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
> I've seen the frickin' movie.
Then go see it again and this time leave the dark glasses at home. Or
are you actually blind? In which case, sucks to be you.
rochrist
Interesting you refer to their 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short
lives'. Of course, you made that up entirely from your own projections.
Anim8rFSK
<995ee55f-1cbd-402c...@f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
"David E. Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote:
Everything is better with a dose of The Shat!
Anim8rFSK
"KalElFan" <kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
This continues to have nothing to do with RAT. If you actually posted
stuff in the right groups, I'd read it. Since you insist on posting to
the wrong groups, back in the killfile with you.
Anim8rFSK
Mark Nobles <cmn-n...@comcast.net> wrote:
> It was probably me. I've seen a lot of people (well, mostly Fred)
> bitching about it, but I've never seen anyone actually say what they
> didn't like.
I think the visuals look like video game crap, and it would be annoying
to sit through much of it.
Speaking of which, I tried to watch SKY CAPTAIN yesterday. Saw them
mooring the dirigible to the Empire State Building. My eyes literally
hurt, and I turned it off.
Hieronymus S. Freely
> In article <110120100835424350%cmn-n...@comcast.net>,
> Mark Nobles <cmn-n...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> It was probably me. I've seen a lot of people (well, mostly Fred)
>> bitching about it, but I've never seen anyone actually say what they
>> didn't like.
>
> I think the visuals look like video game crap, and it would be annoying
> to sit through much of it.
>
> Speaking of which, I tried to watch SKY CAPTAIN yesterday. Saw them
> mooring the dirigible to the Empire State Building. My eyes literally
> hurt, and I turned it off.
See your ophthalmologist. Obviously you need glasses and either don't
have them or need the prescription fixed. Otherwise, eyestrain caused by
lack of corrective lenses will eventually cause headaches and other
symptoms, and may even lead to impaired driving.
Dimensional Traveler
> In article
> <995ee55f-1cbd-402c...@f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> "David E. Powell" <David_Po...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 10, 6:41 pm, TBerk <bayareab...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Jan 10, 2:11 pm, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <7qup8gFc2...@mid.individual.net>,
>>>> "KalElFan" <kalel...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> Box office update here.
>>>> And this has what to do with rec.arts.tv or rec.arts.sf.tv? Oh, yeah,
>>>> nothing.
>>>> -
>>> Well, look at the bright side; it didn't have William Shatner in
>>> it....
>>>
>>> berk
>> That's not a bright side ;)
>
> Everything is better with a dose of The Shat!
>
--
"The Internet lied again!"
trotsky
> In article <7qvtlh...@mid.individual.net>,
> "KalElFan" <kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>
>> "Anim8rFSK" <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:ANIM8Rfsk-776D1...@news.dc1.easynews.com...
>>
>>> And this has what to do with rec.arts.tv or rec.arts.sf.tv? Oh,
>>> yeah, nothing.
>> RARF! (Reassertion After Refutation Fails).
>>
>> You did remind me of a link I had in draft though. I was going to
>> use it in a response to an Ar Q post.
>>
>> http://www.thewrap.com/ind-column/fx-circling-tv-rights-avatar-12607
>>
>> Looks like Avatar will be headed for FX, or at least they'll have
>> first right of refusal because it keeps it within Fox. Price will be
>> steep though because it's based on box office. :-)
>
> This continues to have nothing to do with RAT. If you actually posted
> stuff in the right groups, I'd read it. Since you insist on posting to
> the wrong groups, back in the killfile with you.
>
...said the anonymouse.
KalElFan
news:110120100835424350%cmn-n...@comcast.net...
> KalElFan <kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I've only seen one other
>> post alluding to something like that and for all I know it may have
>> been Mark's. To the extent it's coming from any quasi-official
>> source (maybe it's just Mark saying what he'd preferred to see),
>> it may be some early draft of a script or supplemental material or
>> whatnot, which means virtually nothing.
>
> It was probably me. I've seen a lot of people (well, mostly Fred)
> bitching about it, but I've never seen anyone actually say what they
> didn't like. All the magazine reviewers are, of course, down on their
> knees worshipping Cameron's flashy pictures because he is, after all,
> the king of the world - both this world and the world of whatever it
> was called. But he failed to deliver a good story.
I disagree and obviously so do millions of others, but the main point
was to confirm for greater certainty that what you were posting was
only what you would have preferred to see. The other post I recall
reading (it may or may not have been from you) seemed to be less
clear about that. In other words, someone reading it might assume
it was accurately characterizing the movie. If they did, many would
think the movie must suck. It's the same with Rich and a few others
who'd been badmouthing the movie for months prior to its release,
saying it did this and that loony left thing and blah blah blah. It does
not, and if it had it wouldn't be the phenomenon it is.
