Jurassic Park or Avatar?

[Jessie]

I think if we are comparing visually groundbreaking movie successes of the decades, then Avatar would be more comparable with Star Wars than JP, and we all know which the preferred film is, on this site anyway.

[vc2002]

I think if we are comparing visually groundbreaking movie successes of the decades, then Avatar would be more comparable with Star Wars than JP, and we all know which the preferred film is, on this site anyway.

 

SW is always the best comparison because they both had a simply story, they both had "either good or evil" characters, they both told the story straight forward, they both had groundbreaking visual effects, and they both had plenty of cheesy dialogues.

[Hiccup]

Jurassic Park easily. Its visuals hold up incredibly well.

[RobinHood26]

I think if we are comparing visually groundbreaking movie successes of the decades, then Avatar would be more comparable with Star Wars than JP, and we all know which the preferred film is, on this site anyway.

Not even close to Star Wars level. Im not a huge fan of inflation, but JP sold more tickets and no doubt about it will go down in film history much more then Avatar. Jurassic Park is like Jaws, Star Wars, Dark Knight, Spider-Man its apart of our culture. Avatar is not. 

[Ozymandias]

DIsagree, find Sam Neill and Jeff Goldblum characters to be more likeable and memorable than any Avatar characters.

 Hell this guy was more likeable and memorable than all the Avatar characters combined. I was so sad when he died!

 

 

 

Yeah, comparing Jake Sully to Sam Neill and especially Jeff Goldblum is so silly that its a crime against the preservation of great cinema.

[vc2002]

Not even close to Star Wars level. Im not a huge fan of inflation, but JP sold more tickets and no doubt about it will go down in film history much more then Avatar. Jurassic Park is like Jaws, Star Wars, Dark Knight, Spider-Man its apart of our culture. Avatar is not. 

 

Avatar is the only close comparison to SW. TDK and SM were both based on very popular franchises. JP and Jaws were based on popular books. SW and Avatar were based on nothing and they had to fight the way out, built its popularity by their own.

 

Batman and Spiderman were the part of the culture decades ago. JP became a trilogy long time ago. Avatar has only been known to the public for 3 years. But, it has became a part of the culture. Maybe not a part of your culture, or you just simply chose to ignore it. http://static1.demotix.com/news/246383/avatar-joins-struggle-bilin

Edited April 16, 2013 by vc2002

[Jessie]

Not even close to Star Wars level. Im not a huge fan of inflation, but JP sold more tickets and no doubt about it will go down in film history much more then Avatar. Jurassic Park is like Jaws, Star Wars, Dark Knight, Spider-Man its apart of our culture. Avatar is not. 

 

 

What a load of bollocks, JP may have sold more tickets in the US, but not in practically every other country in the world. Avatar was a far bigger success, ticket wise and in dollars. And to say Avatar isn't part of our culture yet Spider man and TDK are is just an example of dumb posts usually seen a lot on internet forums.

[dashrendar44]

Not even close to Star Wars level. Im not a huge fan of inflation, but JP sold more tickets and no doubt about it will go down in film history much more then Avatar. Jurassic Park is like Jaws, Star Wars, Dark Knight, Spider-Man its apart of our culture. Avatar is not. 

 

Not worldwide. OS, most of them mean jackshit compared to Avatar especially Dark Knight. Funny that you omit Titanic.

Edited April 16, 2013 by dashrendar44

[Ozymandias]

What a load of bollocks, JP may have sold more tickets in the US, but not in practically every other country in the world. Avatar was a far bigger success, ticket wise and in dollars. And to say Avatar isn't part of our culture yet Spider man and TDK are is just an example of dumb posts usually seen a lot on internet forums.

