Avatar: The Way of Water | 16 DEC 2022 | Don't worry guys, critics like it

[peludo]

17 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

It sounds like Spain is a special case.

 

I checked Germany because it came to my head first and their average ticket price has only gone up.

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/398393/cinema-tickets-average-price-germany/

Sure, but you have to take into account the 3D factor. Are you entirely convinced that people will pay again the overcharge of 3D?

 

According InsideKino:

Average ticket price in Germany (2009): €6.67

Average ticket price of Avatar: €10.14=€114m/11.29 million admissions

Average ticket price in Germany (2017): €8.63

 

Avatar tickets were a 52% higher than average tickets in Germany. That is a huge advantage that I do not know if it will be repeated.

 

Sure that there have been positive inflation in most countries during these years, and it can compensate some drops because lower attendance and worse ER, but I am not so sure that people will return to watch this in 3D so massively as they did in 2009-2011 period.

[GraceRandolph]

4 hours ago, JamesCameronScholar said:

You patently remember it bucko. 

It’s true even if you are scared to  admit it.  Whenever someone says “avatar” most people will think of the last air bender (tv show). Avatar was a fad driven by the  3D technology. It was presented as something new and a must watch experience.  No one really cared for the story or the characters.  It was all based on a gimmick. That’s why the sequels will bomb.  No one is interested to see what happenes next. 

[IronJimbo]

15 minutes ago, GraceRandolph said:

It’s true even if you are scared to  admit it.  Whenever someone says “avatar” most people will think of the last air bender (tv show). Avatar was a fad driven by the  3D technology. It was presented as something new and a must watch experience.  No one really cared for the story or the characters.  It was all based on a gimmick. That’s why the sequels will bomb.  No one is interested to see what happenes next. 

by "people" you mean turbo nerds on the internet right?

Edited March 20, 2018 by IronJimbo

[TomCruiseTop]

38 minutes ago, GraceRandolph said:

It’s true even if you are scared to  admit it.

Except... you proved yourself wrong. You're doing it right now. 

[JB33]

2 hours ago, GraceRandolph said:

It’s true even if you are scared to  admit it.  Whenever someone says “avatar” most people will think of the last air bender (tv show). Avatar was a fad driven by the  3D technology. It was presented as something new and a must watch experience.  No one really cared for the story or the characters.  It was all based on a gimmick. That’s why the sequels will bomb.  No one is interested to see what happenes next. 

It's not going to bomb. In fact, it will be enormous at the box office. But yes, Avatar isn't actually that strong as a brand. James Cameron and his technological innovations in film is still the brand. That may change, though, as we get more world building with the cluster of films coming out in the 2020's. We will see.

[TomCruiseTop]

16 hours ago, JB33 said:

It's not going to bomb. In fact, it will be enormous at the box office. But yes, Avatar isn't actually that strong as a brand. James Cameron and his technological innovations in film is still the brand. That may change, though, as we get more world building with the cluster of films coming out in the 2020's. We will see.

This is because Jim intended to create a movie, not a toy selling machine... 

[Avatree]

Yes, 3D has pretty much died, but on the other hand IMAX and other large formats have only really taken off since after Avatar. In 2009 it broke the record for highest grossing IMAX film, when there were 200 IMAX venues. There are now 1000 IMAX venues apparently.

[Valonqar]

Avatar "brand" may be dormant now but all that the next movie needs is dazzling previews and people will be hyped. That's how GA works anyway. They don't follow every nugget of info like fans, don't cause uproars over set costumes, etc. They either like previews or they don't. That has always been the key. 

 

As for fans, YT and FB viewing counts for the trailer will be through the roof. 

[dashrendar44]

34 minutes ago, JamesCameronScholar said:

This is because Jim intended to create a movie, not a toy selling machine... 

It should be noted he's the only one director at the top of the Box Office Mojo WW list that didn't outright depend and catter to kids and teenagers to make the bulk of his movies gross. It defies the marketing odds on paper and still manage to be four quadrant.

 

There were no cute animals, no vigilante teen fantasy or funny sidekicks to bring levity and childish humor in Titanic and Avatar.

 

What those movies had in spades is an universal appetite for epic adventure and romance transcending the odds above all.

Edited March 21, 2018 by dashrendar44

[Valonqar]

I've never seen kids more attentive than when they watched Avatar at the cinema. But that may be just an anecdotal evidence with others having different experience. Just to illustrate that one cna have their attention without the usual stuff studios think kids respond to (childish humor, comic relief sidekicks). 

Edited March 21, 2018 by Valonqar

[GraceRandolph]

13 minutes ago, dashrendar44 said:

It should be noted he's the only one director at the top of the Box Office Mojo WW list that didn't outright depend and catter to kids and teenagers to make the bulk of its gross. It defies the marketing odds and still manage to be four quadrant.

 

There were no cute animals, no vigilante teen fantasy or funny sidekicks to bring levity and childish humor in Titanic and Avatar.

 

What those movies had in spades is an universal appetite for epic adventure and romance transcending the odds above all.

Yeah you’re right he just re-made Disney’s Pocahontas.  The creativity!!!