Some on the left jumped to unfounded conclusions as well. They
wanted the story to be saying things it's just not saying, so they
made it up. Anyone can "interpret" anything any way they want,
but what they were saying was just not objectively supported on-
screen.
Just another brief update on box office. Avatar passed Star Wars
on the all-time domestic list today, so it's #3 now. It'll pass The
Dark Knight for #2 next weekend, and it remains on track to break
the Titanic record, domestic and worldwide, by Valentine's Day.
It's also breaking several other records along the way, like the top
all-time 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and now 5th weekend. Next weekend it
should be #1 again and set a 6th weekend record (like the 4th and
5th, previously held by Titanic).
Dan Dassow
> Just another brief update on box office. Avatar passed Star Wars
> on the all-time domestic list today, so it's #3 now. It'll pass The
> Dark Knight for #2 next weekend, and it remains on track to break
> the Titanic record, domestic and worldwide, by Valentine's Day.
> It's also breaking several other records along the way, like the top
> all-time 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and now 5th weekend. Next weekend it
> should be #1 again and set a 6th weekend record (like the 4th and
> 5th, previously held by Titanic).
According to http://www.boxofficemojo.com/ "The Book of Eli" took over
first place on Friday ($11,725,000 for "tBoE" versus $10,400,000 for
Avatar). "Avatar" is trend a 27% loss is gross revenues per week since
January 4, 2009. If Avatar maintains that low loss rate, it will beat
Titanic's domestic box office gross around February 16, 2009. Beyond
"tBoE", "The Lovely Bones", "Legion", "The Wolfman" might also
challenge "Avatar's" number one rank. This weekend's and the following
week's gross allow a better prediction.
Dan Dassow
Mark Nobles
> "Mark Nobles" <cmn-n...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:110120100835424350%cmn-n...@comcast.net...
>
> > KalElFan <kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I've only seen one other
> >> post alluding to something like that and for all I know it may have
> >> been Mark's. To the extent it's coming from any quasi-official
> >> source (maybe it's just Mark saying what he'd preferred to see),
> >> it may be some early draft of a script or supplemental material or
> >> whatnot, which means virtually nothing.
> >
> > It was probably me. I've seen a lot of people (well, mostly Fred)
> > bitching about it, but I've never seen anyone actually say what they
> > didn't like. All the magazine reviewers are, of course, down on their
> > knees worshipping Cameron's flashy pictures because he is, after all,
> > the king of the world - both this world and the world of whatever it
> > was called. But he failed to deliver a good story.
>
> I disagree and obviously so do millions of others, but the main point
> was to confirm for greater certainty that what you were posting was
> only what you would have preferred to see.
Not really what I would have preferred. I did not see an interesting
story being told. I was showing how little was needed to make it
interesting. But yes, an interesting story would have distracted you
from oohing and aahing at the pretty pictures. That's enough to make
millions of people happy and good for you.
KalElFan
news:02ff65a4-7d92-4464...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 16, 9:49 pm, "KalElFan" <kalel...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Just another brief update on box office. Avatar passed Star Wars
>> on the all-time domestic list today, so it's #3 now. It'll pass The
>> Dark Knight for #2 next weekend, and it remains on track to break
>> the Titanic record, domestic and worldwide, by Valentine's Day.
>> It's also breaking several other records along the way, like the top
>> all-time 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and now 5th weekend. Next weekend it
>> should be #1 again and set a 6th weekend record (like the 4th and
>> 5th, previously held by Titanic).
>
> According to http://www.boxofficemojo.com/ "The Book of Eli" took
> over first place on Friday...
Yes, but so did Sherlock Holmes by a similarly slim margin, when it
opened the Friday Christmas Day. It becomes a footnote in cases
like this because the holdover that's a close second regains the lead
on Saturday and Sunday. It then wins the weekend, and the media
reports that not dailies.
There are some exceptions where a family-skewing Disney or Pixar
movie or the like can have a stronger pattern its opening weekend.
But in this case it's certain Avatar will win the weekend. Here are
some links that are sometimes first with box office information. A
few of them also have general entertainment news.
Historically ERC has actually been the source that gathers and
reports box office information. Usually every Saturday morning
they have the weekend estimates up. They're pretty good at it,
and since yesterday they've had their $40 million and $30 million
3-day weekend estimates, respectively, for Avatar and Book of
Eli. So despite winning Friday by a bit, and performing about
as expected with quite a decent opening, Book of Eli will be
beat by about $10 million for the weekend as a whole. This
is pretty much in line with other estimates, and in fact the early
Saturday numbers confirm that's about where it's headed. We
get the studio weekend estimates this afternoon and then finals
Monday.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/
That's the daily boxofficemojo chart. Avatar will be back on
top once the Saturday numbers are updated.
http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/
http://twitter.com/nikkifinke
That's Nikki Finke and also Mike Fleming now at Deadline
Hollywood Daily, and the second link Nikki's Twitter page.