 

Money and grosses have nothing to with a film's longevity or impact on culture, society, or movies... that is tested only by the content of the film itself.  The Matrix for an example sold WAY less tickets than Star Wars, Jurassic Park, Jaws, or TDK and we all know how embedded that movie became in pop culture along with the impact it had on the industry as a whole.  Very, VERY few films have matched it.  And you're in denial if you don't think The Dark Knight isn't already considered a great American classic.  Pretty much every critic and objective person will tell you that calling The Dark Knight "just a Batman or comic book movie" is retarded(to put it mildly) and doesn't do it justice. And don't even get me started on what Heath Ledger did with the Joker.

 

This talk of money really needs to stop, especially with Avatar.  If making a shitload of money can be used as an indicater of that above, then I can start dropping the names of all the shittiest blockbusters made as cultural phenomenons starting with Transformers 2.  The only thing money proves is exposure.

 

Lastly, the reason why comparing Avatar to stuff like Jurassic Park, Star Wars, Jaws, The Matrix, or the The Dark Knight is underwhelming is because Avatar just can't simply can't compete with them. Honestly, all bias hater/fanboy bullshit aside.  Where are the striking or memorable characters in Avatar?  Where is the quotable(or even good) dialogue in Avatar?  Where is the story we haven't seen before on the big screen in Avatar?  Where are the iconic scenes Avatar? etc...  Avatar was a novelty film.  It was mostly a visual spectacle(better than anything before it) with stunning 3D(ironically 3D has been fading ever since) that enamoured people temporarily.  Despite all the effort put into bringing Avatar's world to life, the story and characters are stuck in the 1 dimension.

 

And vc2002's gibberish post is pretty silly, especially the part about the Palestinians running around doing what they've been doing for the last 60 years, only this time painted blue.

[Jessie]

Money and grosses have nothing to with a film's longevity or impact on culture, society, or movies... that is tested only by the content of the film itself.  The Matrix for an example sold WAY less tickets than Star Wars, Jurassic Park, Jaws, or TDK and we all know how embedded that movie became in pop culture along with the impact it had on the industry as a whole.  Very, VERY few films have matched it.  And you're in denial if you don't think The Dark Knight isn't already considered a great American classic.  Pretty much every critic and objective person will tell you that calling The Dark Knight "just a Batman or comic book movie" is retarded(to put it mildly) and doesn't do it justice. And don't even get me started on what Heath Ledger did with the Joker.

 

So basically a movies gross is only relevant when it fits your argument?? It's not like I said Avatar is better because it made more money, I was simply replying to a post which used JP's ticket sales as an advantage over Avatar, which is a load of crap. Also it's pretty hard to tell how Avatar will hold up. I remember a few years after the release of Titanic people seemed to think it was overrated and wouldn't stand the test of time, but it did.

 

 

 

To an extend I agree with this, but its not like Avatar just made a load of money. It made nearly 3b and it was an original film. Transformers 3 was a sequel which more hype and earned a fraction of what Avatar did so its quite clear Avatar was loved by the masses worldwide. It made its money through WOM and had very little hype outside the internet prior to it's release. That is the sign of a loved film.

 

 

 

Personally I agree that TDK and The Matrix are better movies and I can understand why people think SW and Jaws are also, but Spider-man was originally on that list and to say it doesn't compare with that is just laughable (and I know it wasn't you that said this). That being said, you cant say Avatar isn't a part of culture just because we don't think it is. The GA love the movie and that's what matters, not a handful of critics and some nerds such as ourselves on a movie forum, we make up the tiniest fraction of movie goers.

 

And vc2002's gibberish post is pretty silly, especially the part about the Palestinians running around doing what they've been doing for the last 60 years, only this time painted blue.

Edited April 16, 2013 by Jessie

[Phil in the Blank]

The general feeling I have gotten over the last few years is that Avatar has not aged well with general audiences.

 

But I could be wrong.

 

Either way, JP is the far superior film in my eyes.

