Michael Bay’s Name Pushed Paramount To Settle Injured … 
Several More New Series In Recasting Mode; Returning Ones … 
‘G.I. Joe: Retaliation’ Moving To March 2013 To … 
Directors Fortnight Says It Must “Police … 
‘Chronicle’ Helmer Josh Trank Takes On … 
Big Media Chiefs Tell Cable Operators To Speed Up ‘TV … 
Will ‘Pan Am’ Take Flight With Amazon? 
EMMYS: Showtime Launches Free Weekend Promotion Targeting … 
TOLDJA! ICM Management Buyout Complete 
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘Dancing With The Stars’, … 
An Olympian Effort: NBCUni Plans 5,535 Hours Of Coverage … 
Netflix Exec Denies It’s Responsible For Nickelodeon … 
DESPERATE: HuffPo & Oprah Team Up Now 
Hot Trailer: ‘The Great Gatsby’ 
How Did Women Pilot Writers Fare For 2012? 
Disney Quits Snow White Film ‘Order Of The … 
Cannes Planning Surprise Screening Of Non-Fest Films; … 
Investors Unfriend Facebook As SEC Investigates IPO … 
Cash Windfalls For WME Agents, Assistants 
A&E IndieFilms Sets ‘Happy Valley,’ … 
Hot Cannes Property: Natalie Portman, Lynne Ramsay Team On … 
SUNDAY AM UPDATE: Twentieth Century Fox has just released fresh Avatar numbers based on the 3-day weekend:
International weekend = $125M
International cume = $1.115B
Domestic weekend = $41.3M
Domestic cume = $491.8M
Worldwide cume = $1.606B
SATURDAY PM/SUNDAY AM: Alcon Entertainment’s post-apocalyptic actioner with religious overtones The Book of Eli on Friday briefly interrupted the 28-day reign of Avatar. But by Saturday, everything was back to normal with James Cameron’s big budget 3D technopic back at No. 1 for likely the entire Martin Luther King long weekend. (And who was the producer or co-producer of both giant-slayers Book Of Eli and Sherlock Holmes? Joel Silver. After 2 years of failure, he’s on the comeback trail.)
Sources tell me the Denzel Washington and Gary Oldman starrer distributed by Warner Bros with a we-be-cool marketing campaign made $11.7 million Friday and $12 million Saturday for a 3-day weekend of $31.6M from 3,111 theaters. That probably adds up to $37M for the 4-day long weekend — exactly what the studio expected after weeks of really strong tracking and crossover appeal. Once again, the spotlight is back on Alcon’s Princeton duo funded by FedEx boss Fred Smith whose daughter Molly brought the guys The Blind Side. The rest is history — and $240M domestic cume. Book of Eli is also a comeback for the Hughes brothers after a long absence from healthy box office grosses.
Hollywood predicted Friday’s box office order wouldn’t hold. “It’ll be Avatar for the weekend by a long shot,” one studio rival to 20th Century Fox told me. The blockbuster made $10.5 million Friday, followed by $17.5M Saturday for a 3-day total of $41.3M with Sunday estimates and $491.7M cume. What a tenacious hold, especially when its North American theater count also declined 4% to 3,285 venues. For the 4-day Martin Luther King holiday grosses, grosses should climb to $50M and #1 for the 5th weekend in a row (tying Sixth Sense). Note that Avatar‘s domestic cume could pass $500M by Monday’s end, and definitely Titanic‘s $600M by this month, to become the biggest domestic pic of all time. (But with an asterisk. After all, these figures are not adjusted for inflation or ticket prices, which are much higher for 3D Avatar than 2D Titanic‘s.) Same goes for the worldwide highest-grossing record: Avatar barely trails Titanic $1.4B to $1.8B.
At No. 3, Peter Jackson’s version of the bestselling book The Lovely Bones finally went modestly wide after 5 weeks in very limited release. It made $5.7M Friday and $6.4M Saturday for a 3-day weekend of $17M and $17.5M cume from 2,563 runs for what’s expected to be a respectable $20M for the 4-day holiday. It’s no secret that the budget was big, and the reviews were mixed, as was the pic’s performance on just 3 screens in NY and LA. But Paramount held a test screening in Kansas City on November 19th for teen girls, and lo and behold the film tested 90% in the top two boxes and scored a 67% definite recommend. So the studio came up with an alternative approach to selling the Dad and his dead daughter storyline and re-invented the film in TV spots as a must-see for teen girls. I’m told fully a third of the audience was under 18 last night. And, while the overall CinemaScore was a B, 70% of that teen audience scored the movie an A. (It turned out to be a controversial but ultimately wise decision to omit the book’s brutal rape.) ”Rob Moore, Megan Colligan, and Josh Greenstein did a tremendous job redefining the campaign and never waivered in their enthusiasm for the film given the softness of the platform,” a Peter Jackson pal gushed to me. Especially since Paramount inherited the pic from DreamWorks and never would have greenlit it. Let’s agree it’s the real story of this b.o. weekend.
The only other film opening this weekend was The Spy Next Door which Lionsgate appeared to bury. (I don’t recall seeing a single TV ad for it.) But kids found it for No. 4. Meanwhile, last weekend’s two new films — Lionsgate’s Daybreakers and The Weinstein Co’s Youth In Revolt have already fallen out of the Top 10 because of so many strong holdovers from Christmas-time and before. Yikes!
This long weekend looks like under $200M for the 4 days, the second-best MLK compared to last year when Paul Blart: Mall Cop led the way to the all-time record of $231M.
