How did Avatar make so much money?
- Thread starter NickClapper
- Start date
Sorry but I've got to ask, how do you have sound design in a silent movie?
AudioPost, I think you're missing her point. She's saying that the dialog was designed to be minimal, so that even if you don't understand English, you could follow the film. She's saying that was purposefully done so that the widest kind of audience could appreciate the film, and pay for it, even if they can't follow the language. I'm not sure she's really talking about "sound design" which seems to have a specific meaning for you and for audio professionals. She was really making the other point.
I think that's probably the best answer yet.
Ray, I think you're really over-analyzing this. You can't look at RT ratings, neither from critics nor audience members. The people who go post reviews on Rotten Tomatoes may or may not (probably don't) represent the movie-going public.
In my opinion, the best indicator of public opinion is cinemascore (an exit-poll), and "Avatar" got an average score of "A". I know you know how averages work. So, even with all the people who hated it, there were enough who loved it that it still got a very high average score.
The other indicator is one that I swear you are just sticking your head underground and pretending that doesn't exist. Look, I never said that all well-liked films are blockbusters, or that all blockbusters are well-liked. In fact, I've said quite the opposite.
Thanks to the existence of multiplexes, all you need to have a blockbuster is to make a shit-ton of money on opening weekend. And you don't need to have a movie that is even slightly well-liked in order to accomplish that goal. Big name stars. High-concept. Massive advertising budget. And preferably (though not necessarily) a recognizable franchise with a built-in audience. All of those factors will practically guarantee blockbuster status.
But then what happens after opening weekend? Results vary, wildly. And the results are almost 100% dependent on the popularity of the movie, based on public opinion. Critics, websites, advertising all cease to matter (well, advertising still matters, but not nearly as much as before).
You should play the game Hollywood Stock Exchange. Being a number-nerd, I honestly think you might enjoy it. And when you see how quickly a movie's stocks can rise and fall, you will soon learn the difference between the impact of advertising (opening weekend), vs. the impact of word of mouth (2nd weekend).
OK, I understand now that she did not actually mean a silent film, she meant a film with minimal dialogue. Even so, this really isn't a consideration because films are routinely dubbed in foreign languages or at the least are subtitled.
The term "Sound Design" is not specific to audio professionals, it's a decades old general filmmaking term, like "Cinematography" or "Costume Design". I'm not trying to be rude or condescending, I'm just trying to understand: Are you saying that Boxt is very new to filmmaking and doesn't yet know what the fundamental film crafts are? Or, are you saying that many/most indy filmmakers don't know/understand what "Sound Design" is?
G
Okay, crazy thought, but it could be fun -- anyone care to take part in a Hollywood Stock Exchange throwdown? Anyone who wants to take part starts a new account on the same day, and we have until such-and-such day to raise as much money as possible. I'd start a new thread, but I think it's pretty relevant to this conversation. If there's enough interest in this thread, then I'll start a new one.
I've actually done this before (about a decade ago). It's comparable to fantasy football, but for movie nerds. Since movies are generally released once per week, you only need to make moves once per week.
Ray? I'm drawing a line in the sand.
I've actually done this before (about a decade ago). It's comparable to fantasy football, but for movie nerds. Since movies are generally released once per week, you only need to make moves once per week.
Ray? I'm drawing a line in the sand.
Actually I can't speak for BoxT, but I'll tell you that I'm new to filmmaking, in the sense that I've done my own stuff. Never been paid professionally, never worked with a professional crew. In fact, I'm allergic to half the professional references on set. I don't know what the fundamentals of film crafts are. I don't know what Cinematography or Costume Design or Sound Design really mean. I've a general understanding, but not an exact or specific one. I'm not sure where that leaves me or what kind of a filmmaker that makes me. But I do not have expert understanding of much of what you would call "fundamental film crafts." I don't. I'm not saying this as some sort of punk retort. It's just that I haven't had the good fortune to acquaint myself well enough with various film crafts. So I don't know about BoxT, but when I say something on these boards or any other place, there are bound to be tons of mistakes in how I phrase things.