Edited April 16, 2013 by Phil in the Darkness

[vc2002]

Money and grosses have nothing to with a film's longevity or impact on culture, society, or movies... that is tested only by the content of the film itself.  The Matrix for an example sold WAY less tickets than Star Wars, Jurassic Park, Jaws, or TDK and we all know how embedded that movie became in pop culture along with the impact it had on the industry as a whole.  Very, VERY few films have matched it.  And you're in denial if you don't think The Dark Knight isn't already considered a great American classic.  Pretty much every critic and objective person will tell you that calling The Dark Knight "just a Batman or comic book movie" is retarded(to put it mildly) and doesn't do it justice. And don't even get me started on what Heath Ledger did with the Joker.

 

This talk of money really needs to stop, especially with Avatar.  If making a shitload of money can be used as an indicater of that above, then I can start dropping the names of all the shittiest blockbusters made as cultural phenomenons starting with Transformers 2.  The only thing money proves is exposure.

 

Lastly, the reason why comparing Avatar to stuff like Jurassic Park, Star Wars, Jaws, The Matrix, or the The Dark Knight is underwhelming is because Avatar just can't simply can't compete with them. Honestly, all bias hater/fanboy bullshit aside.  Where are the striking or memorable characters in Avatar?  Where is the quotable(or even good) dialogue in Avatar?  Where is the story we haven't seen before on the big screen in Avatar?  Where are the iconic scenes Avatar? etc...  Avatar was a novelty film.  It was mostly a visual spectacle(better than anything before it) with stunning 3D(ironically 3D has been fading ever since) that enamoured people temporarily.  Despite all the effort put into bringing Avatar's world to life, the story and characters are stuck in the 1 dimension.

 

And vc2002's gibberish post is pretty silly, especially the part about the Palestinians running around doing what they've been doing for the last 60 years, only this time painted blue.

 

Jay Salahi brought up the ticket sales discussion, Jessie didnt bring it up. So, do you mean Jay Salahi bullshitted?

 

 

"Pretty much every critic and objective person will tell you that calling The Dark Knight "just a Batman or comic book movie" is retarded(to put it mildly) and doesn't do it justice."

 

So, calling TDK "just a batman movie" is not objective? Isn't considering TDK just a batman movie a opinion, and isn't every opinion (including considering TDK more than just a batman film) subjective? Even if it's a opinion most poeple share, it's still subjective. You seem to have difficulty in what is the difference between subjective and objective. TDK is a great film, and Avatar sucks balls, this is subjective. TDK didnt have the BP nomination, Avatar had, this is objective. TDK should have a BP nom, Avatar didn't deserve the BP nom, this is subjective. SW and Avatar ain't like TDK and SM which were both based on popular franchises and those characters were part of the culture long time before, this is objective.

 

What are the memorable characters and dialogue? Well, I can provide plenty of them, and does that mean Avatar can compete with SW and TDK? Now, if me thinking Avatar had plenty of memorable characters doesnt mean Avatar can compete with SW and TDK, then your thinking Avatar had no memorable characters doesnt equal to Avatar can't compete with SW and TDK. So a big part of your long post is pointless because you proved nothing, and you posted nothing but your personal opinions. And yet you mentioned "all bias hater/fanboy bullshit aside" LOOOL

 

Doesn't those people painted blue like Navi's already mean Avatar became of a part of the culture already? They didn't dress themselves in a tight bat suit right? But again, this leads to another question as to what is the definition of being part of the culture. Since you seem to have a habit of consider your subjective opinion as being objective, I better not continue on this matter.

Edited April 16, 2013 by vc2002

[Ozymandias]

Jay Salahi brought up the ticket sales discussion, Jessie didnt bring it up. So, do you mean Jay Salahi bullshitted?

 

 

"Pretty much every critic and objective person will tell you that calling The Dark Knight "just a Batman or comic book movie" is retarded(to put it mildly) and doesn't do it justice."

 

So, calling TDK "just a batman movie" is not objective? Isn't considering TDK just a batman movie a opinion, and isn't every opinion (including considering TDK more than just a batman film) subjective? Even if it's a opinion most poeple share, it's still subjective. You seem to have difficulty in what is the difference between subjective and objective. TDK is a great film, and Avatar sucks balls, this is subjective. TDK didnt have the BP nomination, Avatar had, this is objective. TDK should have a BP nom, Avatar didn't deserve the BP nom, this is subjective. SW and Avatar ain't like TDK and SM which were both based on popular franchises and those characters were part of the culture long time before, this is objective.