Here’s the Top 10 (numbers will be refined):
1. Avatar (Fox) Week 5 [3,285 Theaters]
Fri $10.5M, Sat $17.5M, 3-Day Wkd $41.3M, Est 4-Day Wkd $50M, Est Cume $500M
2. Book Of Eli (Alcon/Warner Bros) NEW [3,111 Theaters]
Fri $11.7M, Sat $12M, 3-Day Wkd $31.6M, Est 4-Day Wkd $37M
3. Lovely Bones (Paramount) Week 6 [2,563 Theaters]
Fri $5.7M, Sat $6.4M, 3-Day Wkd $17M, Est 4-Day Wkd $20M, Est Cume $23M
4. Alvin & The Chipmunks: The Squealquel (Fox) Week 4 [3,246 Theaters]
Fri $2.6M, Sat $5.4M, 3-Day Wkd $11.5M, Est 4-Day Wkd $16M, Est Cume $197M
5. Sherlock Holmes (Warner Bros) Week 4 [3,173 Theaters]
Fri $2.9M, Sat $4.1M, 3-Day Wkd $9.8M, Est 4-Day Wkd $11M, Est Cume $181.4M
6. The Spy Next Door (Lionsgate) NEW [2,924 Theaters]
Fri $2.3M, Sat $4.1M, 3-Day Wkd $9.7M, Est 4-Day Wkd $13M
7. It’s Complicated (Universal) Week 4 [2,673 Theaters]
Fri $2.4M, Sat $3.5M, 3-Day Wkd $7.8M, Est 4-Day Wd $9M, Est Cume $98.9M
8. Leap Year (Universal) Week 2 [2,512 Theaters]
Fri $1.9M, Sat $2.4M, 3-Day Wkd $5.6M, Est 4-day Wkd $7M, Est Cume $18.7M
9. The Blind Side (Warner Bros) Week 9 [2,408 Theaters]
Fri $1.6M, Sat $2.4M, 3-Day Wkd $5.5M, Est 4-Day Wkd $6.7M, Est Cume $228M
10. Up In The Air (Paramount) Week 7 [2,107 Theaters]
Fri $1.5M, Sat $2.4M, 3-Day Wkd $5.4M, Est 4-Day Wkd $6.6M, Est Cume $66M
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.
Loading ...
Then AVATAR must be ‘fair and balanced’ since it’s killing at the box office.
Gary, the Lord of the Rings films “directed themsleves”? How on earth did you come to THAT conclusion? I’m not sure you fully understand the director’s influence on a movie….think of it this way: Those films could only be as they are with Peter Jackson at the helm. That’s pretty high praise if you ask me. If Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, Ang Lee, or any other director had directed these films, they would’ve been totally different.
By this logic, you must think Avatar, E.T., and Star Wars directed themselves, too?
Gary -
Lovely Bones was AWFUL! A big hot mess! There was absolutely nothing good about it and I beg you to tell me differently. Stanley Tucci said he was taking a role of a “normal” pedophile. The character he plays is as strange as they come. A “normal” pedophile was more like Kevin Bacon in “The Woods.” At least that guy was a real person who knew he was sick. Tucci got railroaded with this piece of shit. Jackson had no idea what to do with this movie. Effects bullshit etc. It was the happiest kidnapping rape of a 14 year old girl movie I’ve ever seen. If this doesn’t show up on the Razzi Worst of the year I will die. So Gary, please, tell us what you liked? Oh wait, was the the asian girl who plays whoopi goldberg from ghost? or the whimisical colors of almost heaven? or the doa character of Mark whalberg. The guy had nothing to do. And how about worst actress, Susan Sarandon. Wow! Was that role awful.
To everyone on here look at what Gary said and tell me he’s right?
Thank you.
I think it was the second act completely devoid of conflict. Or how it’s a deadly serious movie about child rape-murder and then Susan Sarandon walks in and we’re supposed to start laughing. Or the shifting protagonist.
And then there’s the ridiculous death at the end. Wowzers, a bad movie.
Yeah, Gary’s a tool. And Whiskey’s just pulling our legs at this point and laughing all the way. Although it looks like he’s being ignored now so justice is being served.
One studio head just called Gary Oldman a “divining rod” of hit movies. Perhaps a good luck charm? Since 1993, 18 years, Dracula, The Professional, Immortal Beloved, Air Force One, The Fifth Element, The Contender, Hannibal, 5 Harry Potter films, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, now The Book of Eli—quite a good run indeed. Well done.
Amazing run for sure. He has the wisdom of selection and the versatility to play all his roles well.
(And not to be picky – but only 3 HP films
)
He didn’t show up in Harry Potter until #3, and his character died in #5. And if you needed a “diving rod” to figure out a franchise like Harry Potter would be a hit, well, you’re probably as smart as most studio heads.
You’re not Whiskey, I am.
AVATAR IS making money. A profit is hardly guaranteed. Making money (revenue) != profit. It has to cover what FT called a $430 million domestic cost (it might be higher). It has to make money on DVD/Blu-Ray releases, and TV rights sales, where about 80% of Hollywood’s profits come from.
If Avatar is just printing money, and this being Hollywood, how come there are not a zillion copies being made? How come Cameron’s next project is … a movie about Hiroshima? How come Cameron spent ten years after Titanic, come to think of it, doing Dark Angel and re-writing the Avatar script?
Who are the people rescuing folks in Haiti? Oh yeah, US Marines. And other military folks. Now imagine an AQ bomber dropping an airliner on a city like the Christmas Day bomber tried. How much “fun” would Avatar be then?
The politics AND the 3-D effects (which don’t translate onto home TVs) make Avatar likely a net-loss when all is said and done. That being said, had Cameron made the same movie for half the cost (which, yeah, he could have done) the movie would probably have covered its costs by now.
Here’s what Hollywood thinks of Avatar’s money making ability: no one is announcing clone projects (no Golden Compass, no Narnia, etc.) and no one is bidding for Cameron’s services. IF the phones were ringing off the hook for Cameron’s agents, believe me Nikki would be reporting it.
Its pathetic when people fall for hype. [Titanic was probably perceived as a net-loss, too, come to think of it, which is why Cameron spent ten years in the cold. Probably because that movie was far more expensive than it needed to be.]