I come here to glean things off people like yourself, and other experts, and to clear my own head. I don't speak as an expert, or half an expert on any craft of filmmaking. So there are bound to be some semantic errors, which the experts will have to forgive and ignore, as my understanding of various film crafts remain inexact.
Cheers
Aveek
Okay, crazy thought, but it could be fun -- anyone care to take part in a Hollywood Stock Exchange throwdown? Anyone who wants to take part starts a new account on the same day, and we have until such-and-such day to raise as much money as possible. I'd start a new thread, but I think it's pretty relevant to this conversation. If there's enough interest in this thread, then I'll start a new one.
I've actually done this before (about a decade ago). It's comparable to fantasy football, but for movie nerds. Since movies are generally released once per week, you only need to make moves once per week.
Ray? I'm drawing a line in the sand.
Do it man. I think it will give us an insight into our own understanding of what should or should not make money and maybe change our own behaviors as filmmakers.
Avatar is a terrible film. I still am furious that it won Cinematography over THE HURT LOCKER. I mean, come on. Apparently ugly 60% CGI-assisted digital shooting in a cool air-conditioned studio is more deserving than beautifully shot raw film, shot by a heat-stroke-affected crew in the middle of a scorching desert.
But back on the subject, it made money because people are, well, mindless. And they spread the word that it's "amazing" and "must be watched in 3D". Thus it made a lot of money. In my opinion Titanic was much better. And I just know the sequels will fail completely.
But back on the subject, it made money because people are, well, mindless. And they spread the word that it's "amazing" and "must be watched in 3D". Thus it made a lot of money. In my opinion Titanic was much better. And I just know the sequels will fail completely.
Back in the early part of the 20th century they were sound FX for silent films.
In the major movie houses there could be up to twenty (20) people performing
sound FX behind the screen. They were usually vaudeville traps players and
sound FX types from the "legitimate" theatre. My own Aunt Emily (my paternal
grandfathers sister) did that for a while.
http://web.archive.org/web/20031203095914/http://www.windworld.com/emi/articles/soundeffects.htm
I was actually discussing this with one of the folks from TMC a number of
years ago. They have their young composer competition each year, and
the winner gets to score a silent film. My suggestion was that a group of
Foley walkers, percussionists and others perform Foley and sound FX live
to picture fro the same silent film. They eventually nixed the idea, but I
would still like to try it someday.
Do you have any idea how mindless you make yourself out to be when you make such insultingly judgmental comments against such a broad group of people, simply because they like something that you don't?
And you think the sequels to the highest grossing movie of all time, directed by somebody who has a very good track-record with sequels, are going to fail?!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Your comments are so ridiculous that it's tempting to think that you're trolling. The sad thing is that I think you actually believe your own insipid vitriol.
Speak for yourself 
The sequels are going to fail because, well, you really think the "quality" is gonna be going up with the sequel? Or the threequel, or the fourth sequel? Those are all confirmed projects. People will get tired of it no doubt. This is a prime example of studios overhyping their success, leading to failure.
And I don't remember Sanctum doing so well even though it had James Cameron's big fat name plastered on it.
The sequels are going to fail because, well, you really think the "quality" is gonna be going up with the sequel? Or the threequel, or the fourth sequel? Those are all confirmed projects. People will get tired of it no doubt. This is a prime example of studios overhyping their success, leading to failure.
And I don't remember Sanctum doing so well even though it had James Cameron's big fat name plastered on it.
"Sanctum" was horrible. But Cameron didn't direct it. I can't help but wonder -- what are your thoughts on "Aliens" and "T2"? I know that not everyone likes those movies, but they're pretty well-revered.
P.S. Speaking of avatars, what's up with Tom Cruise?
P.S. Speaking of avatars, what's up with Tom Cruise?
I think it's interesting that we can't have a thread about Avatar without it becoming personal. People can not like movies that you love and people can like movies that you hate- we all know and accept this.