They're often first with early reports and estimates.
http://www.boxofficeguru.com
http://twitter.com/giteshpandya
That's boxofficeguru's site and Twitter page respectively.
He's sometimes first with daily numbers. Also sometimes
first at least in the past has been:
Lots of other entertainment stories or links there, as there
is at Nikki's site (which for example has had several updates
on the NBC latenight situation).
The following site is also very good for box office, DVD
sales and other information:
I may have missed a few good ones but that's most of the links
people interested in box office use.
> If Avatar maintains that low loss rate, it will beat Titanic's
> domestic box office gross around February 16, 2009.
Far be it for me to challenge a similar prediction I made
January 3 and which appears in the thread title. :-) I think
the odds are 95% it passes Titanic on or before Valentine's
Day, the Sunday. If it maintains less than 20% week over
week drops, or closer to 15%, it'll break the record the
weekend before that or sooner, and probably go on to
$750M+ domestic.
> ... This weekend's and the following week's gross allow a
> better prediction.
That's a truism and skeptics behind the curve have been using
it every time Avatar has crashed through the next record. :-)
Steve Newport
all-time domestic list today, so it's #3 now. It'll pass The Dark Knight
for #2 next weekend, and it remains on track to break the Titanic
record, domestic and worldwide, by Valentine's Day.
I sure hope it's better than the other two.
Dan Dassow
> "Dan Dassow" <dan_das...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > If Avatar maintains that low loss rate, it will beat Titanic's
> > domestic box office gross around February 16, 2009.
(I still seem to be in 2009. <* wink *> )
>
> Far be it for me to challenge a similar prediction I made
> January 3 and which appears in the thread title. :-) I think
> the odds are 95% it passes Titanic on or before Valentine's
> Day, the Sunday. If it maintains less than 20% week over
> week drops, or closer to 15%, it'll break the record the
> weekend before that or sooner, and probably go on to
> $750M+ domestic.
Based on this weekend's estimates, I've revised my estimate to
February 6, 2010. Avatar is now trending with a 21% drop per week.
>
> > ... This weekend's and the following week's gross allow a
> > better prediction.
>
> That's a truism and skeptics behind the curve have been using
> it every time Avatar has crashed through the next record. :-)
I'm not a skeptic so much as a realist. It is easier to use trend
analysis to forecast future box office receipts when one has more
data. Avatar is not following the typical trends for films which makes
it more difficult to forecast.
The comparison of the 5 top box office films is rather telling.
Summary Stats
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/showdowns/chart/?id=alltimegrossvs.htm
Daily Box Office
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/showdowns/chart/?view=daily&id=alltimegrossvs.htm
The Dark Knight ........ $471,082,150 / 31 days
Titanic ...................... $236,745,404 / 31 days
Shrek 2 ................... $378,623,263 / 33 days (started on a Wed)
The Phantom Menace $328,072,869 / 33 days (started on a Wed)
Avatar ...................... $491,767,000 / 31 days
Dan Dassow
Obveeus
"Dan Dassow" <dan_d...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I'm not a skeptic so much as a realist. It is easier to use trend
>analysis to forecast future box office receipts when one has more
>data. Avatar is not following the typical trends for films which makes
>it more difficult to forecast.
>
>The comparison of the 5 top box office films is rather telling.
>
>Summary Stats
>http://www.boxofficemojo.com/showdowns/chart/?id=alltimegrossvs.htm
>
>Daily Box Office
>http://www.boxofficemojo.com/showdowns/chart/?view=daily&id=alltimegrossvs.htm
>
>The Dark Knight ........ $471,082,150 / 31 days
>Titanic ...................... $236,745,404 / 31 days
>Shrek 2 ................... $378,623,263 / 33 days (started on a Wed)
>The Phantom Menace $328,072,869 / 33 days (started on a Wed)
>Avatar ...................... $491,767,000 / 31 days
I don't think Avatar's trend is that abnormal excepting that it has had a
lot of staying power (aided by a large number of weeks with not much
competition). Of the other movies on this list, I think that Titanic was
the one that had the abnormal trend as it just kept going and going. The
other three movies on your list (franchise sequels) started stronger than
Avatar, but like most sequels, fell off faster.
cloud dreamer
Given how inflation throws off the numbers...they should rank the movies
in terms of how many seats were occupied.
..
Dan Dassow
wrote:
> On 1/17/2010 6:42 PM, Obveeus wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> I'm not a skeptic so much as a realist. It is easier to use trend
> >> analysis to forecast future box office receipts when one has more
> >> data. Avatar is not following the typical trends for films which makes
> >> it more difficult to forecast.
>
> >> The comparison of the 5 top box office films is rather telling.