You are a brain dead fool. First if all: you know nothing about this film and your reasoning is a circular flow of idiocy. Let me enlighten you since I helped make the film. Jake IS a marine you moron. He uses his hard fought and hard won skills to defeat a corporation’s security forces bent on destroying a native tribe. That’s pretty pro military in many ways.
Cameron, you utter buffoon, has NEVER been a director for hire since aliens. You clearly don’t work in tuis business or you would know: he’s been untouchable, bankable, worshipped by studios since terminator. You are an utterly foolish person to think otherwise. Sony already listed him #1 on their wish list for spiderman. They’re unlikely to get him.
Avatar economics: you dumb, dumb fool: it cost around 300 after tax offsets to make. Another 100 for marketing. Most of the production cost was split between dune ent and another partnership. Fox stands to make a good chunk of what was to be earned. Now, you utterly ignorant fool: the film splits out a varying return off the gross split between distributors and the studio. The math is a variance with the studios earnings frontloaded. I know you like to make up all kinds of bullshit about this do your dumb senseless arguments get statistical cover but here’s the truth dimwit: the percentage the studio sees works out to a touch over 58% overall. Now I know you’re a grade a dumbass but here’s some math, you may have to read it a few times. 1.5 billion x .58 = 870 million. Now dimwit. Is that number larger than 400? It’s a 100 % return on investment thus far in its theatrical run. Go ahead. Read it again. Even if their take was half as done imcorrectly believe they’re 300 mill in the black NOW. Today.
DVD, despite your ill wishing will be monstrous. Titanic was huge, transformers was gigantic. This willl break records. It will also be the first great 3d title for home viewing.
I believe, whiskey, you moron, you have been served.
Avatar will be profitable regardless of what the budget and split of the 3-D shows are. But $300 million production claim, like the $237 claim FOX was trying to peddle earlier, is just plain loony. At World’s End cost that much; this is not cheaper. $100 million P&A is also not remotely credible and I thought Fox was admitting to $150 million there anyway.
See, e.g., http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5B901X20091216 on the marketing costs. No one pretends that the P&A was cheap here so I’m not really sure why you’re trying.
My personal guess is that it’s total negative cost is betweem $500-$550 million. Avatar *will* make money despite that, but the first half-a-billion that goes back to the studio is going to pay the bills.
The unknown, as I said, is what % of the 3-D and particularly the IMAX ticket grosses are being absorbed by the theaters. This is especially a consideration because of the long play. I don’t know offhand what sort of splits Fox may have negotiated here, but that’s really important. Big difference between Fox getting $13/15 of each opening weekend IMAX ticket and getting $9/15.
The 300 figure is after tax offsets from new zealand where the live action was shot and kicked back around 40 million. The P & A was NOT 150 as was advertised but a more sedate 100. Again, these are the numbers I’ve heard but I’m not in the marketing department. So maybe you’re right. The prod numbers are closer to what I wrote. I’m not ‘trying’ to do anything. Just saying what I know. Maybe you know better?
The splits are on a variance, where it transfers more to the distributors advantage the longer it runs. No surprise there. Fox is well in the black and making money round the clock on it now.
Your ‘Personal Guess’ is high. Not too far, but I think about 100M. I think the total cost on the film is not over 450.
But “At World’s End” had huge star salaries — Avatar has none. NONE.
And James Cameron already sunk a lot of his own money to develop the cameras over the previous 5-8 years. This camera system was definitely advanced but a lot of the heavy lifting was probably already done by Cameron’s previous 3d movies like Ghosts of the Abyss.
I’m not a technical guru nor do I know people who worked on the film but this is an educated guess. What say you vfx pros?
Thank you for clarifying how much money this movie is making. I am astounded that the right-wing loonies still insist Avatar is losing money even as it makes 1.6 billion dollars. Unbelievable. I am not in the film industry but smart enough to know that you do not need to sell even 1 DVD when you make 1.1 billion in pure profit in less than a month at the box office. Avatar is a success by any definition possible. Whiskey needs to change his lifestyle and consider substituting H20. You are frying what few brain cells you have left.
BRAVO, TEA!! “A circular flow of idiocy?!” That is the best line I’ve heard on these boards and it perfectly describes the wanton stupidity and dishonesty that comes out of whiskey every time he posts! And, yes, whiskey did get served!
God are you stupid. I’ve been silently reading your posts for quite a while now and just can’t take it any more. Not only is Avatar making money it’s changing the game in Hollywood. Look no further than the incredibly successful Spiderman franchise being re-booted for 3-D. It’s quite obvious you have an agenda against this movie and will pull out any statistic to prove your point, despite all the evidence – day by day – moving clearly against you. Guess what? The world isn’t flat no matter how many times you say it. And you clearly don’t know anything about the economics of a movie franchise and the myriad of revenue sources for a picture over its lifetime. If you don’t like Jim Cameron for his movies can’t you at least admire his work ethic and his creative passion. You’re the cynic here – not Jim Cameron, or Hollywood, who climbed another Mount Everest here – risking life, limb, and property to do something that hadn’t been done before. What part of the American dream don’t you get? You clearly despise Hollywood – but guess what? This movie just ushered in a new age of theatrical motion pictures whether you like it -or get it – or not.
First of all, why fox throw such a big amount of money to Avatar project if the previous work Titanic is a loss like you said?
Secondly, yes, lots of movies have to make money back through DVD market, which is only because they cannot make money from cinema like Titanic did or Avatar is doing.
And Jim spent 10 years on making the movie because he always wants to present the best quality work to audience, he promises and delivers, always.
Open your eyes, don’t act like you live in another world. Avatar is ruling not only in north American cinema, but almost all the other part of the world. The “politics” you called seems accepted by all human being no matter what kind of polictal system they’re living under.
