How did Avatar make so much money?

[WalterB]

...............

• Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009) 5.9/10
• Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002) 6.7/10
• Independence Day (1996) 6.7/10
• War of the Worlds (2005) 6.5/10
• X-Men: The Last Stand (2006) 6.8/10
• The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997) 6.2/10
• Signs (2002) 6.8/10
• Armageddon (199 6.3/10
• Superman Returns (2006) 6.4/10
• Monsters vs Aliens (2009) 6.7/10
• Men in Black II (2002) 5.8/10
• The Day After Tomorrow (2004) 6.3/10
• Jurassic Park III (2001) 5.8/10
• Planet of the Apes (2001) 5.6/10
• X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009) 6.7/10
• Captain America: The First Avenger (2011) 6.8/10
• TRON: Legacy (2010) 6.9/10
• 2012 (2009) 5.8/10
• Fantastic Four (2005) 5.7/10
• Fantastic Four (2005) 5.7/10
• G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (2009) 5.6/10

..................................

This list adds something different to the equation: 14 of them are sequels/remakes or movies with existing franchise (comics, toys) and fanbase.
Independence Day, Juressic Park and Armageddon are all about visual spectacle and destruction. (And JP was groundbraking with the CGI Dinosaurs). The first two brought impressive effects to the audience, Armageddon probably got some help from the Aerosmith hitsingle and the casting of Bruce Willis and Liv Tyler.
Signs was the highly anticipated movie after The 6th Sense.
2012 and the The Day After Tommorrow are 'sequels of destruction' from the makers of Independance Day.

• Inception (2010) 8.8/10
• The Avengers (2012) 8.6/10
• WALL·E (200 8.5/10
• Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004) 8.4/10
• Donnie Darko (2001) 8.2/10
• V for Vendetta (2005) 8.2/10
• District 9 (2009) 8.1/10
• Star Trek (2009) 8/10
• Avatar (2009) 8.0/10
• Children of Men (2006) 8/10
• Moon (2009) 8/10

................

In this list only WALL·E, Eternal Sunshine, Donnie Darko and Avatar have a real love interest. But Donnie Darko and Eternal Sunshine aren't really happy movies. And WALL·E is not about humans; very adorable, but no sexappeal. Children of Men and V for Vendetta are rather dystopic. Inception is a puzzle from Batman-Nolan. Only Star Trek and The Avengers are based on an existing franchise.

BTW, Children of Men is the only one in this list that is listed in the top 10 of best shot movies from 1998-2008 by the American Society of Cinematographers:

• Amélie: Bruno Delbonnel, ASC, AFC (2001)
• Children of Men: Emmanuel Lubezki, ASC, AMC (2006)
• Saving Private Ryan: Janusz Kaminski (199
• There Will Be Blood: Robert Elswit, ASC (2007)
• No Country for Old Men: Roger Deakins, ASC, BSC (2007)
• Fight Club: Jeff Cronenweth, ASC (1999)
• The Dark Knight: Wally Pfister, ASC (200
• Road to Perdition: Conrad L. Hall, ASC (2002)
• Cidade de Deus (City of God): César Charlone, ABC (2002)
• American Beauty: Conrad L. Hall, ASC (1999)

Eternal Sunshine was voted nr 14.
(More on this subject: http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=47008 )

Is it possible to draw conclusions from these lists (from Ray)?
Is knowing something already (from a previous movie or your youth) a huge factor in succesfull marketing?
Is romance a key-factor to reach a bigger audience?
Is visual spectacle a reason to go watch a movie in cinema more than once? (A friend of mine watched The Matrix more than once; 3 times I recall. Everytime with other people.)
Does complexity or a dystopia deter parts of the audience?

Well liked films are not always blockbusters.
Blockbusters are not always well liked.
................

Wel said; when you draw a map with these 'collections' you'll get a relative small overlap.
(Sorry; talking math now.)

 

[rayw]

No, it's still the lemonade. Because the people who professionally rate lemonade are out of touch with the people who actually pay to drink lemonade.