>
> >> Summary Stats
> >>http://www.boxofficemojo.com/showdowns/chart/?id=alltimegrossvs.htm
>
> >> Daily Box Office
>
> >> The Dark Knight ........ $471,082,150 / 31 days
> >> Titanic ...................... $236,745,404 / 31 days
> >> Shrek 2 ................... $378,623,263 / 33 days (started on a Wed)
> >> The Phantom Menace $328,072,869 / 33 days (started on a Wed)
> >> Avatar ...................... $491,767,000 / 31 days
>
> > I don't think Avatar's trend is that abnormal excepting that it has had a
> > lot of staying power (aided by a large number of weeks with not much
> > competition). Of the other movies on this list, I think that Titanic was
> > the one that had the abnormal trend as it just kept going and going. The
> > other three movies on your list (franchise sequels) started stronger than
> > Avatar, but like most sequels, fell off faster.
What I consider unusual about Avatar is that blockbusters tend to drop
off rapidly after the first two weeks. Avatar did not.
>
> Given how inflation throws off the numbers...they should rank the movies
> in terms of how many seats were occupied.
>
I agree. Number of paid tickets is a better indicator of a film's
popularity. I do not know of any database that tracks the number of
paid admissions. I would be interested if there is such a site. The
best we can do in lieu of that information is to go by adjusting
ticket prices by inflation, such as
DOMESTIC GROSSES
Adjusted for Ticket Price Inflation*
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm
Avatar is 36th on that list and could make the top 20 within the next
few weeks. Avatar is the only film in the top 50 that I have not seen.
I figure I will have a lot of time to see it in theaters.
Unfortunately, there is only one IMAX theater in the St. Louis area,
the one in the Science Center. They are not currently showing the
film.
Dan Dassow
John McWilliams
Yes, but that number in turn should be adjusted by the population over
12, say.
--
john mcwilliams
Dan Dassow
> On 1/17/10 PDT 2:15 PM, cloud dreamer wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 1/17/2010 6:42 PM, Obveeus wrote:
>
> >>> I'm not a skeptic so much as a realist. It is easier to use trend
> >>> analysis to forecast future box office receipts when one has more
> >>> data. Avatar is not following the typical trends for films which makes
> >>> it more difficult to forecast.
>
> >>> The comparison of the 5 top box office films is rather telling.
>
> >>> Summary Stats
> >>>http://www.boxofficemojo.com/showdowns/chart/?id=alltimegrossvs.htm
>
> >>> Daily Box Office
>
> >>> The Dark Knight ........ $471,082,150 / 31 days
> >>> Titanic ...................... $236,745,404 / 31 days
> >>> Shrek 2 ................... $378,623,263 / 33 days (started on a Wed)
> >>> The Phantom Menace $328,072,869 / 33 days (started on a Wed)
> >>> Avatar ...................... $491,767,000 / 31 days
>
> >> I don't think Avatar's trend is that abnormal excepting that it has had a
> >> lot of staying power (aided by a large number of weeks with not much
> >> competition). Of the other movies on this list, I think that Titanic was
> >> the one that had the abnormal trend as it just kept going and going. The
> >> other three movies on your list (franchise sequels) started stronger than
> >> Avatar, but like most sequels, fell off faster.
>
> > Given how inflation throws off the numbers...they should rank the movies
> > in terms of how many seats were occupied.
>
> Yes, but that number in turn should be adjusted by the population over
> 12, say.
>
Ask and some fool will try to answer.
Dan Dassow
Domestic Gross
Adjusted for
Inflation and
Rank Population Title
1 $3,749,821,440 Gone with the Wind
2 $2,078,021,109 Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
3 $1,984,868,327 Star Wars
4 $1,935,187,791 The Ten Commandments
5 $1,864,394,957 The Sound of Music
6 $1,625,088,015 Doctor Zhivago
7 $1,500,405,572 Fantasia
8 $1,478,128,556 E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial
9 $1,466,079,388 Jaws
10 $1,390,553,290 Ben-Hur
11 $1,380,199,510 101 Dalmatians
12 $1,300,087,035 The Exorcist
13 $1,234,282,504 Pinocchio
14 $1,135,788,128 Bambi
15 $1,093,453,343 Titanic
16 $1,090,559,706 The Graduate
17 $1,074,391,584 The Bells of St. Mary's
18 $1,050,886,004 The Empire Strikes Back
19 $1,048,158,365 The Sting
20 $1,037,329,966 Mary Poppins
21 $1,031,223,741 Sleeping Beauty
22 $1,006,657,843 The Robe
23 $979,225,337 Thunderball
24 $967,034,051 Return of the Jedi
25 $954,526,027 Around the World in 80 Days
26 $940,527,867 The Godfather
27 $939,009,547 The Jungle Book
28 $935,240,736 The Greatest Show on Earth
29 $930,854,556 Raiders of the Lost Ark
30 $929,213,201 The Best Years of Our Lives
31 $903,448,822 Cleopatra (1963)
32 $879,679,880 Goldfinger
33 $875,398,988 Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
34 $869,475,975 Sergeant York
35 $861,978,850 Duel in the Sun
36 $856,874,411 Love Story
37 $845,744,357 Grease
38 $834,466,700 Lady and the Tramp
39 $809,293,723 Airport
40 $796,090,389 My Fair Lady
41 $792,904,045 The Bridge on the River Kwai
42 $777,155,391 House of Wax
43 $774,952,892 Jurassic Park
44 $773,141,371 West Side Story
45 $772,680,846 American Graffiti
46 $764,103,909 Rear Window
47 $754,835,124 Lawrence of Arabia
48 $753,317,966 Swiss Family Robinson
49 $733,527,414 Blazing Saddles
50 $724,489,082 It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World
51 $717,491,606 Ghostbusters
52 $712,043,364 The Towering Inferno
53 $703,535,680 Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace
54 $696,675,459 Forrest Gump
55 $685,022,252 The Lion King
56 $681,169,999 Beverly Hills Cop
57 $658,485,491 National Lampoon's Animal House
58 $657,169,096 M.A.S.H.
