News Round Up 2017

Frankly, all of the top 10 adjusted for inflation had huge numbers seeing it more than once. Several had more than one theatrical release. Avatar, with only one theatrical release and a very limited adjustment for inflation, grossed an obscene amount of money. People can talk it down all they want, point to 3d, point to whatever they want, but all the highest grossing films of all time have some kind of hook that differentiated them.

Gone with the Wind had revolutionary set pieces. Star Wars, E.T. and Jaws had ridiculous special effects at the time of their release. Titanic had an almost full-scale half model of the ship mechanically sunk for a scene. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs were a huge step forward in animation. The only movies on the inflation adjusted list that were primarily story driven as opposed to groundbreaking filmmaking in some way were The Sound of Music, The Ten Commandments, and Doctor Zhivago.... All of those pre-1966.

Further, the way Avatar stood out in 2009, in a time of way more studio releases than existed in the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s, makes it that much more impressive. The top grossing movies before and after Avatar made less than half the gross of Avatar. The next movie to make more than 2/3rds as much as Avatar was The Force Awakens. Frozen, for example, as big a hit as it is for Disney, grossed significantly less than 1/2 as much.

There is no way to wish away how big a hit Avatar was in 2009. On a historical basis, it was a massively popular movie.

I don't disagree with your post at all, though I do want to point out that Avatar did have a theatrical re-release.

It was called Avatar: Special Edition and was only released for 3D and IMAX 3D screens. It had 9 extra minutes of CG footage. The re-release hit theaters August 27, 2010 and ran for 12 weeks. During that time it brought in another $33+ million ($10+ million in North America and $22+ million overseas).

Comparatively, $33+ million is a drop in the great big bucket of the $2.7+ billion take, but I figured it should be noted. Even without the re-release other movies don't even come close (which I'm pretty sure that was a piece of your point).
 
I don't really get the crazy backlash that Avatar seems to get. Was it a great movie? No. But it was 10 times better than any part of the Transformers movies, and they are releasing a 5th one of those piles of garbage and they make a billion dollars each. Why do people seem so angry that Avatar was popular? I really don't get it. Who cares? And who even cares if they make more movies and if they are popular? You don't like it, don't go see it.

I'm not a big, angry Avatar hater, but I really didn't like the film. It was a spectacle of (what was at the time) innovative technology and was certainly worth seeing for that alone, but I would've preferred to see a more original story and/or quality acting paired with that spectacle.

What bothers me about its popularity (or films like Transformers making so much money) is that Hollywood is perpetually rewarded for making garbage. It keeps delivering the message that the script/story is meaningless. And Hollywood keeps churning out the same, silly stuff. That would also be fine with me if there was also an appropriate investment in original ideas. Production companies are not willing to take the risk because so few people want to see quality movies. They want sequels, reboots, or rehashes; they want CGI; they want to see the good guys wearing white and the bad guy wearing black; and they want the good guy to live happily ever after.

Inversely, quality films are rarely rewarded with much commercial success. It's hard to even get those films made. Moonlight, this year's Oscar winner, grossed less than 28M domestically. That would be a failure of an opening weekend for a Transformers film.
 
What bothers me about its popularity (or films like Transformers making so much money) is that Hollywood is perpetually rewarded for making garbage. It keeps delivering the message that the script/story is meaningless. And Hollywood keeps churning out the same, silly stuff. That would also be fine with me if there was also an appropriate investment in original ideas. Production companies are not willing to take the risk because so few people want to see quality movies. They want sequels, reboots, or rehashes; they want CGI; they want to see the good guys wearing white and the bad guy wearing black; and they want the good guy to live happily ever after.

Inversely, quality films are rarely rewarded with much commercial success. It's hard to even get those films made. Moonlight, this year's Oscar winner, grossed less than 28M domestically. That would be a failure of an opening weekend for a Transformers film.