 

What are the memorable characters and dialogue? Well, I can provide plenty of them, and does that mean Avatar can compete with SW and TDK? Now, if me thinking Avatar had plenty of memorable characters doesnt mean Avatar can compete with SW and TDK, then you thinking Avatar had no memorable characters doesnt equal to Avatar can't compete with SW and TDK. So a big part of your long post is pointless because you proved nothing, and you posted nothing but your personal opinions. And yet you mentioned "all bias hater/fanboy bullshit aside" LOOOL

 

Doesn't those people painted blue like Navi's already mean Avatar became of a part of the culture already? They didn't dress themselves in a tight bat suit right? But again, this leads to another question as to what is the definition of being part of the culture. Since you seem to have a habit of consider your subjective opinion as being objective, I better not continue on this matter.

 

Exactly the response I expected from you rofl.  You have such a weird attachment to this movie for years and can't handle any criticism of it that theres really no point in having a discussion with you.

[dashrendar44]

Jay Salahi brought up the ticket sales discussion, Jessie didnt bring it up. So, do you mean Jay Salahi bullshitted?

 

 

"Pretty much every critic and objective person will tell you that calling The Dark Knight "just a Batman or comic book movie" is retarded(to put it mildly) and doesn't do it justice."

 

So, calling TDK "just a batman movie" is not objective? Isn't considering TDK just a batman movie a opinion, and isn't every opinion (including considering TDK more than just a batman film) subjective? Even if it's a opinion most poeple share, it's still subjective. You seem to have difficulty in what is the difference between subjective and objective. TDK is a great film, and Avatar sucks balls, this is subjective. TDK didnt have the BP nomination, Avatar had, this is objective. TDK should have a BP nom, Avatar didn't deserve the BP nom, this is subjective. SW and Avatar ain't like TDK and SM which were both based on popular franchises and those characters were part of the culture long time before, this is objective.

 

What are the memorable characters and dialogue? Well, I can provide plenty of them, and does that mean Avatar can compete with SW and TDK? Now, if me thinking Avatar had plenty of memorable characters doesnt mean Avatar can compete with SW and TDK, then you thinking Avatar had no memorable characters doesnt equal to Avatar can't compete with SW and TDK. So a big part of your long post is pointless because you proved nothing, and you posted nothing but your personal opinions. And yet you mentioned "all bias hater/fanboy bullshit aside" LOOOL

 

Doesn't those people painted blue like Navi's already mean Avatar became of a part of the culture already? They didn't dress themselves in a tight bat suit right? But again, this leads to another question as to what is the definition of being part of the culture. Since you seem to have a habit of consider your subjective opinion as being objective, I better not continue on this matter.

 

Edited April 16, 2013 by dashrendar44

[vc2002]

Exactly the response I expected from you rofl. You have such a weird attachment to this movie for years and can't handle any criticism of it that theres really no point in having a discussion with you.

I think the true reason you can't continue is you have no strong and solid points in this discussion. Look at that long post of yours, you wrote almost nothing but your personal opinions (TDK is more than a batman film. Avatar had no memorable characters. BLAH BLAH BLAH). The only solid point you made is money (or ticket sales) doesn equal to quality, but the ironic thing is the one that brought up the admissions talk in this thread is not a Avatar fan, but actually a JP lover who tried to prove JP is a better movie by comparing the ticket sales.Generally I was never against "thinking Avatar is bad", not even on BOM. What I'm against is someone like you, that thinks his opinions on certain films equal to what the public think of them, or equal to the truth. Here I quote one of my replies a few days ago and if I remember correctly, that one was for you as well"I dont have problem with you thinking Avatar was a piece of shit and had no good characters and dialogues. You have to have a reason to hate it right? Just dont make yourself believe that everyone else think as you do."BTW, I dont really view it as me unable to handle any criticism on Avatar. You see I'm spending the time on replying all your "criticism" right? That doesnt look like something a can't-handle-it person does right? On the other hand, you quit the discussion rather quickly "OH there's no point discussing with you!" I don't know about you guys but this sounds like someone who really can't handle it. Edited April 16, 2013 by vc2002