I don't think there's anything particularly offensive to suggest that Avatar's success might be partially to do with manipulating the audience and playing off the fact that most people are not looking for narratively complex, highbrow cinema. At the same time I don't think there's any particularly wrong with saying that Avatar's success was entirely because of how good a movie it was (although, in this case, I, personally, don't think that's true).
NEW POINT TO CONSIDER: What does the fact that Avatar is the No.1 most pirated movie of all time tell us about this question? How does that factor into the debate?
I don't think there's anything particularly offensive to suggest that Avatar's success might be partially to do with manipulating the audience and playing off the fact that most people are not looking for narratively complex, highbrow cinema. At the same time I don't think there's any particularly wrong with saying that Avatar's success was entirely because of how good a movie it was (although, in this case, I, personally, don't think that's true).
NEW POINT TO CONSIDER: What does the fact that Avatar is the No.1 most pirated movie of all time tell us about this question? How does that factor into the debate?
When I went to see Avatar you had to see it in 3D and the 3D tickets cost about 3 quid more.
That must account for a good amount of the extra revenue.
That must account for a good amount of the extra revenue.
Maybe because I've been working in 3D for 12 years, when I went to see Avatar in 3D I wasn't able to enjoy the film that much. I could count on my hands the 3D scenes I liked.
After the first week of messing aroung with 3D, I was able to draw some conclusions about where it works best:
- Scenes with no visible ground, because they allow you to bring stuff out of the screen;
- Scenes without fast movement (especialy camera movement), because they allow time for your eyes to adjust;
- Scenes without many objects.
So, the alien jungle was not working for me at all: lots of confusion with fast movement. It seemed to me that the film was being done by someone who never tried 3D.
For some years now that most of my 3D work deals with underwater environments: not much visual confusion, many scenes without any ground and slow movements. And it works very well.
For me, 3D is something to take into account at the early stage of a film, from the time you think about the plot.
I was able to enjoy Avatar much more in 2D. I loved the CGI.
After the first week of messing aroung with 3D, I was able to draw some conclusions about where it works best:
- Scenes with no visible ground, because they allow you to bring stuff out of the screen;
- Scenes without fast movement (especialy camera movement), because they allow time for your eyes to adjust;
- Scenes without many objects.
So, the alien jungle was not working for me at all: lots of confusion with fast movement. It seemed to me that the film was being done by someone who never tried 3D.
For some years now that most of my 3D work deals with underwater environments: not much visual confusion, many scenes without any ground and slow movements. And it works very well.
For me, 3D is something to take into account at the early stage of a film, from the time you think about the plot.
I was able to enjoy Avatar much more in 2D. I loved the CGI.
I would put it differently. I would say that Avatar is a good film precisely because it manipulated the audience so well. Isn't the whole of movie making about manipulating the audience, to make them think about, empathise with and believe in the story we are trying to tell?
This is true but you are talking about sound FX or really a sort of live Foley performance. I was talking about modern era sound design.
G
I've got a theory on this. I'll come back to it, but I think you should note that I've NEVER had a problem with other people expressing their distaste for this movie that I like so much. I have a very strong distaste for when people make disparaging comments about the fans of the movie, instead of the movie itself.
For the record, Fernando and I have communicated outside of this thread, and I don't believe he had any ill-will in his comments. But regardless of intent, comments like that are insulting.
No, that's not offensive at all. That's an intelligent argument, and by saying that, you aren't making any disparaging comments about the people who like "Avatar". Plus, it's true -- I'm not usually looking for "highbrow, complex cinema" (that doesn't mean I don't like "highbrow complex cinema", but I usually just want to be entertained, whatever that means).
But to suggest that people liked "Avatar" because they're idiots -- that's offensive, and completely different from what you just said. So why does a discussion of "Avatar" get personal? Because those who don't like it make insulting comments about those who do.
