AVATAR Report...

POSTED BY: out2theblack
UPDATED: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 00:13
VIEWED: 25627
PAGE 10 of 11

PREV PAGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT PAGE

HKCAVALIER

Thursday, January 7, 2010 3:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zeek:
I'm betting they called it something incredibly silly.

They called it "unobtainium."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtainium

Quote:
Engineers have long (since at least the 1950s[2]) used the term unobtainium when referring to unusual or costly materials, or when theoretically considering a material perfect for their needs in all respects save that it doesn't exist. By the 1990s the term was in wide use, even in formal engineering papers such as "Towards unobtainium [new composite materials for space applications]".[3] The word unobtainium may well have been coined within the aerospace industry to refer to materials capable of withstanding the extreme temperatures expected in reentry. Aerospace engineers are frequently tempted to design aircraft which require parts with strength or resilience beyond that of currently available materials.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

CLJOHNSTON108

Thursday, January 7, 2010 8:17 PM

I found this link on another board...
http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/avatar-now-2-all-time-grossing-movie
-and-in-just-20-days/
...and I really like this person's comment:

Quote:
I worked on ‘Terminator 2′ and ‘Titanic’ and have to say this about James – he expects too much – and that, ladies and gentlemen is exactly why he is now the envy of everyone. When the ink dries, be it black or red, it only matters that the art and effort was beyond outrageous. I’m very, very happy for the outrageousness of James Cameron.

Comment by Kilroywassomewhere — January 7, 2010 @ 2:36 am

OUT2THEBLACK

Saturday, January 9, 2010 2:58 AM

Great quotes , C-L !

Avatar is still kicking butt and taking names , by way of this report :

http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=b_o_weekend&dept=Film

ECGORDON

Saturday, January 9, 2010 3:15 AM

I don't think it will break Titanic's domestic totals, but it shouldn't have trouble getting the top spot for global sales.

OUT2THEBLACK

Sunday, January 10, 2010 4:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ecgordon:
I don't think it will break Titanic's domestic totals, but it shouldn't have trouble getting the top spot for global sales.

Wouldn't bet against it at this point...

Haven't verified this yet , but I heard it reported yesterday that the film had already busted the billion-dollar mark globally...

Considering that it's been released for less than a month , that's remarkable , and it shows signs of having good 'legs'...

Yours is a good point , though...

This isn't exactly a chick-flick where everybody dies...

ECGORDON

Sunday, January 10, 2010 6:18 PM

As of last weekend the world wide total was around $1.15 billion, and it just cracked the $400 million mark domestically this weekend.

According to the following link, Titanic's world wide gross was $1.8354 billion, and Avatar is already at #2 on that list.

http://www.worldwideboxoffice.com/

Avatar has close to $600 million more to go to top Titanic globally, and around $200 million for domestic. It still needs about $130 million to pass The Dark Knight on the domestic charts.

Of course we have to take inflation and higher prices for 3D showings into account. I would like to see some figures on actual number of tickets sold. If anyone can find such statistics please let me know. I would be willing to bet the top spot on that list would be either Gone With The Wind or Snow White due to the numerous times they've be re-released.

PIZMOBEACH

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 3:12 PM

Behold the power of 3D - and more praise if you're a capitalist for Cameron's Vision:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=2636&p=l.htm

Jan 11, 2010

Over the weekend, Avatar generated $50.3 million, breaking the record for biggest fourth weekend gross previously held by Titanic's $28.7 million. It was down just 27 percent, giving it the best hold among nationwide releases. Its IMAX venues alone were down 14 percent, accounting for an estimated $7.5 million of the weekend.

Avatar raged past the $400 million mark in a mere 23 days, the second-fastest to the mark behind only The Dark Knight. Its $430.8 million tally by day 24 made it the top-grossing movie from 2009, beating Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, as well as the seventh-highest grossing picture of all time, surpassing Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest. On Monday, Avatar will top Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace and E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial, to claim fifth place.

In terms of attendance, though, Avatar would likely barely make the Top 100, which is still sensational. That's due in part to the ticket price premium of the picture's 3D presentations. 3D has made up $335.4 million or 78 percent of the total."

Brilliant if you are looking for ways to bump the gross, "how do we make more from each consumer?" Theaters that were previously hedging on 3D have to be lining up to get the projectors installed. Yes, there are definitely more costs involved but since Cameron helped create the cameras he'll gain on that end too.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

SHISHAKLI

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 3:25 PM

There's only one thing that bothers me about real-d (3d) cinema... and that is the loss of focus due to apperature (sp?)

It's normal for standard cinematography to have one plane of depth in focus with the foreground and background out of focus... but I feel this becomes redundant with 3d.

When viewing 3d, and something in the foreground is out of focus, you can look at it, but you can't MAKE it focus. To me that destroys the illusion of 3d.

Occasionally a scene will have nearly all of the elements in focus, and they were the best. You could let your eyes wonder into the foreground and background and really enjoy the scenery in all it's 3d detail.

Now I know that having a fully rendered 3d scene is easy to have entirely in focus. But many people might not be aware that the technology exists for standard live video to be also in focus, from 1 inch to infinity. The technology was developed and patented by an Australian cameraman and used on the gardening show "Burkes Backyard". Unfortunately no-one was willing to pay the man the money he deserved for the technology to hit the mainstream.

I'm now wondering what he's doing with that patent... because with the re-invention of 3d cinema, that simple "trick" might become a high demand standard in the near future.

I'll shut up now ;)

PIZMOBEACH

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 4:19 PM

I'd love to hear more about that discovery!

I know of 3 things that effect depth of field:

1. aperture
2. focal length of lens
3. sensor size (film or digital)

These seem like pretty immutable physical laws to me, all the more reason I'd like to hear what this guy came up with - multiple cameras shooting simultaneously at different focus points?

I agree with you about the differences between our live 3d and a film's version of it. I think for most people it won't make that much difference. It feels like 3D has reached a tipping point (Espn is going to have a 3D channel - great for out door sports) and whether it is better than 2D HD doesn't really seem to matter; it's new, it's very cool, and it's getting a lot of buzz.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

OUT2THEBLACK

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 9:33 PM

From an AP story :

Vatican Says 'Avatar' Is No Masterpiece
Film Opens In Italy Friday

http://www.clickondetroit.com/atthemovies/22214400/detail.html

PREV PAGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT PAGE