[TomCruiseTop]

33 minutes ago, dashrendar44 said:

It should be noted he's the only one director at the top of the Box Office Mojo WW list that didn't outright depend and catter to kids and teenagers to make the bulk of his movies gross. It defies the marketing odds on paper and still manage to be four quadrant.

 

There were no cute animals, no vigilante teen fantasy or funny sidekicks to bring levity and childish humor in Titanic and Avatar.

 

What those movies had in spades is an universal appetite for epic adventure and romance transcending the odds above all.

Well said, it's all these points (and a few more) that really make me confused as to why JC isn't worshipped by those who study the Box Office, the man has a power and drive that seems to be impossible to replicate. 

[TomCruiseTop]

20 minutes ago, GraceRandolph said:

Yeah you’re right he just re-made Disney’s Pocahontas.  The creativity!!!

I don't recall the part in Pocahontas where Adam Smith changed species at the end, nor the part where the military industrial complex of C21st America and the impending collapse of our own ecosystems was addressed. Guess I'll have to give it another watch and pay more attention. 

 

I'd also note that if you think Pocahontas was an original story - you really need to get out and experience more stories.  

[GraceRandolph]

3 minutes ago, JamesCameronScholar said:

I don't recall the part in Pocahontas where Adam Smith changed species at the end, nor the part where the military industrial complex of C21st America and the impending collapse of our own ecosystems was addressed. Guess I'll have to give it another watch and pay more attention. 

 

I'd also note that if you think Pocahontas was an original story - you really need to get out and experience more stories.  

Wow you’re right. Tweak the movie with some additional add on and it’s an entire new plot line. Forgive my stupidity.  

[TomCruiseTop]

1 minute ago, GraceRandolph said:

Wow you’re right. Tweak the movie with some additional add on and it’s an entire new plot line. Forgive my stupidity.  

The entire basis of the plot is the titular 'Avatar' program. To change the entire premise of the movie is hardly a 'tweak'. 

[dashrendar44]

2 hours ago, GraceRandolph said:

Yeah you’re right he just re-made Disney’s Pocahontas.  The creativity!!!

 

That's like saying Terrence Malick lacked creativity because he "re-made" Disney's Pocahontas when he directed The New World...

 

Still that didn't gross 2B+ worldwide so that's no flop-proof recipe. I didn't know Pocahontas aka an historical figure was Disney's copyrighted property and nobody else should get inspired from that real life figure to craft its own narrative when John Smith says FU to Earth and goes full native alien, missed that part in Pocahontas...

 

Nice try but that has nothing to do with my original point which is Avatar does not catter to kids and teenagers in any way in its conception and marketing appeal.

 

 

Edited March 21, 2018 by dashrendar44

[GraceRandolph]

47 minutes ago, JamesCameronScholar said:

The entire basis of the plot is the titular 'Avatar' program. To change the entire premise of the movie is hardly a 'tweak'. 

 The plot is about about blue Pocahontas teaching him to paint with the colors of the wind. If we removed him changing species part it would have still played out the same. Nothing in the plot changes.  As I said it’s a minimally tweaked Pocahontas. (And yes Disney owns their version of Pocahontas. Since their story is fiction and not like what actually happened) 

[TomCruiseTop]

36 minutes ago, GraceRandolph said:

If we removed him changing species part

It wouldn't be Avatar... I mean I know there are a lot of fans on here of moving the goal posts, but that statement is as patently ridiculous as saying "Well yeah but if we removed the Titanic from Titanic it's just Romeo and Juliet". You can't remove a fundamental piece of something and still call it the same thing. 

 

So far we've got: 

 

Self-defeating arguments. 

False Equivalence

Ignorance of the law of identity

 

What exactly do schools even teach now? 

[dashrendar44]

1 hour ago, JamesCameronScholar said:

It wouldn't be Avatar... I mean I know there are a lot of fans on here of moving the goal posts, but that statement is as patently ridiculous as saying "Well yeah but if we removed the Titanic from Titanic it's just Romeo and Juliet". You can't remove a fundamental piece of something and still call it the same thing. 

 

So far we've got: 

 

Self-defeating arguments. 

False Equivalence

Ignorance of the law of identity

 

What exactly do schools even teach now? 

 

But...but...Did you not realize Back To The Future is just a copy of HG Wells The Time Machine (minus the McFlys family, Doc Brown, the Delorean, the Reaganian eighties setting and fifties nostalgia trip, if you replace Morlocks with Biff Tannen etc.), uh?

 

Back To The Future just sucks out of its utter lack of creativity, man! Boo, Zemeckis you hack.

 

Edited March 21, 2018 by dashrendar44

[TomCruiseTop]

8 minutes ago, dashrendar44 said:

 

But...but...Did you not realize Back To The Future is just a copy of HG Wells The Time Machine (minus the McFlys family, Doc Brown, the Delorean, the Reaganian eighties setting and fifties nostalgia trip, if you replace Morlocks with Biff Tannen etc.), uh?

 

Back To The Future just sucks out its utter lack of creativity, man! Boo, Zemeckis you hack.

 

And lets not forget, The Lion King is just Hamlet! If you remove the setting, the lions, the talking animals...