You don’t have to be an insider to know you don’t have a clue whiskey.Can you explain exact how would you clone a movie like Avatar? Narnia & The Golden Compass were fantasy driven movies riding the success cloud of other successful fantasy driven movies like Harry Potter and Lord Of The Rings.All of those movies came from popular and controversial books and they were in a climate were the movie going public were in a frenzy for anything fantasy.Avatar is a stand alone film, you can’t clone it, as you would need hundreds of millions of dollars, an A-Listed director who is love by the geek community and unbelievable hype from a supposed new technology to used as a marketing tool.
As for Cameron’s next film, how would you know what his next film is? According to imdb his next film is the highly anticipated “Battle Angel”, not a film about Hiroshima.Again, talking out of your ass only makes you look silly.Not to say imdb is right, but I would trust them over you, seeing as they have more credibility.
Who was the hero in Avatar? A former marine– one who decided to stand for something other than helping a *private* company (not the U.S. mind you) make a profit by killing innocent life. He is assisted by another former Marine, as played by Michelle Rodriguez, who also will not go along with the private company’s plan. Why do you insist on identifying our armed forces with a futuristic, make believe army of private contractors in a fantasy movie? I know conservatives, one who has served in the armed forces, who liked the movie because of the hero being someone they identified with due to his courage and how bad ass he was. Although they aren’t the extremist wacky type of conservatives, in that they don’t sit on the internet and post the same tired anti-liberal tripe week after week after week (honestly, I’m surprised your posts pass Nikki’s don’t bore me clause by this point).
And are you really using the horrific situation in Haiti to try and bolster your opinion about this movie’s fictitious military contractors?
This is the dimmest, least researched, and most ridiculous thing ever posted on this site. Your grasp on reality is tenuous. I would like to see what an “Avatar” clone would look like, since the damn thing is a clone of hundreds of other big Hollywood movies. Your statements about the US Marines should get you laughed out of any serious conversation between adults.
You are hilariously demented. And I don’t mean that in a good way.
You’re overthinking it. Avatar is a really simple film. A member of an invading force falls for the native population and leads the native population against the invaders. You could make it about the Romans invading the Celts or the Mongolians invading the Chinese.
The white male bad guy is a default for Hollywood. No one gets offended. It would show more creativity to have Chinese space marines. Stereotypes allow stupid people in the audience to keep track of the story. I’m not bashing the middle of the United States, there are plenty of stupid people in Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, London and Berlin. I’ve read quite a few reviews by professional film critics who miss basic concepts about the movies they review. You wouldn’t believe the number of film critics who believe that District 9 is about apartheid.
It’s just an illogical story. The natives of Pandora would love to get their hands on the “magic” brought by the humans. A culture like the Na’vi would have different tribes at each other’s throats who would love to murder each other with firearms provided by the humans. The corporation would find a tribe who was the bitch of the other tribes and give them the power to dominate the others.
A dumb story with dumb politics, but really neat visuals. I liked it, but didn’t love it. But some people really like it. It’s simply a matter of taste. My personal taste says “B”.
I’m pretty sure that studio executives want to hire the guy who directed the two highest grossing movies of all time.
Whiskey is exhibiting the major flaw of all right wingers, which is his inability to accept simple facts when he doesn’t like what they say. He CHOOSES to believe AVATAR is a bomb, just like he CHOOSES to believe the easily provable lies FOX NEWS spews every day. It’s so much easier than actually admitting when he’s wrong; and if at some point he gets painted into a corner, he’ll just switch positions and deny he ever thought otherwise. (And for the record: I’m no fan of Cameron… I’m just not stupid enough to deny his success- and there’s no way a billion at the box office can be regarded as anything but).
Whisky, this is just sad now. Please, give up…
International Box Office is 1.5 BILLION dollars, after 28 Days. The film is in profit already, even with it’s huge cost.
Regarding copies: every major tentpole getting announced right now, the first question asked is: “is it in 3d”?
How many more times do people have to explain this to you?
Wow, I can’t even tell if this is parody of you actually making the argument that the two top grossing films of all time did not even cover their costs. You really think Avatar cost over $1B to make? You really think that Cameron needs people to call him? And that they’re not? This is a joke, right?
As usual, you have no clue about what you are talking about, Whiskey. You clearly don’t work in the biz. However, reading your crazy diatribes is pretty entertaining!
Why do you persist in this nonsense. Avatar made money for the people that worked on it. It’s making money for the exhibitors. It’s made it’s production and promotion costs back and its inspired a completely new way of looking at film at the precise time that the industry needs it. The fact that accounting procedures may show that it didn’t show a profit means nothing. Your tiresome adherence to outdated formulae is a waste of time. The studio system has become a consortium of risk averse bankers and accountants that do nothing to bring the industry forward. Their abuse of the finance systems resulted in a generation of poor movies, many that would not have been made by responsible studios that depended on the films themselves to become profitable. We are still suffering the consequences. Are there ten movies that deserve to be nominated for an Academy Award? Five? Cameron has used his talents and resources to improve the medium. People that never go to movies speak of this film in awe and this hasn’t happened in recent memory. Right now, he’s the only game in town.
No, I’m Whiskey!
How dare all of you steal my ideas! I spent a long time coming up with all my lies to prove to everyone that Avatar is a gigantic failure of epic proportions!
Did you know that Avatar actually cost $20 billion to produce and another 50 bucks to market! A negative cost of $20,000,000,050!!!! It has to make at least $40,000,000,100 to break even!
And with the home entertainment market collapsing, 20th Century Fox has decided not to even release Avatar on DVD or Blu-Ray. Instead they are going to release it on BETA in a hope that nostalgic fans will return to that superior format!
Nevermind that the Spider-Man reboot will be done in 3D! Those people at Sony have also lost their minds! Once they figure out that Avatar lost $18 billion for 20th Century Fox, they will come to their senses and produce Spider-Man for under $10 million. That’s the only way the movie will make a profit. Spider-Man would have to make over $1 billion worldwide to break even if it cost over $10 million!