59 $654,271,923 The Poseidon Adventure
60 $633,923,603 Home Alone
61 $633,315,358 Smokey and the Bandit
62 $630,644,846 Superman
63 $630,363,056 The Rocky Horror Picture Show
64 $621,624,763 Rocky
65 $619,303,709 Close Encounters of the Third Kind
66 $614,520,049 One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
67 $598,117,461 Independence Day
68 $597,154,253 Batman
69 $592,941,653 Tootsie
70 $591,022,515 Back to the Future
71 $553,550,624 Spider-Man
72 $551,032,762 Shrek 2
73 $545,973,300 The Dark Knight
74 $543,037,097 Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
75 $491,835,255 Avatar
76 $487,944,802 Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
77 $483,706,705 The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
78 $481,662,418 Ghost
79 $477,805,224 Aladdin
80 $477,554,792 The Sixth Sense
81 $473,609,618 Mrs. Doubtfire
82 $472,216,749 Twister
83 $470,570,732 Top Gun
84 $468,738,763 Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
85 $466,558,897 Spider-Man 2
86 $465,311,286 Men in Black
87 $463,038,655 The Passion of the Christ
88 $459,113,068 The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
89 $453,954,480 Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith
90 $451,450,958 Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
91 $449,302,264 Terminator 2: Judgment Day
92 $442,828,032 Finding Nemo
93 $441,688,791 The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
94 $425,956,906 Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones
95 $425,211,874 The Lost World: Jurassic Park
96 $406,143,658 Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
97 $398,114,293 Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black
Pearl
98 $396,750,667 Toy Story 2
99 $393,672,219 How the Grinch Stole Christmas
100 $364,378,834 Spider-Man 3
cloud dreamer
Very cool.
;]
John McWilliams
> On 1/17/2010 10:27 PM, Dan Dassow wrote:
<< Snipped bits out >>
>
> Very cool.
Excellent, and thanks. Now let's fight over the rates used for the
adjustments......
:-)
--
john mcwilliams
Obveeus
"Dan Dassow" <dan_d...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jan 17, 4:15 pm, cloud dreamer <Climate.is.chang...@too.fast>
wrote:
> On 1/17/2010 6:42 PM, Obveeus wrote:
>> > I don't think Avatar's trend is that abnormal excepting that it has had
>> > a
>> > lot of staying power (aided by a large number of weeks with not much
>> > competition). Of the other movies on this list, I think that Titanic
>> > was
>> > the one that had the abnormal trend as it just kept going and going.
>> > The
>> > other three movies on your list (franchise sequels) started stronger
>> > than
>> > Avatar, but like most sequels, fell off faster.
>
>What I consider unusual about Avatar is that blockbusters tend to drop
>off rapidly after the first two weeks. Avatar did not.
A big part of Avatar not dropping off fast is that Avatar didn't have a huge
start. The reason that it didn't have a huge start is that it wasn't a
franchise sequel like The Dark Knight, Shrek 2, or the last three Star Wars
films.
>> Given how inflation throws off the numbers...they should rank the movies
>> in terms of how many seats were occupied.
>>
>
>I agree. Number of paid tickets is a better indicator of a film's
>popularity. I do not know of any database that tracks the number of
>paid admissions.
Another big reason that Avatar did not have a huge start is that it didn't
open in nearly as many theaters as some other films.
Boxofficemojo does track theater count (though not seat count). For
example, Avatar opened in 3,452 theaters on opening weekend. The Dark
Knight opened in 4,366 theaters. Those two movies were released close
enough to each other in history that theater sizes haven't changed much, but
relating theater counts to prior generations would be much harder because
theaters are much more plentiful, but seat numbers within a theater (a
single screen) are getting smaller. Likely, nothing could stand up to Gone
with the Wind in terms of seat count, anyway, since the nature of the
entertainment business is no longer to keep re-releasing the same movie into
the theater year after year after year. Instead, the 'big money' after the
first year is to hit pay cable and DVD jackpots.