And I have a theory about that. Honestly, I think the detractors of the movie are befuddled. They can't believe that so many people like this movie that is clearly crap (in their minds). They can't wrap their brains around how anyone could possibly like it, so the first thing that comes to their mind is that all those people must be idiots.
^I'm not stating that as fact, just as one possible explanation of why detractors of "Avatar" so often insult the people who like it. I've never seen anything like it, with any other movie, and I think that's because "Avatar" was so ridiculously successful that some people need an explanation as to how it was successful (and the only reasonable explanation to them is that the people who like it are idiots).
Now, back to what you said -- I fully agree with your argument that "Avatar" is simple entertainment, not intended to be either complex or highbrow. I do have one question for you. I often hear that it is "manipulative", not just from you, but from other people. I think I have a general idea of what you mean by that, but could you extrapolate? What qualities make a film "manipulative", and how specifically does "Avatar" fit that description?
People like it?
I think that a film like War Horse was manipulative. It didn't let emotional honesty drive the story, instead it did things that were unrealistic and specifically designed to pull at the audience's heartstrings. In Avatar I thing that some of the ecological and anti-corporate undertones are designed to manipulate the audience into supporting Jake et al because the character development alone is, perhaps, not strong enough.
But these are just my thoughts. I think being able to manipulate the audience is amazingly intelligent of any filmmaker, it's not an easy route to take by any means, it just means that certainly elements do seem narratively cheap (which is, perhaps, why someone like Fernando considers the film to be targeting less intelligent audiences).
With regards to the pirating issue- I'd be interested to know how many people pirated the film having seen it in cinemas. If they did that then it would certainly support your claim that the success is on the strength of the film, not its technology. But that would be contrary to the suppositions that I, and a lot of other people, have made on this thread. If the people pirating it did it without seeing it in the cinema then the film's viewership must've been colossal.
But these are just my thoughts. I think being able to manipulate the audience is amazingly intelligent of any filmmaker, it's not an easy route to take by any means, it just means that certainly elements do seem narratively cheap (which is, perhaps, why someone like Fernando considers the film to be targeting less intelligent audiences).
With regards to the pirating issue- I'd be interested to know how many people pirated the film having seen it in cinemas. If they did that then it would certainly support your claim that the success is on the strength of the film, not its technology. But that would be contrary to the suppositions that I, and a lot of other people, have made on this thread. If the people pirating it did it without seeing it in the cinema then the film's viewership must've been colossal.
We might also consider that there's plenty of vitriol towards Cameron himself on this forum, and I suppose elsewhere. How does or might that figure into that equation...?
I'm not clear on what you mean by that. But someone, I think it might have been AudioPostExpert (apologies if I'm citing the wrong person) , pointed out that a film is not merely it's script. By "...strength of the film, not its technology" do you mean its story versus its technical virtuosity, special effects etc?
But I doubt any of us here who enjoy Avatar would ask its detractors to accept that its merits rest, or could rest, soley upon the relative strength of its story. Remove its "technology," then Avatar the movie isn't really Avatar the movie anymore.
But I see in no way how that justifies the position that Avatar is unworthy of being, or that it's inexplicable how it could be the top box office grosser. Good explanations have been given.
You have said that you need to reiterate the fact that you're not questioning the film's merits. But I think that it's been at least implicit in your statements that its quality does not merit its superstar status; you just don't want to hear what's been repeatedly said: that it does have good enough quality...that it was good enough, smart enough, and, gol darn it, people liked it--enough to go see it in droves--and enough to buy and to pirate the hell out of it too.
Not to mention all that clever marketing stuff. I'm especially intrigued by one poster's explanation of how they manufactured word of mouth support for their film. Really? Wow that they're doing that. And a little creepy too. But hey, it's a competitive business.
And, I would argue, that there -are- enough movie watchers out there who are smart enough to know of Cameron, smart enough to know of his winning track record and to consquently predict that there's a good chance that they'll like or love his latest film too , and smart enough to not [irrationally] hate on him.