All movies should actually cost less than $5 million to be able to make a profit.
Everyone thinks that studios get 50% or more of the total gross of a movie. I can tell you right now that studios get less than that! They actually get around 20%…Oh wait…Uh, let me do the math…No, studios only get 1% of the total gross of a movie. And they don’t get ANY money on the foreign market. The mob controls all the theaters overseas, and they take 100% off the top of each movie overseas. The studio will be lucky to get back $10 from the foreign markets.
So, as you can all see, Avatar is losing billions! This is not only the end of 20th Century Fox, but all of Hollywood!
I PROMISE, I have the proof, but I don’t want to show it on here, because I don’t feel like it…Just trust me!
Will you all please stop encouarging this moron? He’s loving all this attention-it’s clearly all he gets!
He knows he’s just making up this crap-STOP FEEDING HIM!!
Why is EVERYTHING you write either not true or completely idiotic?
The studio has already greenlighted a sequel. It’s been nothing but profit since it passed $600 million.
Why do you insist on continuing to prove that you’re an idiot?
“SHERLOCK HOLMES – This is falling faster than desired, especially for a potential franchise with the budget for #2 surely to be higher. $200M seems like a reality now but not much more.”
Because it has a weak-steampunk story that sounds like leavings from Alan Moore’s recycle bine. And a villain who’s not nearly as formidable as he should be–he doesn’t grow in menace, he deflates. I guess those behind SH are saving the real heavy lifting for Mr. M.
Regarding Avatar, I have had an interesting question in the back of my mind, and now that the scenario is beginning to seem likely, I’m going to be the first to ask it.
There are only enough 3-D screens for one 3-D picture to be in wide release at any given time. The next 3-D picture to open will be Alice in Wonderland, on March 5th. Now, what will happen if come March 5th Avatar is still going strong? The Oscars are March 7th, and if it wins best picture, there will surely be a renewed desire to see it in the theaters.
So, what will the theater chains do? Will they risk alienating Disney by giving 3-D screens over to holdover Avatar? Or will they knock a film that is still playing strongly out of the theaters prematurely in order to make room for what may be a risky picture, seeing how poorly dark children’s fair has been playing recently?
It is an interesting question, and may become a big problem once we get closer to March.
You pulled the thoughts right outta my head! Thanks for this one, Jon. Exhibitors might delay or possible compromises might be in the works such as ceding some but not all screens to AIWL. Can’t imagine exhibitors dropping their golden goose. After awards season, Avatar can continued to be milked to the last drop. I think the release schedules in hindsight were not anticipating the rampant success of Avatar so they do have a slot knot up the road to balance consumer demand and keeping Disney happy but in my humble opinion, Disney needs IMAX just as much now to be profitable in this 3D big screen spectacle post-Avatar era.
Also, I very much feel JC and co. will want to re-release Avatar in a director’s cut version (maybe even go with an R rating) to get the fans back into the seat and squeeze another 150 million?
Interesting to see how this one plays out schedule wise for exhibitors and looking forward to other industry opinions.
My guess: Alice will be delayed quite a bit, for the reason you suggest, and the fact that getting the 3D done (it is shot in 2D, and being turned into 3D) is proving to be more of a challenge than expected.
What’s the next 3D release after Alice?
Wow! I just saw The Book of Eli. It was absolutely terrible. I should have seen Avatar again.
That movie bashes America only if your idea of America is the profit-motive of multinational corporations.
What? Halliburton cutting you a check? Or are you just volunteering to be a sucker with your free time?
Look, if you can somehow wipe away the layer of stupid, you’ll feel much lighter.
My idea of America is Capitalism. Anytime someone tries to interfere with a companies right to maximize earnings than they are anti-american, which is essentially what the natives in this film were doing. If you don’t believe that a company should be able to make profits by any means necessary than feel free to move to Cuba or France.
Also, for everyone doubting me there was an article linked to on both Drudge and Free Republic stating that Fox would only see about 15% of tickets sales from this film. That means Fox is not in the black yet. It would need to double it’s box office take to turn a profit for the studio. That means Fox would need to sell a ton of DVD’s to make a profit. No one buys DVD’s anymore. Sure Transformer’s 2 sold a lot of DVD’s but that was because the humor and drama of that film was just as effective at home as in the theatre.
Finally, think about this. Spider-Man, Terminator 3 and 4, Alien 4, Alien Vs. Predator. If Cameron was such a hot property why was it that he was not approached to direct any of the above films? I’ll tell you why. It’s because his films don’t make money. If he was so succesful wouldn’t Sony had tried to get him to direct Spider-Man 1? By the way does anyone wonder why he never made a sequel to Titanic?
Whiskey says: “By the way does anyone wonder why he never made a sequel to Titanic?”
You’re kidding, right? Here’s why Cameron never made a sequel to Titanic (SPOILER ALERT): the boat fucking sank! Where’s the sequel going to take place, underwater? Or heaven perhaps?
Jesus, Whiskey, your posts have gone from wildly inaccurate to certifiably insane. I’d love to hear your pitch for Titanic 2 though.
Whiskey… You are a fool. As a fellow conservative, I’d please like to ask you to shut your mouth so you don’t continue to make the rest of us look like idiots. You know nothing about the movie industry. As a conservative filmmaker I’m tired of idiots like you talking about things you know nothing about. The far reaches of the political spectrum, the far right, and the far left are full of paranoid, mindless fools like yourself.
I shake my head and consider you must just be an idiot trying to parody conservatives, because how could you believe what you are saying. A sequel to Titanic, really you dumb ass? Not sure how that would play out. Seriously, this has to be a huge joke.
And yes, Cameron was approached to do the sequels to Aliens and the Terminator franchise; and he wasn’t interested. When you make the kind of jack he does, you can do whatever you want.