Oh, I agree with critics vs. paying audience any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

So lettuce take a look at that second mini-list through the lens of paying customers via RottenTomatoes.com to see if all lemonade is created equal:
Key: IMDB - RT Audience
Inception (2010) 8.8/10 - 93 via 346,136 votes
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/inception/
The Avengers (2012) 8.6/10 - 96 via 450,337 votes
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/marvels_the_avengers/
WALL·E (200 8.5/10 - 89 via 487,190 votes
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/wall_e/
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004) 8.4/10 - 93 via 503,889 votes
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/eternal_sunshine_of_the_spotless_mind/
Donnie Darko (2001) 8.2/10 - 77 via 29,532,807 votes
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/donnie_darko/
V for Vendetta (2005) 8.2/10 - 88 via 803,092 votes
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/v_for_vendetta/
District 9 (2009) 8.1/10 - 81 via 1,059,276 votes
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/district_9/
Star Trek (2009) 8/10 - 91 via 593,885
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_11/
Avatar (2009) 8/10 - 92 via 622,949 votes
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/avatar/
Children of Men (2006) 8/10 - 81 via 485,212 votes
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/children_of_men/
Moon (2009) 8/10 - 85 via 87,062 votes
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/10009075-moon/

If anyone notes an error on my behalf PLEASE let me know so that I can correct it ASAP. TY!​

Conclusions and suppositions that can be drawn from this data set:

1. Among the audience rating scores equal to or greater than Avatar's it has the greatest number of votes indicating a strong following or interest in the film.
2. There are several audience scores lower than Avatar but with a greater number of votes indicating a stronger following or interest in those films.
3. Low scores and votes indicate low audience approval and interest.
4. The audience finds The Avengers (96), Inception (93), and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (93) to be of greater "value" than that of Avatar (92), yet their WWBO revenues are considerably less.
5. A greater interest in voting is clearly demonstrated by Donnie Darko with an astounding 29,532,807 votes, District 9 with 1,059,276 votes, and V for Vendetta with 803,092 votes compared to Avatar's 622,949 votes.
6. Increased interest could compensate for lower ratings in generating revenue, but doesn't.

Whatever Jimmy did, there was something about his lemonade that got people talking about it. It definitely wasn't the fact that he had a big colorful sign, situated on a street corner, or that he passed out free samples. Everybody does that. Something about his lemonade was different.

The model I keep coming up with is McDonald's Happy Meals: Meh burger & fries + toy + Ronald McDonald.
It's not the food.
It's the marketing with meh burger + toy + a happy clown that could be comparable to Avatar's meh story + 3D + James Cameron caché.
Burger King & Wendy's may make a better burger, but they're a day late & a dollar short.
McD's done swooped-up pretty much the whole market as a category killer.

Audience doen't care that the burger is only "good enough".
It comes with a toy.
And is sold by a clown.

(Sorry; talking math now.)

Nah, nothing to be sorry about.
It helps (greatly, but not absolutely) in removing personal biases from the analysis.

Excellent observations and analysis on your own behalf, BTW! Thank you!

 

[rayw]

I'll tell you something, I'm the audience member who doesn't care about the explosion. I don't care about the colors and the setting... unless it truly surprises me. And Avatar did. I thought it was a beautiful film to look at. I thought I liked the story. I also thought, that I liked this new world and the plants and the animals in it, and the idea of how the animals connect with the natives. It was cool, and new, on many different levels; things I hadn't thought about were in this film.

And there was a story, and it might not have been epic, but it wasn't bad. I personally think it was pretty good.

I guess I hafta cop to my military background as a USNavy Corpsman with a Marine Airwing (a hundred years ago, it seems) that... impairs my appreciation of just what you describe here.

A grunt like Jake Sully should be briefed on what hostile critters and plants are in the area.
JuJu Beads Badass Colonel with job to keep them alive should have included such pre-deployment training & education.
Grunt knows not to go wandering off into the bush AWAY FROM HIS GUARD POST silly-whacking bushes and whatnot.
The entire private security force staffed by ex-mil could have solved the whole "make the blue monkeys go away" issue much more simply: Sweep the region in industrial strength CS gas for months on end.
Bye bye blue monkeys.