>I would be interested if there is such a site. The
>best we can do in lieu of that information is to go by adjusting
>ticket prices by inflation, such as
An even better measure of popularity would be to adjust ticket prices in
terms of a percentage of average income. After all, spending a day's wage
to go see a film is a more meaningful sacrifice than spending a few minute's
wage.
>Avatar is 36th on that list and could make the top 20 within the next
>few weeks. Avatar is the only film in the top 50 that I have not seen.
You should go see it. I don't think IMAX or 3D is needed in order to enjoy
the effects or the storyline.
Obveeus
"Dan Dassow" <dan_d...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I think the previous poster was suggesting that the money spent on behalf of
kids shouldn't count towards a measure of a films popularity, so stuff like
Snow White, The Sound of Music, Fantasia, E.T., 101 Dalmatians, Pinocchio,
and Bambi shouldn't count.
Dan Dassow
> I think the previous poster was suggesting that the money spent on behalf of
> kids shouldn't count towards a measure of a films popularity, so stuff like
> Snow White, The Sound of Music, Fantasia, E.T., 101 Dalmatians, Pinocchio,
> and Bambi shouldn't count.
I fully appreciate that John McWilliams wanted to adjust for the film
going population above a certain age. More likely than not excluding
people below a certain age would not have affected the results
significantly. Reliable world population figures are not readily
available, especially broken out by age. US population by year and age
should be more easily available.
I beg to differ on Fantasia. Walt Disney did not make Fantasia
primarily for children.
Dan Dassow
Obveeus
"Dan Dassow" <dan_d...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jan 17, 8:41 pm, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>> I think the previous poster was suggesting that the money spent on behalf
>> of
>> kids shouldn't count towards a measure of a films popularity, so stuff
>> like
>> Snow White, The Sound of Music, Fantasia, E.T., 101 Dalmatians,
>> Pinocchio,
>> and Bambi shouldn't count.
>
>I fully appreciate that John McWilliams wanted to adjust for the film
>going population above a certain age. More likely than not excluding
>people below a certain age would not have affected the results
>significantly.
You are kidding, right? The movies listed above would lose 50%+ of their
audience while movies like Jaws, Doctor Zhivago, and The Exorcist would lose
almost nothing.
Dan Dassow
What Mr. McWilliams suggested was to exclude below a certain age in
the population counts. Adjusting simply by population for people over
a certain age by year would not drastically be different than using
the whole population. On the other hand, you are right the films you
listed above as primarily targeted towards children would lose a
significant amount of their audience if you excluded ticket sales from
children. To do that analysis would require information on ticket
sales by age demographic. I do not know a reliable source for that
information.
For sake of argument, let us make the very gross assumption that 50
percent of ticket sales for children oriented films are for people
under the age of 13 and 10 percent of the ticket sales for the
remaining films are for the people under the age of 13. For this
analysis, I do not consider Fantasia a children oriented film. Here is
the adjusted list. You are free to use your own assumptions and run
the analysis yourself.
Dan Dassow
Domestic Gross
Adjusted for
Inflation, and
Population
Excluding
Rank People Under 13 Title
1 $3,374,839,296 Gone with the Wind
2 $1,786,381,494 Star Wars
3 $1,741,669,012 The Ten Commandments
4 $1,462,579,214 Doctor Zhivago
5 $1,350,365,015 Fantasia
6 $1,319,471,449 Jaws
7 $1,251,497,961 Ben-Hur
8 $1,170,078,332 The Exorcist
9 $1,039,010,555 Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
10 $984,108,009 Titanic
11 $981,503,735 The Graduate
12 $966,952,425 The Bells of St. Mary's
13 $945,797,404 The Empire Strikes Back
14 $943,342,528 The Sting
15 $932,197,478 The Sound of Music
16 $905,992,058 The Robe
17 $881,302,803 Thunderball
18 $870,330,646 Return of the Jedi
19 $859,073,424 Around the World in 80 Days
20 $846,475,081 The Godfather
21 $845,108,593 The Jungle Book
22 $841,716,662 The Greatest Show on Earth
23 $837,769,101 Raiders of the Lost Ark
24 $836,291,881 The Best Years of Our Lives
25 $813,103,940 Cleopatra (1963)
26 $791,711,892 Goldfinger
27 $787,859,090 Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
28 $782,528,377 Sergeant York
29 $775,780,965 Duel in the Sun
30 $771,186,970 Love Story
31 $761,169,922 Grease
32 $739,064,278 E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial
33 $728,364,351 Airport
34 $716,481,350 My Fair Lady
35 $713,613,640 The Bridge on the River Kwai
36 $699,439,852 House of Wax
37 $697,457,603 Jurassic Park
38 $695,827,233 West Side Story
39 $695,412,761 American Graffiti
40 $690,099,755 101 Dalmatians
41 $687,693,518 Rear Window
42 $679,351,612 Lawrence of Arabia
43 $660,174,672 Blazing Saddles
44 $652,040,174 It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World
45 $645,742,445 Ghostbusters
46 $640,839,027 The Towering Inferno
47 $633,182,112 Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace
48 $627,007,913 Forrest Gump
49 $617,141,252 Pinocchio
50 $613,052,999 Beverly Hills Cop
51 $592,636,942 National Lampoon's Animal House
52 $591,452,186 M.A.S.H.