And no one buys DVD’s anymore? Are you f’ing kidding me. And please, just because a link on Drudge for FRP says something doesn’t always mean its true. Where is its source?
Whiskey, from a fellow (and I say that very lightly) conservative, you are truly an idiot.
well, for one thing, Sony did try to get him to do ‘Spider-Man 1′. He passed on it because, after the original deal for him to do ‘Spider-Man’ fell apart, he had moved creatively to ‘Titanic’. It took them years to sort out the legal battle. Sony mined his scriptment for a lot of plot points and character ideas, presumably because he’s so unsuccessful. In fact, so far as I understand, Cameron was approached for all of those projects except ‘Alien 4′ (the studio wanted to continue the procedure of using less experienced, very-cheap filmmakers on the rise, as they had with the first three).
“Also, for everyone doubting me there was an article linked to on both Drudge and Free Republic stating that Fox would only see about 15% of tickets sales from this film.”
I haven’t read that article, since you didn’t provide a link. Does it explain that the reason Fox is getting less of the ticket sales money is largely due to the proportional involvement of other investors? Fox isn’t on the hook for the full budget of the film, let alone the inflated numbers you offer.
How about democracy and free speech? (Although every time I read one of your posts I question the wisdom of the founding fathers on that one.)
Again, idiot, if Fox’s percentage of the box office was only 15% that means their up front financial risk was reduced accordingly by outside financing. But of course you’ve been calculating that they paid for everything and are only getting 15%. Right. I think Fox actually knows a little more about capitalism than you and would have never made THAT deal.
In Hollywood’s dreams every filmmaker would lose as much money as Jim Cameron.
I’m curious, Whiskey: is the rush you get when you sit in front of the computer and look at all the people you’ve baited into angrily responding to your posts a sexual one? I bet it is. Everything about your pathology indicates that.
Is there that little rush of adrenaline that feels like butterflies in the stomach when you see someone has put a great deal of effort into refuting your nonsense arguments (are you aroused right now, reading this for example)? Do you make lists of your detractors? Do you look at the arguments that piss the most people off and repeat those? Or is it more about quality than quantity, carefully crafting responses to push the buttons of those few people who continually engage you so as to keep them on the line (as those are the closest to social intimates in your life)?
I wonder if you lie to yourself. I wonder if you tell yourself that you’re standing up to the liberal elite and fighting for or real Americans or trying to bring down the Tower of Babel to justify your transparent fetishization of posting on a Website? Maybe it’s more explicit: maybe you tell yourself that if you can convert even one of these Whores of Babylon, you will have acted as a true Missionary.
Here’s the biggie: I bet you feel this sublime sense of empowerment when people respond to your posts. This feeling of control over them. Right? You’re the one in charge here! Not those Hollywood fatcats! You, Whiskey, pushing all these so-called smart people around like balls in a billiards game. You’re the MAN here… unlike in your real life.
Regardless, it’s pretty clear you have issues. I wonder if it makes any difference that most of us look at you as a source of amusement rather than as a worthy adversary. You’re not an object of hate or anger or even contempt; rather, you’re the person we laugh at when we take a break from developing movies or writing scripts or attaching talent or making our shotlists to read Nikki.
So, apparently, if everything you say is correct, on a negative cost of 400m there is no way that Fox can ever make money on Avatar.
Why did they make the movie? Or are they really that dumb?
And, bwt, your statement that anything that gets in the way of a corporation’s ability to make a profit by any means necessary is unbelievable. Really? What an idiot.
And, btw, I know the guys that financed this movie, as well as most of Fox’s other big pictures and they have made more money than you would ever believe possible–in three years.
Sorry for the ignorance. Est Cume is the film cost? Or the filme revenue estimative?
Cume = total. 4-day weekend total in this case
The cume is the tota1 amount the film has made up to the present.
With regards to the all-time box office lists…
19 of the top 25 movies on the unadjusted list are from the last decade. Obviously, that isn’t an accurate representation of the most popular movies of all time. The inflation-adjusted list shows a relatively even distribution of films across the decades. It’s unfortunate that releases cloud the picture. However, the list is good for making comparisons. If Avatar makes 630 million, it will be approximately tied with Jurassic Park at #17, a film with which it has much in common. Avatar is the kind of movie that only arises every five years or so. That is an amazing accomplishment and James Cameron should be damn proud. Let’s not go crazy and say it’s the most popular movie of all time. After all, in fifteen years every blockbuster will beat Titanic’s unadjusted record.
*rereleases cloud the picture
If you’re willing to admit that re-releases cloud the picture, then surely you must be willing to admit that the fact there was no such thing as a home video market until well the 80′s. And nothing like the current home video market of being able to own a high-quality version of the film on DVD, with a decent sized widescreen TV 3-4 months after the theatrical release until the early 2000′s?
Therefore, the adjusted list isn’t really a fair representation either, due to the fact that Gone With The Wind was ONLY available to be seen theatrically for the first 60 years of it’s life-cycle?
Any film released since the 90′s will NEVER come close to beating the adjusted figures of the likes of Gone With The Wind, because the average theatrical window is about 4 months.
* and by average theatrical window, I mean for the biggest blockbusters, obviously for less popular films it’s less.
You can’t just take into consideration inflation…there are other factors that can’t be quantified and it’s simply unfair to compare films from one era to the next (pre-home entertainment/digital/tv era to modern era)…I think it would be fairer to not have all-time lists as this is misleading but to break down films according to era perhaps…Avatar IS the #2 film all time in the modern era and especially considering the competition it has from other mediums…Jurassic Park didn’t have as much competition in the form of blue ray, DVD (I believe VHS and VCD were the prevalent forms of competition) and didn’t have illegal downloading or pirating to compete against at the box office…in my opinion, the all-time charts accurately represent a snapshot of the modern era.
Your post is true, but since when has the benchmark been as you put it, “the most popular movie of all time”. If it was, studios would release attendances, like sports stadiums, or opinion polls.
