Avatar

Originally posted by darthmaul1
IMO you shouldn't adjust for inflation, cause when gone with the wind came out in 1939 tickets were 23cents. and i think it is all relative of the times of the movie prices, cause people in 1939 wouldn't pay 10 dollars to see a movie in 1939. a better comparison would be to look at the number of tickets sold.

Inflation adjustments for films are done on the basis of number of tickets sold. They simply show how much an older movie would have made at today's prices if they had sold the same.

So why don't "they" count by the tickets sold instead of allowing someone tickets to be sold for 5$, or 10$ or even 50$ Obviously, as the years pass, the USD gets weaker and more amount is given out. That means tickets will cost 13, or 15, and later go 17. That wont be fair

Hey guys, check this article out. it's a day old.

"Cameron Talks About The Future of New CGI Technology"

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/BillyBlack/news/?a=13375

He talks about motion capture cgi. here's an exceprt from the article:

"Seriously. If this is true, could this mean Star Wars episodes 7, 8 and 9 can be done with the original cast looking how they did in the early 80's? What about the return of the Joker for Batman 3?"

i'd like to add, imagine a peak humphrey bogart a 90's Robert Dinero doing a cops and robber movie. my god. or a george washington or abe lincoln epic with the characters looking as real as they really did did at that point in time. i mean looking so real that it's impossible to distingush the real and the photorealistic cgi version of him. i so believe this will happen. and avatar is the real start of it all.

the future for film tech is gonna be amazing. i knew it. i've always felt it. i've always talked about how photorealilsm would come after cgi just after cgi is practically perfected. Avatar pushed the tech even closer to the dream.

Originally posted by xJLxKing
So why don't "they" count by the tickets sold instead of allowing someone tickets to be sold for 5$, or 10$ or even 50$ Obviously, as the years pass, the USD gets weaker and more amount is given out. That means tickets will cost 13, or 15, and later go 17. That wont be fair

They do count the tickets sold. But as most people don't generally know how many tickets modern day movies sell- only the takings- the data is presented as takings form comparison. But the same data has the tickets sold as well, if you just look.

It's still entirely fair- I don't know how people don't get this. The value of the dollar is irrelevant, as the data only depends on one thing- the number of tickets sold. That's the only relevant figure.

For example, the current leader in US cinema- Gone with the Wind- has sold over 200 million tickets. All you do is show how much it would make if it sold 200 million at 2010 prices and you have a direct comparison.

Likewise, you could just say "Nothing will beat GWTW unless it sells more than 200 million tickets" and you would be right. Just, as I say, people don't actually tend to think about modern movies in terms of tickets sold. The two calculations- inflation adjusted intake and tickets sold- produce the exact same relative result for comparison, within certain trivial margins for error.

Titanic sold about 130 million in the US, incidentally.

"If we had put the same energy into creating a human as we put into creating the Na'vi, it would have been 100% indistinguishable from reality. The question is, why the hell would you do that? Why not just photograph the actor? Well, let's say Clint Eastwood really wanted to do one last Dirty Harry movie, looking the way he did in 1975. He could absolutely do it now. And that would be cool."

- James Cameron of photorealistic cgi

Originally posted by Ushgarak
They do count the tickets sold. But as most people don't generally know how many tickets modern day movies sell- only the takings- the data is presented as takings form comparison. But the same data has the tickets sold as well, if you just look.

It's still entirely fair- I don't know how people don't get this. The value of the dollar is irrelevant, as the data only depends on one thing- the number of tickets sold. That's the only relevant figure.

For example, the current leader in US cinema- Gone with the Wind- has sold over 200 million tickets. All you do is show how much it would make if it sold 200 million at 2010 prices and you have a direct comparison.

Likewise, you could just say "Nothing will beat GWTW unless it sells more than 200 million tickets" and you would be right. Just, as I say, people don't actually tend to think about modern movies in terms of tickets sold. The two calculations- inflation adjusted intake and tickets sold- produce the exact same relative result for comparison, within certain trivial margins for error.

Titanic sold about 130 million in the US, incidentally.

i understand what you are saying.
Then they should just simply show the number of tickets sold and that is all, cause the dollar is always changing and same with ticket prices. Just do the comparision between tickets sold and then you have a good comparision too.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
They do count the tickets sold. But as most people don't generally know how many tickets modern day movies sell- only the takings- the data is presented as takings form comparison. But the same data has the tickets sold as well, if you just look.

It's still entirely fair- I don't know how people don't get this. The value of the dollar is irrelevant, as the data only depends on one thing- the number of tickets sold. That's the only relevant figure.