I have a similar issue with Promethues: no planet/moon mapping and no site check before landing. (And about a thousand other stupid things, like reanimating 2,000yo alien skulls that magically have neithr rotted nor desiccated. )

I can suspend my disbelief with neural networks and carbon reinforced bones and whatnot, but I'll be d@mned if that mercenary security force shouldn't have lo-jacked the portable avatar pods and/or have a remote kill switch in them.
Just stupid.

 

[Sucramdoow]

It might not have been a great story, but it wasn't bad. It reaches all emotional thresholds that most movies need to reach to connect to an audience. And then... and then it gives you a spectacle. I'll tell you something, I'm the audience member who doesn't care about the explosion. I don't care about the colors and the setting... unless it truly surprises me. And Avatar did. I thought it was a beautiful film to look at. I thought I liked the story. I also thought, that I liked this new world and the plants and the animals in it, and the idea of how the animals connect with the natives. It was cool, and new, on many different levels; things I hadn't thought about were in this film.

I do like some spectacle. Spectacle is not always bad. Look at terminator 2. Now I'll watch that just for the spectacle again and again. Cause it's bloody cool every time.

So who really knows what about Avatar made the difference. Of course it was marketing. But I bet you it was a bunch of different little things as well. And there was a story, and it might not have been epic, but it wasn't bad. I personally think it was pretty good.

I don't think it's a bad film, it's just not to my taste. It has something going for it, which is the visual effects. I didn't like the story & I thought the dialogue was terrible. But I won't bad mouth people who do like it, and if I do, it's only in jest.

It's like Twilight. Generally, it's regarded as a really bad film. But, it has a strong fan-base and it makes lots of money. So it must be doing something right.

I don't like to be snobbish with my film tastes. As a film-maker, I personally think I have to watch all the bad films & good films so I can see what works & what doesn't, for me.

Spectacle is always good. But I much prefer spectacle when it's at least an enjoyable film. I didn't enjoy Avatar because of the story & dialogue, so in that respect I was let down. I genuinely was looking forward to Avatar before it was released, because I'm a fan of Cameron's work pre-Titanic and it seemed he was coming back to old school form. Unfortunately, it just didn't gel with me.

Yeah, it had the little things going for it like word-of-mouth and the general audience appeal, but it was still predominately marketing & it's promised innovations.

 

[trueindie]

I guess I hafta cop to my military background as a USNavy Corpsman with a Marine Airwing (a hundred years ago, it seems) that... impairs my appreciation of just what you describe here.

Well Ray, you got a perspective that most of us can't appreciate or imagine. But you have to appreciate that most of us don't have your perspective

A grunt like Jake Sully should be briefed on what hostile critters and plants are in the area.
JuJu Beads Badass Colonel with job to keep them alive should have included such pre-deployment training & education.
Grunt knows not to go wandering off into the bush AWAY FROM HIS GUARD POST silly-whacking bushes and whatnot.

But most of us romanticize about the military. In movies, we like the grunt who doesn't follow orders and breaks the rules and gets into trouble, not the one who stands his post and does as he is told. In reality, we probably like the grunt that follows orders, but in moves.... I don't know.

The entire private security force staffed by ex-mil could have solved the whole "make the blue monkeys go away" issue much more simply: Sweep the region in industrial strength CS gas for months on end.
Bye bye blue monkeys.

But they couldn't just kill the blue monkeys. PR back home, was part of the strategy. A "bad quarter" was unacceptable, but good PR was also important (Yes I just rewatched it ). So they couldn't just kill all the blue monkeys.

I can suspend my disbelief with neural networks and carbon reinforced bones and whatnot, but I'll be d@mned if that mercenary security force shouldn't have lo-jacked the portable avatar pods and/or have a remote kill switch in them.
Just stupid.