Box Office charts measure just that, Box Office. And by that measure, which has been in use for generations, Avatar is the #2, and shortly to be #1 film of all time, in the world, ever.
I think the IMDB list is a bit weird. For instance:
The Sting and The Exorcist were all released in december 1973, but when you do the calculation you’ll find that for Sting, the “adjusted gross” is about 4.2 times “unadjusted gross”, whereas for Exorcist, the ratio is about 3.5! How come the American Dollor’s value changed so dramatically in almost the same period?
I would assume that the money from the recent special edition of the Exorcist is being added into the total after the money from the original release is adjusted. That’s encouraging – they’ve probably also done that for ET and Star Wars, increasing the list’s accuracy.
Nothing can ever top GONE WITH THE WIND. The simple fact is that every man, woman, and child in the United States saw the film and half of them saw it twice. The moviegoing public now tops out at five percent of the population. AVATAR’s present grosses, phenomenal as they may be, represent a mere fifteen percent of the population.
“After all, in fifteen years every blockbuster will beat Titanic’s unadjusted record.”
Maybe earlier. Prices and theater count make it possible for movies to cross $1 billion worldwide. In 1997, Titanic was the first one but it actually came close to $2 billion worldwide, so it`s still in the league of its own. Than, in the last decade, from 2003 to 2009, there were 4 movies crossing $1 billion mark – ROTK ($1.1 billion worldwide), POTC:DMC ($1.o6 billion worldwide), TDK ($1 billion worldwide) and Avatar which has a real shot at Titanic`s $1.8 billion worldwide. Just take a look at how $1 billion babies have become more frequent:
1997 Titanic
2003 ROTK (6 years between)
2006 DMC (3 years between)
2008 TDK (2 years between)
2009 Avatar (1 year between)
Of course, if Avatar manages to cross $2 billion, the history books will be re-written and the bar raised higher. But it seems that it`s easier to get those $ billion blockbusters now than 6 years ago. I wouldn`t be surprised if this year produces another one, since movies like Iron Man 2, Harry Potter DH part I, Toy Story 3 could have a legit shot considering the fanbase, marketing power, screen and theater count,etc.
“In Fifteen Years every blockbuster will beat Titanic’s record?”
What a completely ridiculous statement.
I’d like to see the math on that. Oh, let me guess, you think in 15 years ticket prices will be $50 each, right?
1997 to 2025 – 28 years
1980 to 2008 – 28 years
230M in 1980 dollars is 600M in 2008 dollars
If inflation is about the same in the 1997 to 2025 period, a movie which made 230M when Titanic was released will make 600M in 2025.
I just randomly threw out 15 years when I wrote that, and ticket prices won’t follow inflation, but it works out pretty well.
It’s hard to mount a persuasive rebuttal against any of the Lovely Bones criticisms, or at least it’s hard for me because I tend to grade on a general “smell test” curve in lieu of exhaustive exegesis. All I can say is that I walked in expecting the absolute worst, and I hoped for it to be as bad as advertised so I could come here to boast about being vindicated for stubbornly maintaining during the LOTR love parade that PJ was overrated as a filmmaking master. Basically, I appreciated how it tried to break the presentational mold of all the familiar themes it incorporated, I thought it was well-done enough in the meat and potatoes areas that I was willing to forgive its wandering focus, and I liked the concept of a deceased soul monitoring those who were relevant to their life and death from an interstitial realm. For better or worse, it was a unique viewing experience that never at any point caused my attention to become adrift, which is more than I can say for some of 2009′s celebrated releases that weren’t socially acceptable to criticize (cough cough, Up in the Air).
I actually feel oddly grateful that Jackson went with the bizarre stylistic choice of going for a light tone in some of the post-murder scenes, because I found the dour solemnity of LOTR to be unbearable; as a matter of fact, I walked out of every LOTR movie with fractured ribs because Jackson kept elbowing me in my side to forcibly remind me about how serious and important the story was. I guess the film just found me at an opportune time, when the great performances by the murderer, victim and grieving parent – and what I perceived as the film’s creator being directoriallally engaged on a heretofore unseen level – were enough to make me feel that it was a worthwhile time expenditure. I also think it’s kind of flimsy to disregard the film on the basis of Jackson going overboard in literalizing the afterlife, because those (admittedly striking in a visual sense) sequences comprised a very small fraction of the run time, and only the “I was in my own perfect world” vignette reinforced the idea that the killer was a de facto hero for sending his victims to a wondrous magic land.
I don’t expect to change anyone’s mind with this post, in case you were wondering. I hate the mentality of wanting the rest of the free world to conform to your opinions because of your unwavering belief in their correctitude. You asked for further annotation. Be careful what you wish for.
P.S. When I said LOTR directed itself, I meant in the sense that it was the most straightforward replication of source material imaginable that required nothing to be created from threadbare. At least he rolled the dice creatively in his Bones interpretation. Bones was obviously a tough nut to crack but adapting LOTR could’ve been done by anybody with the production resources and the green light to pad the running time. He elevated it because he’s good with visuals but it’s not like somebody less talented than him couldn’t have replicated the same results in the areas of box office and Academy Awards. The Tolkien brand transcends the director’s involvement.
Gary,
Think whatever you like about The Lovely Bones. All I can say is it’s a courage effort.
But once again you are totally off base regarding Peter Jackson’s involvement in The Lord of the Rings. “Nothing had to be created from threadbare.” Ha! Besides the fact that literally everything was created from threadbare in that movie, the film was refreshingly original in its look and approach to that kind of material. If you want to get a good sense of Peter Jackson’s accomplishment, I suggest you rent the film Eragon and see just how skilled of a director Peter Jackson really is.
Huh?
Cameron wrote the script in 1995 and took it back out 4 years ago, his words.