For example, the current leader in US cinema- Gone with the Wind- has sold over 200 million tickets. All you do is show how much it would make if it sold 200 million at 2010 prices and you have a direct comparison.

Likewise, you could just say "Nothing will beat GWTW unless it sells more than 200 million tickets" and you would be right. Just, as I say, people don't actually tend to think about modern movies in terms of tickets sold. The two calculations- inflation adjusted intake and tickets sold- produce the exact same relative result for comparison, within certain trivial margins for error.

Titanic sold about 130 million in the US, incidentally.

but i'd be good to know how much money a movie'd make had those same tickets sold that then sold now for what it costs now.

i think it's amazing to know that gone with the wind's gross is trillion dollars in todays money.

Originally posted by xJLxKing
So in terms of $, tickets don't matter?
In terms of tickets, $ doesn't matter?

I think my post speaks well for itself.

i finally got my tickets to go see Avatar in Imax in 3d for this sat. @ 1:15 p.m.

Everyone i personally know who's watched this movie has see in it in 3d but not imax, the true way it's meant to be seen.

i can't wait for the experience.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
i finally got my tickets to go see Avatar in Imax in 3d for this sat. @ 1:15 p.m.

Everyone i personally know who's watched this movie has see in it in 3d but not imax, the true way it's meant to be seen.

i can't wait for the experience.

If you're disappointed with the film, blame it on your hysteria. hahaha

ha. i'm not hysterical, dude. And i don't think i'll be dissapointed. I'm prepared for a medeocre or generic movie plot since i keep hearing that about the story, which is too bad cause you need a good tale overall. But i really want to see the work put into it.

Avatar's a technologically advanced movie. i marks the start of something very special in history in filmmaking and the way a story's told from a visual spectrum.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
ha. i'm not hysterical, dude. And i don't think i'll be dissapointed. I'm prepared for a medeocre or generic movie plot since i keep hearing that about the story, which is too bad cause you need a good tale overall. But i really want to see the work put into it.

Avatar's a technologically advanced movie. i marks the start of something very special in history in filmmaking and the way a story's told from a visual spectrum.

What? Star wars already did that.

http://popwatch.ew.com/2009/12/11/avatar-james-cameron-2/
Seems as Avatar 2 just might happen

Originally posted by xJLxKing
http://popwatch.ew.com/2009/12/11/avatar-james-cameron-2/
Seems as Avatar 2 just might happen

i figured as much

No doubt the story for the second will be complety different to the first

like what Cameron did to one of his other franchise's Terminator.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
i finally got my tickets to go see Avatar in Imax in 3d for this sat. @ 1:15 p.m.

Everyone i personally know who's watched this movie has see in it in 3d but not imax, the true way it's meant to be seen.

i can't wait for the experience.

Originally posted by darthmaul1
What? Star wars already did that.

yea but avatar's taking it to a whole new higher level. much more grander than what the sw new trilogy has done.

and the new trilogy didn't really experiment with real-like human-like facial expressions and skin textures and emotion as profoundly as avatar does.

and we're talking about Weta Digital here which is in my opinion a better cgi house that ILM is. And more innovative. Look at their recent track record from about the past 10 years compared to ilm's and Weta wins.

basically, and anyway, sw cgi is subpar compared to avatars' cgi.

Originally posted by RedAlertv2
I saw it in iMax 3D. I had a terrible seat way in the front, still blew me away. I thought it was a great movie

i'm gotta have that dead center seat all the time. or as close as i can get.

3 more days.

and i'll have a full review on my opinion of the film when i get back.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
yea but avatar's taking it to a whole new higher level. much more grander than what the sw new trilogy has done.

and the new trilogy didn't really experiment with real-like human-like facial expressions and skin textures and emotion as profoundly as avatar does.

and we're talking about Weta Digital here which is in my opinion a better cgi house that ILM is. And more innovative. Look at their recent track record from about the past 10 years compared to ilm's and Weta wins.

basically, and anyway, sw cgi is subpar compared to avatars' cgi.

I was refering to the fact that star wars tells the stories visually (even 4 5 and 6) and not only with CGI, but since you bring up the CGI, i still feel the CGI in 1 2 and 3 (look at dex in 2) and in LOTR are better IMO. Don't get me wrong the CGI in Avatar is great but i think for me it is the fact that they are blue and it's such a drastic difference that it doesn't look as good. imagine if the oliphants in ROTK were blue it wouldn't look real.