C'mon now, now you're just nitpicking. Even if they lojacked the equipment or had a kill switch, I bet those smart scientist guys could have disabled them

 

[rayw]

TI -
All very valid reasons why I gotta just dial it back to... somewhere different, and just enjoy the ride w/o trying to deconstruct the roller coaster and make it better.

Don't fix it.
Just ride it.

 

[trueindie]

I don't think it's a bad film, it's just not to my taste. It has something going for it, which is the visual effects. I didn't like the story & I thought the dialogue was terrible. But I won't bad mouth people who do like it, and if I do, it's only in jest.

Got it
And I agree with you about the dialogue. Cameron has no ear for it. In fact I think his dialogue skills are so bad, only Schwarzenegger can make it sound good (and I love Schwarzenegger btw). Even in Titanic, I thought the dialogue was atrocious, it turned me off. But I wanted to see that ship break apart

It's like Twilight. Generally, it's regarded as a really bad film.

I'm not sure this is true. I don't think most people consider Avatar to be a really bad film. Twilight, I have no comment on.

I don't like to be snobbish with my film tastes. As a film-maker, I personally think I have to watch all the bad films & good films so I can see what works & what doesn't, for me.

I'm not at all snobbish in my tastes in film either. I'm more of a commoner. In fact I find people who only like French film, to be quite disagreeable. I love French film by the way. I also love a lot of European films, particularly Irish films, which seem to have some form of sadness baked into every story. I love Cinema Verite. But I also LOVE Hollywood. Hollywood is special. I didn't want to make movies because I saw a good French film. I wanted to make movies because I saw Platoon, or Apocalypse Now, or some other epic war movie that 'showed' me a world, I couldn't even imagine. I thank the Gods for Hollywood.

Spectacle is always good. But I much prefer spectacle when it's at least an enjoyable film. I didn't enjoy Avatar because of the story & dialogue, so in that respect I was let down. I genuinely was looking forward to Avatar before it was released, because I'm a fan of Cameron's work pre-Titanic and it seemed he was coming back to old school form. Unfortunately, it just didn't gel with me.

Yeah, it had the little things going for it like word-of-mouth and the general audience appeal, but it was still predominately marketing & it's promised innovations.

I appreciate what you're saying, and I sympathize with some of it. But when it comes to selling a package, the filmmaking world has a lot to learn from James Cameron.

I wanted to mention something about Apple from your previous post. If you look at the numbers, Apple makes very little money from it's computer sales, however pretty they may be, and however well they may be marketed. They remain at around 7 or 8 percent of the market depending on what you read. But Apple makes it's money from iPhone sales. And these products are good. They look nice. They perform at par or better than most other phones. And if you ever have your phone malfunction, you will find out very quickly that their return policy beats everybody else's with a stick. They make money because they have an overall superior product, not just because of marketing. BTW, I'm no fan of Apple. But when it comes to the iPhone, it's just the truth. So what I'm saying is that you can't really compare Apple's success to that of Avatar's, unless you also believe that Avatar was an overall superior product
Cheers
Aveek

 

[trueindie]

TI -
All very valid reasons why I gotta just dial it back to... somewhere different, and just enjoy the ride w/o trying to deconstruct the roller coaster and make it better.

Don't fix it.
Just ride it.

Just ride it bud.

 

[Sucramdoow]

I'm not sure this is true. I don't think most people consider Avatar to be a really bad film. Twilight, I have no comment on.

I meant in regards to popularity. They're both blockbuster hits, and they both have their fans & detractors.

I'm not at all snobbish in my tastes in film either. I'm more of a commoner. In fact I find people who only like French film, to be quite disagreeable. I love French film by the way. I also love a lot of European films, particularly Irish films, which seem to have some form of sadness baked into every story. I love Cinema Verite. But I also LOVE Hollywood. Hollywood is special. I didn't want to make movies because I saw a good French film. I wanted to make movies because I saw Platoon, or Apocalypse Now, or some other epic war movie that 'showed' me a world, I couldn't even imagine. I thank the Gods for Hollywood.