53 $588,844,731 The Poseidon Adventure
54 $569,983,822 Smokey and the Bandit
55 $567,894,064 Bambi
56 $567,580,362 Superman
57 $567,326,751 The Rocky Horror Picture Show
58 $559,462,287 Rocky
59 $557,373,338 Close Encounters of the Third Kind
60 $553,068,044 One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
61 $538,305,714 Independence Day
62 $537,438,828 Batman
63 $533,647,488 Tootsie
64 $531,920,264 Back to the Future
65 $518,664,983 Mary Poppins
66 $515,611,870 Sleeping Beauty
67 $498,195,562 Spider-Man
68 $491,375,970 The Dark Knight
69 $488,733,387 Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
70 $442,651,729 Avatar
71 $439,150,322 Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
72 $435,336,035 The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
73 $433,496,176 Ghost
74 $430,024,701 Aladdin
75 $429,799,313 The Sixth Sense
76 $426,248,656 Mrs. Doubtfire
77 $424,995,074 Twister
78 $423,513,659 Top Gun
79 $421,864,886 Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
80 $419,903,007 Spider-Man 2
81 $418,780,157 Men in Black
82 $417,233,350 Lady and the Tramp
83 $416,734,790 The Passion of the Christ
84 $413,201,761 The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
85 $408,559,032 Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith
86 $406,305,862 Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
87 $404,372,038 Terminator 2: Judgment Day
88 $398,545,229 Finding Nemo
89 $397,519,912 The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
90 $383,361,215 Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones
91 $382,690,686 The Lost World: Jurassic Park
92 $376,658,983 Swiss Family Robinson
93 $365,529,292 Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
94 $358,302,864 Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black
Pearl
95 $342,511,126 The Lion King
96 $327,940,950 Spider-Man 3
97 $316,961,801 Home Alone
98 $275,516,381 Shrek 2
99 $198,375,334 Toy Story 2
100 $196,836,109 How the Grinch Stole Christmas
John McWilliams
Adjusting the population count to exclude the populus under 12 - NOT
tickets bought by or for 12 and under, I am adjusting for those unable
to purchase their own tickets. It should have de minimus impact on the
results in any event. In no way would I advocate excluding attendance by
any sector. I'd point out that a film whose main audience is children
will gross a lot less per seat.
--
John McWilliams
KalElFan
news:hj020q$3a9$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> The Dark Knight ........ $471,082,150 / 31 days
>> Titanic ...................... $236,745,404 / 31 days
>> Shrek 2 ................... $378,623,263 / 33 days (started on a Wed)
>> The Phantom Menace $328,072,869 / 33 days (started on a Wed)
>> Avatar ...................... $491,767,000 / 31 days
> ... Of the other movies on this list, I think that Titanic was
> the one that had the abnormal trend as it just kept going and going.
The DVD window for Titanic -- really the VHS window at the time --
was about a year after the movie was released. So it spent a long time
in theaters, but it made most of its money much quicker than that. It
broke $500 million in late March and had made 90% of its gross by
April 11 or so.
Avatar is at $500 million tomorrow (January 18) in all likelihood,
it's broken Titanic's 4th and 5th weekend records and that looks like
it will continue. It won the Golden Globe tonight as did Cameron,
and has a good chance at the Oscar, which also helped Titanic. So
Avatar is showing the same kind of staying power Titanic had in the
revenue column.
Also, the one-way "adjustment" nonsense in this subthread just
doesn't have any merit, in fact it just makes lists and the like even
more misleading. As noted in prior threads there are just too many
factors we don't have enough reliable information on that would
have to be adjusted for, if the real purpose is to fairly adjust for
the many changes that have taken place.
That rarely is the purpose. It's usually just folks trying to minimize
the achievement of the latest record breaker. It makes for pointless
online back and forth, but meanwhile Titanic's record is about to
be broken and for the next 12 years or however long it takes
Avatar's will be the new one.
erilar
cloud dreamer <Climate.i...@too.fast> wrote:
> Given how inflation throws off the numbers...they should rank the movies
> in terms of how many seats were occupied.