I hear this complaint from people from time to time and it makes me chuckle. I'm not paying to go to the movie theater to see some character driven drama or comedy with a great story. It costs way too much to watch something on the big screen that is just as good 6 weeks later on my large t.v. and surround sound at home. To take my wife to the movies I'm looking at $50 in dinner, at least and that's what, one step above fast food? $30 in movie tickets, $15 for popcorn and drinks, and $40 for a babysitter. $135 to see something that I can watch for $5 or $6 after the kids go to bed in a few weeks? No thank you.

So production companies have no choice. They have to produce something that is worth dropping big bucks to see on the big screen. For me, that's special effects, dynamite sound, and groundbreaking graphics. So yeah, the comic book sequels, Star Wars, and kids cartoons are all I'm paying for on the big screen. Though I understand why others are willing to see Transformers, PotC, and Fast and Furious even if I'm not. And I'm guessing there are way more Americans like me, realizing there is limited to no value in watching that Oscar winning drama on the big screen versus my large screen t.v., than there are people that will go see a movie in the movie theater just because it is a good story.
 
If you want to base it off repeat viewings, etc, the same thing can be said about Titanic. I was in high school at the time and girls were going see that movie 10 times over. No way it would have be #3 all time otherwise.

Ok... but no one here is pitching a sequel to Titanic. lol
 
OK - topic has been beaten to death here and elsewhere, but let's not forget that James Cameron is a very successful commerically popular director. It is not like Avatar was a fluke, and even if you don't just look at Titanic, pretty much every movie he's made has been a huge financial success - with the exception of The Abyss which might actually be his BEST movie.(OK - the directors cut.)

And let's also no forget Titanic was overbudget, delayed, and thought that it would completely bomb - but was a huge hit. Avatar to him 10+ years to make and again was talked about like it was going to be a disaster and again was a huge hit. (Regardless of 3D and all a huge hit.) The sequels have been delayed so much it's crazy. (I want to say the original release dates were like 2015) But Sony is going to have a MASSIVE investment in these movies and seem willing to put the money up to make all these movies at once. I'm just saying that it's hard to dismiss the likelyhood that these sequels will be huge hits, even 10 years later. Probably not on the level of the original, but quite probably in the realm of what is considered successful for a tentpole nowadays. ($300 million domestic, $750 million international.)
 
I hear this complaint from people from time to time and it makes me chuckle. I'm not paying to go to the movie theater to see some character driven drama or comedy with a great story. It costs way too much to watch something on the big screen that is just as good 6 weeks later on my large t.v. and surround sound at home. To take my wife to the movies I'm looking at $50 in dinner, at least and that's what, one step above fast food? $30 in movie tickets, $15 for popcorn and drinks, and $40 for a babysitter. $135 to see something that I can watch for $5 or $6 after the kids go to bed in a few weeks? No thank you.

So production companies have no choice. They have to produce something that is worth dropping big bucks to see on the big screen. For me, that's special effects, dynamite sound, and groundbreaking graphics. So yeah, the comic book sequels, Star Wars, and kids cartoons are all I'm paying for on the big screen. Though I understand why others are willing to see Transformers, PotC, and Fast and Furious even if I'm not. And I'm guessing there are way more Americans like me, realizing there is limited to no value in watching that Oscar winning drama on the big screen versus my large screen t.v., than there are people that will go see a movie in the movie theater just because it is a good story.

I understand and agree with pretty much everything you said, but there's an implication that good special effects, etc. and a good story/acting/etc. are mutually exclusive.
 
I understand and agree with pretty much everything you said, but there's an implication that good special effects, etc. and a good story/acting/etc. are mutually exclusive.
Not by rule, but sometimes by effect. There are only so many things you can focus on in a movie. Look at all the seminal SFX movies. They either compromised on the SFX, or on the actors, because you can't afford both. Writing a good, original story on top is really, really hard. I don't expect to get my cake and eat it too when it comes to movies.
 
















GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE


Our Dreams Unlimited Travel Agents will assist you in booking the perfect Disney getaway, all at no extra cost to you. Get the most out of your vacation by letting us assist you with dining and park reservations, provide expert advice, answer any questions, and continuously search for discounts to ensure you get the best deal possible.

CLICK HERE




facebook twitter
Top