I don't mind people who have a niche style of films, I just don't like it when they turn their noses up at anything other than their taste. Hollywood definitely influenced me to want to become a film-maker, but I would say British films are what motivates me more.

But when it comes to selling a package, the filmmaking world has a lot to learn from James Cameron

I agree when it comes to selling a film to masses, yes. In terms of actual film-making? No. Not in my opinion anyway.

I wanted to mention something about Apple from your previous post. If you look at the numbers, Apple makes very little money from it's computer sales, however pretty they may be, and however well they may be marketed. They remain at around 7 or 8 percent of the market depending on what you read. But Apple makes it's money from iPhone sales. And these products are good. They look nice. They perform at par or better than most other phones. And if you ever have your phone malfunction, you will find out very quickly that their return policy beats everybody else's with a stick. They make money because they have an overall superior product, not just because of marketing. BTW, I'm no fan of Apple. But when it comes to the iPhone, it's just the truth. So what I'm saying is that you can't really compare Apple's success to that of Avatar's, unless you also believe that Avatar was an overall superior product

It was more of a general analogy than anything in-depth. It was more akin to selling a pretty machine (CGI & 3D) to the general public, and them buying into it. Like for instance when the first iPhone (Avatar) came out, it was meant to revolutionise the way we interact (we view films) etc. But a few months down the line, there are better Smart phones out there which also contain flash (story). <-- Don't take that at face value, Avatar had a story to it (albeit a bad one), but there are other spectacles out there now that do have a story and are fun to watch at the same time.

 

[Budget:0]

I've decided to just answer the question, because I can't truly enter a debate about the film because....

I've never seen it. Yeah, I know, right. Never seen it. When it came out, not I or anyone in my intermediate family went to go see it. A distant family member (who's a film buff, but not interested in going into the business) told me not to see it because of the overly-simplistic plot.

And to this day I just haven't seen it. But I can make a valid assumption of why it did so well based off of what I know of the industry....

Marketing had to play a game in it. If you market it well enough, that will produce hype. Once there is hype, there's an audience. Once an audience is created, it can only grow. Most likely people did go around to tell others how good they thought it was, and then that person probably re-saw it WITH people they know.

Were it not for this effect, I wouldn't have seen The Dark Knight in theaters. I wasn't a comic book fan, but someone told me it was a fun ride, and I saw it with them. After that, I had to get my hands on anything about Batman, or anything made by Nolan.

 

[punee]

I watched Avatar for the first time in 2D. Man, it was a bore fest.But for the 2nd time when I watched in 3D, I was hooked , for the only reason it was in 3D and there were cool VFX. But still, at times, I still felt it was little boring.
Ray, I dont know what makes you think people are stupid because they watched the movie more than once which you didn't like/make.

Also,I hate 3D. I feel many studio's are forcing filmmakers to make their movies in 3D .Recently Nolan said in an interview that WB would have been more happy had me made his Batman movies in 3D. He also talked about the pressure he faced in early stages of his career to shoot in digital and not in film.

There's this interview in which Jim Cameroon justifies Avatar's story line . There's also this interesting point where he speaks of Nolan and Inception. Do watch it!


Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9Wy4CBIAFU

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcD-6flsUAo&feature=relmfu

 

[rayw]

Ray, I dont know what makes you think people are stupid because (A) they watched the movie more than once (B) which you didn't like/make.

(A)
I didn't say people are stupid because they watched it more than once.
I said the story via the screenplay has multiple elements of stupidity in it, thus an average viewership would be unremarkable, but Avatar had bazillions of viewers who all gobbled up that stupidity to the tune of billions of dollars worth.
They just can't get enough of that dumb stuff.
It doesn't matter to them.
Why?
Why is stupid story construct acceptable to so many people?
Should I actively make that a goal to include in all future screenplays?
Should film schools promote deliberate poor story writing in their curriculum?
Because it would be so much more simple to sensibly think through how to build a story better while retaining its critical elements.