How would you figure that out for past movies, much less current ones?
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
erilar
"Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
> I don't think IMAX or 3D is needed in order to enjoy
> the effects or the storyline.
It blew me away in a fairly small theater in the boondocks with no 3D.
8-)
Obveeus
"erilar" <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:drache-D96798....@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article <hj0hf3$ego$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't think IMAX or 3D is needed in order to enjoy
>> the effects or the storyline.
>
> It blew me away in a fairly small theater in the boondocks with no 3D.
> 8-)
Exactly. I have seen both the 2D version and the IMAX 3D version and the 3D
IMAX effects don't add anything that people would need to enjoy this film.
Dan Dassow
> "erilar" <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote in message
>
> news:drache-D96798....@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> > "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> I don't think IMAX or 3D is needed in order to enjoy
> >> the effects or the storyline.
>
> > It blew me away in a fairly small theater in the boondocks with no 3D.
> > 8-)
>
> Exactly. I have seen both the 2D version and the IMAX 3D version and the 3D
> IMAX effects don't add anything that people would need to enjoy this film.
Obveeus, does Avatar need to be seen in a theater to be fully enjoyed,
or can it be seen via a DVD and on a standard NTSC-525 television
monitor?
Dan Dassow
erilar
<44c8adad-4800-448a...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Dan Dassow <dan_d...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I'm not him, but it really needs a movie theater-sized screen, even if
only a small movie theater.
Obveeus
In a year or two, plenty of people will be enjoying it on their home TVs.
Why wait that long to enjoy the best movie to come out last year?
James Sidbury
<44c8adad-4800-448a...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Dan Dassow <dan_d...@yahoo.com> wrote:
It can be enjoyed on a TV, but to "fully" enjoy it requires a bigger
screen than you're likely to have in a residential setting, IMHO.
dick
CT
>
> Avatar is 36th on that list and could make the top 20 within the next
> few weeks. Avatar is the only film in the top 50 that I have not seen.
> I figure I will have a lot of time to see it in theaters.
> Unfortunately, there is only one IMAX theater in the St. Louis area,
> the one in the Science Center. They are not currently showing the
> film.
>
> Dan Dassow
The theater at the Science Center is OMNIMAX. I think Ronnies 20 has
an IMAX screen, but I don't know if "Avatar" is playing on it.
--Chris
Pete B
dra...@chibardun.net.invalid says...
> In article <hj0hf3$ego$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't think IMAX or 3D is needed in order to enjoy
> > the effects or the storyline.
>
> It blew me away in a fairly small theater in the boondocks with no 3D.
> 8-)
>
>
You saw a version with a storyline?!
Obveeus
"Pete B" <xxxh@_xsomeething.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.25c330afd...@news.usenetserver.com...
A storyline as complex as that of Star Wars and more complex than that of
ET, Titanic, The Dark Knight, Transformers, Spiderman, etc...
KalElFan
> On Jan 17, 8:12 am, "KalElFan" <kalel...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Far be it for me to challenge a similar prediction I made
>> January 3 and which appears in the thread title. :-) I think
>> the odds are 95% it passes Titanic on or before Valentine's
>> Day, the Sunday. If it maintains less than 20% week over
>> week drops, or closer to 15%, it'll break the record the
>> weekend before that or sooner, and probably go on to
>> $750M+ domestic.
>
> Based on this weekend's estimates, I've revised my estimate to
> February 6, 2010. Avatar is now trending with a 21% drop per
> week.
Well it's actually breaking Titanic's worldwide record tomorrow,
January 25th, on its 39th day of release. :-) As for the domestic
record, it passed The Dark Knight yesterday and it's #2 all-time
with almost $553 million after today (Sunday).
This weekend's domestic estimate is $36 million, #1 again for a
6th straight weekend and easily breaking Titanic's 6th weekend
record of about $25.2 million. It should be able to manage 15%
drops or so and set two more records the next couple of weeks.
There's at least a chance Titanic's domestic record will now fall
by the end of next weekend, January 31, but if not then the 1st
week of February.
Beyond that, $750M looks like a lock and $800M achievable
if not probable. With a slew of Academy nominations and a win
for Best Picture, it's possible the drops get down below 5-10%
or it even holds or increases a bit some weeks/weekends. If
that happens, $1 billion domestic is, incredibly, no longer a big
longshot.
We can probably also look forward to 3D versions of Star Wars
and just about everything from here on in. :-) And 3D TV even
sooner than we would've otherwise had it. :-)
moviePig
> "Dan Dassow" <dan_das...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Remember that "3D versions" of (original 2D movies, such as) STAR WARS
are *not* the same animal as AVATAR... or even as FINAL DESTINATION
3D...
Re AVATAR's box-office, it's noteworthy that today -- on the NFL's
biggest playoff Sunday -- all my Imax showings of AVATAR are sold
out...
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com