[Ozymandias]

I think the true reason you can't continue is you have no strong and solid points in this discussion. Look at that long post of yours, you wrote almost nothing but your personal opinions (TDK is more than a batman film. Avatar had no memorable characters. BLAH BLAH BLAH). The only solid point you made is money (or ticket sales) doesn equal to quality, but the ironic thing is the one that brought up the admissions talk in this thread is not a Avatar fan, but actually a JP lover who tried to prove JP is a better movie by comparing the ticket sales.Generally I was never against "thinking Avatar is bad", not even on BOM. What I'm against is someone like you, that thinks his opinions on certain films equal to what the public think of them. Here I quote one of my replies a few days ago and if I remember correctly, that one was for you as well"I dont have problem with you thinking Avatar was a piece of shit and had no good characters and dialogues. You have to have a reason to hate it right? Just dont make yourself believe that everyone else think as you do."BTW, I dont really view it as me unable to handle any criticism on Avatar. You see I'm spending the time on replying all your "criticism" right? That doesnt look like something a can't-handle-it person does right? On the other hand, you quit the discussion rather quickly "OH there's no point discussing with you!" I don't know about you guys but this sounds like someone who really can't handle it.

 

Actually its pretty simple.   I'm ending the discussion because we disagree and we're not gonna change eachothers minds.   I made my points about Avatar relative to those other films and I don't feel the need to respond to all your predictable repeat posts about this movie due to your long history of pimping out/defending this movie to everyone who didn't like it.  If you feel compelled to get the last word, then by all means enjoy yourself.

Edited April 16, 2013 by Shpongle

[vc2002]

Actually I'm ending the discussion because we disagree and we're not gonna change eachothers minds. I made my points about Avatar relative to those other films and if you think getting the last word is special, then by all means enjoy yourself.

Actually I never tried to be in the same discussion with you at all. You were trying prove Avatar can't be compared to SW and TDK by stating your personal opinions on Avatar (about how bad it is.) I wasn't even trying to disagree with you on that. I never tried to say "You are wrong! Avatar is great!". All the time I was just saying that one can not prove anything by stating his personal opinions, and so most of your post was pointless.Even when it comes to Avatar itself, I was trying to not be like you, aka "I think Avatar is this I think Avatar is that". I think Avatar is a much more comparable case to SW than JP and TDK because of THE FACT that unlike those being based on well-known franchises or books, Avatar and SW were both based on nothing and had to fight for their popularity on their own.BTW, you had me on that "Honestly, all bias hater/fanboy bullshit aside" line. I mean, you basically meant "Let's be objective! Avatar sucks!" Edited April 16, 2013 by vc2002

[Ozymandias]

nerdrage

 

Couldn't resist

[Webslinger]

The general feeling I have gotten over the last few years is that Avatar has not aged well with general audiences.

 

But I could be wrong.

 

Either way, JP is the far superior film in my eyes.

 

I don't know that I'd say it's a problem of not having aged well. It's been pretty hip to hate the film since 2010. I remember some guys walking around my freshman dorm when it was out talking about it being "Live-Action Ferngully," and then me saying it was only about the twentieth time I'd heard that comment.

[John Marston]

If we are comparing Avatar to Star Wars then the comparison is even worse. Star Wars is far more memorable than Avatar in every way. People even remember minor characters are remembered from Star Wars. And I don't believe for a second there will be an expanded universe of Avatar that people get interested in similar to the expanded universe of Star Wars

Edited April 16, 2013 by John Marston