(B)
There are plenty of films I like that don't include stupid stuff.
And there are plenty of films I like that DO contain stupid stuff - but it's in appropriate context.
There are also films I don't like but can still appreciate that they are good films.
Whether I like the film or not is irrelevant as to it's construct or content.
And whether I made it or not is absolutely irrelevant.



Comparing Avatar to Dances With Wolves is a popular pastime.
Would that be a BETTER story if LT Dunbar started planting a watermelon patch and building a croquet courts out in the middle of the wild west?
Would it be a BETTER story if LT Dunbar went out there with no knowledge of the plants, animals, people, terrain, and weather of the region?
Would it be a BETTER story if the Union solders rode out to the little outpost with elephants towing cannons? It would be more spectacular that way, right?
Yeah.
But it would be stupid story construct.

Thoughtful story construct would be to have Dunbar begin repair & rebuild the outpost.
Thoughtful story construct would be to have Dunbar be comfortably familiar with the challenges the environment he chooses to be in.
Thoughtful story construct would be to have Union soldiers arrive on horseback carrying rifles.

Regarding Avatar, thoughtful story construct would be to have Sully maintain proper situational awareness.
Thoughtful story construct would be to have Sully be comfortably familiar with the challenges the environment he chooses to be in.
Thoughtful story construct would be to have the company's private security force gas the valley.
Somehow, detonating the giant tree with rockets doesn't seem like better PR back home.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

He designed his movie almost like a sient film so that you could understand what was happening, especially with the Navi, without understanding the language and without heavy tracking of subtitles so, it 'translated' well abroad.

? Strange, I would say exactly the opposite. Off the top of my head, I can't think of many films made less like a silent movie! Avatar was extremely heavily sound designed, which greatly contributed to the audience involvement and appreciation of otherwise very difficult to identify with locations and visual references.

(A)I said the story via the screenplay has multiple elements of stupidity in it, thus an average viewership would be unremarkable, but Avatar had bazillions of viewers who all gobbled up that stupidity to the tune of billions of dollars worth.
They just can't get enough of that dumb stuff....

I dare say that if Avatar was only sold as a screenplay, it would have bombed. But of course Avatar is a film, not a screenplay and the difference is that a film is about how you tell the story not the story itself. The reason you think people are dumb is because you seem to be missing this most important fact about film. With all due respect, I know people who are way smarter than you who liked Avatar, so who is dumb here?

The fact is that virtually all the crafts which combine to make a film, in Avatar's case were world class or class defining. Sure the script has holes and is in some respects the "weak link", all this proves is that the screenplay is not the most important element in a film. The way the story was told through the use of 3D and visual design, sound design and the score was top class. The screenplay may not have been technically well written or very original but it was a good story, if for no other reason than it resonates both with historical and contemporary events in almost every culture on Earth. Avatar contains various plot elements with which almost everyone can identify and this is the most important attribute of film because, done well, the audience feels more like a participant than just a spectator.

IMHO, many film critics and film aficionados allowed the clichés in the story to reduce their experience of Avatar, making them more of a spectator than a participant and therefore to view Avatar as little more than over-expensive eye-candy. The screenplay could have been written differently, to engage more critics and aficionados but almost certainly at the expense of a wider audience of the general public. This same phenomena exists in virtually every art form and, in virtually every art form this difference exists between critical opinion and public opinion.

G

 

[rayw]

G -
So you don't ever watch a movie and think "Hold up! One, maybe two, dumb things I can overlook. But a constant stream of BS takes me out of the experience", but instead pretty much think "Oh. Okay. That's kosher. And that, too. And that, as well... "?

 

[punee]

Got your point Ray.
So now can we conclude like this?
(A)Avatar is a visually stunning, jaw dropping movie which brought a new revolution in 3D and motion capture technology.
(B) BUT,but, content wise, its pretty average.
Now, speaking about it's collection, maybe people went to watch it for (A)?

Edit: watch the interview links I posted. Pretty interesting.

 

[rayw]

Got your point Ray.
So now can we conclude like this?
(A)Avatar is a visually stunning, jaw dropping movie which brought a new revolution in 3D and motion capture technology.
(B) BUT,but, content wise, its pretty average.
Now, speaking about it's collection, maybe people went to watched it for (A)?

Fo sho! 100%.
It looks great. Zero qualms there.
I even appreciated Ridley Scott ripping off James Cameron's sweeping spacecraft with epic background shots for Prometheus.

Story: meh.

And if the film had received a respectable number of views and revenue there's be no sense of WTF? from me.
But the story was meh (to me) and the views and revenues went ballistic. Astronomic. From here to Pandora crazy.
I'm dumbfounded.

It's a little meh-burger with meh-fries. With a toy. And a grinny funny clown.

As far as watching it for (A), cool.
But the DVD sales are bizarro fantastic, as well.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

G -
So you don't ever watch a movie and think "Hold up! One, maybe two, dumb things I can overlook. But a constant stream of BS takes me out of the experience", but instead pretty much think "Oh. Okay. That's kosher. And that, too. And that, as well... "?

That's the point, isn't it! There comes a point where enough weaknesses in one or more areas of filmmaking take us out of the experience. Where that point or line is depends on the viewer. Many filmmakers, critics and aficionados focus too heavily on the script itself rather than on the story telling as a whole and therefore their threshold for weaknesses in the script is far lower. The majority of indy filmmakers appear to concentrate too much on certain areas of filmmaking and not enough on others. IMHO, if indy filmmakers were as critical of sound quality and design as they are of say screenplays or cinematography for example, their films would be far more engaging for a much wider audience.

At the end of the day, a good film is one which engages it's target audience and the most financially successful films are those good films with the largest target audience.

G

 

[rayw]

That's the point, isn't it! There comes a point where enough weaknesses in one or more areas of filmmaking take us out of the experience. Where that point or line is depends on the viewer. Many filmmakers, critics and aficionados focus too heavily on the script itself rather than on the story telling as a whole and therefore their threshold for weaknesses in the script is far lower. The majority of indy filmmakers appear to concentrate too much on certain areas of filmmaking and not enough on others. IMHO, if indy filmmakers were as critical of sound quality and design as they are of say screenplays or cinematography for example, their films would be far more engaging for a much wider audience.

At the end of the day, a good film is one which engages it's target audience and the most financially successful films are those good films with the largest target audience.

G

True, but you dodged answering the question: Do you ever call "Bullsh!t!" on a film as you're watching it? Or is your BS threshold pretty darn high?

Furthermore, I agree quality sound capture & processing should be a given equal to having the subject in focus. D'ja!



EDIT:
Impressive per-theater revenue averages: http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekly&id=avatar.htm

 

[AudioPostExpert]

True, but you dodged answering the question: Do you ever call "Bullsh!t!" on a film as you're watching it? Or is your BS threshold pretty darn high?

I frequenctly call BS on various aspects of filmmaking, script, acting, editing, etc. I would think that in some/many areas of filmmaking my threshold for BS is considerably lower than yours. There's always some BS, I've never seen the perfect film. All of film is essentially BS and illusion, the art is staying the right side of the BS line and maintaining the illusion. As a career professional film/tv maker I have to have various different levels of BS threshold. Of course I have my personal likes, dislikes and BS meter but I have to put that aside to a large extent and primarily think in terms of the perception of my target audience. In other words, what's important for me as a professional is my target audience's BS meter not my own.

The fact that so many people liked and paid to see Avatar is testament to the skill and ability of it's filmmakers in staying the right side of the audiences' BS meters. If you can't see or appreciate how the public's BS meters work (relative to your own) and just explain it away as the public being dumb, IMHO, you are going to find it exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to ever make a film with wide appeal.

Furthermore, I agree quality sound capture & processing should be a given equal to having the subject in focus. D'ja!

I wasn't talking about the quality of sound capture and processing, which like basic camera focus should be a given, I was talking about the sound design.

G

 

[Dreadylocks]

They ALL have big, colorful signs. They are ALL located on a street corner. And they ALL pass out free samples. What is Jimmy doing differently?

Oo Oo I know this one! There's crack in the lemonade.