Avatar is simply amazing in every regard. I hope it makes well over $2 billion before leaving theaters. It’s more than worth it and you inflation people get more annoying the higher it grosses.
I don’t understand how the hell Paramount managed to muck up The Lovely Bones this bad… a completely dedicated fanbase based on a very popular book, with a number of respectable stars, and yet the film rots in three theaters for over a month before finally going moderately-wide? Idiots. They deserve to lose money. Whether or not the film is crap (I haven’t seen it), it shouldn’t have been hard to get people on-board. Tsk-tsk.
Uh, it was actually a really smart decision to separate the limited opening and the wide opening by a month. That way the wide audience had time to forget about the negative reviews that were the focus of the film’s publicity in early December.
Looks like either strategy didn`t hold for long. According to Monday acctuals from http://www.the-numbers.com/charts/today.php
TLB dropped 41% (the biggest drop in Top 20) to #5. It was surpassed by Spy Next Door #4 (lmao!).
Great for LEAP YEAR! Isn’t that only a 20 percent drop?
What? people are still flocking the theaters to watch this silly movie, Avatar? C’mon people! This is a stupid movie that is over-rated
Go watch Daybreakers if you are with intelligence of not a 10 years old
Adjusted for inflation is AGAIN, completely idiotic.
Why would anyone assume that movies made over 70 years ago would make what they made back then with virtually no competition.
The fact that Avatar can pull these types of numbers with the horrible economy, high ticket prices, and everything else under the sun as a distraction is truly amazing.
Especially because it’s a lame, yet fancy looking cartoon.
adjusted for inflation Star Wars kicks Cameron’s ass too
If you’re going to adjust for inflation then GWTW, STAR WARS and a host of others that would be ranked higher than Avatar would also have an asterisk as they earned their money during different eras (much less competitive eras, pre-DVD, pre-home entertainment, pre-digital download, pre-piracy)…do you honestly believe Star Wars, GWTW would make as much now if they were released in this day and age? Inflation actually makes it fair as Avatar has all kinds of competition to work against and even the higher prices being touted as one of the reasons for its success is actually a deterrent for the consumer in this recent economy but people still paid in droves. Ticket prices were also cheaper back then so it was more of a pastime/hobby but nowadays, consumers are pickier and its become a luxury to see a film especially if you bring the entire family. Think about it- since Titanic 12 years ago, no other big budget tentpole or any other film for that matter has even come close to taking down the crown until Avatar.
Let’s say for example that Avatar was released back when GWTW was released or SW was released. Which film do you think would gross more or put more people into their seats?
GWTW and SW also prospered in eras that had virtually no major blockbusters being pumped out of Hollywood’s ass every season, every year. There was also no time restriction on the release window as there are now. Release schedules are determined months in advance with major releases having 3 or 4 months max to make their money.
As mentioned, with ticket prices at their peak, compared to the GWTW/SW eras, many people in this economy either will wait to see it at home or can’t see it more than once which was what happened with GWTW/SW. It is not only unfair but illogical to adjust for inflation to compare films from entirely different eras. It is simply impossible.
The box office only cares about numbers and film companies only care about the bottom line. Is it Avatar’s fault it was released now as compared to 20 years ago or 50 years ago? Is it Avatar’s fault that inflation occurred? Or piracy occurred or home entertainment evolved? I could go on and on. Do you really think SW could kick Avatar’s ass if SW was released now? It’s an unfair example but it’s just as unfair to adjust for inflation then make an asinine proclamation that product A, let’s say a car, from 20 years ago made more money than product B, a car with more horsepower, better mileage, etc, released last year. Even though Car B is a step up the evolutionary ladder, it costs more and has to go up against stiffer competition and more variety of products than Car A ever did.
Car A sold more but is it a better car than Car B?
Do you read the news???
You are obviously a student of Sarah Palin… idiot. This movie is and will be ridiculously profitable.
Avatar hasn’t passed 500M domestically yet – it should by the end of Monday – so I don’t really understand that part of Nikki’s headline.
And also: I think that the movie has a typically “left” sensibility – nature is better than technology; the military crushes peaceful people to try to find precious natural resources – but it’s handled so simplistically that it’s overshadowed by a bigger good-versus-evil message. The bad guys in Avatar, even though that they’re military-industrial folks, come off more as evil supervillain types, politics-free despots more than anything else to me.
Lastly, and most importantly, the film is an enormous box office success. Comparing it to Titanic, or Gone with the Wind – these are all only somewhat relevant. Would GWTW have had the same amount of admissions in an era of home video, DVD, pay-per-view, no re-releases and piracy? Doubtful. But it’s still a momnumental success. And so is Avatar: the first movie ever with 5 consecutive $40M weekends, it may well do $2B worldwide, in an era of piracy, a far more fractured media landscape, better home media systems making movies in theatres less necessary for some, etc. I thought it was good, not great, but a lot of people love this film and are telling their friends that they absolutely have to see it. And this movie has already made a profit – there’s licensing and merchandising money there too, remember – and will probably come very close to or cross the $2B mark wordwide. Anyone who says that this isn’t the biggest box office phenomenon since Titanic is kidding themselves. Amazing. So let’s just continue to call it that and see how far this thing climbs.
There is not much of a story, more like SWPL preaching with astonishing 3-D special effects. Which are the real “lessons” of the movie:
You can fight piracy (for now) with expensive 3-D effects and theaters. A kid with a camcorder or what have you cannot pirate the movie effectively because he can’t capture the 3-d effects. You really need to see the movie in the theater, in 3-D.
BUT … that’s the movie’s weak spot.
Can it generate home video sales, on the scale of it’s 3-D driven grosses? Will anyone even want to BUY IT or RENT IT when they can only see it on flat, comparitvely lifeless 3-D?
My guess is no, and that furthermore high three-d ticket prices are obscuring the fact that the movie does not as many fans as people think. A LOT of people saw Titanic — it did not have pricey tickets pumping up its grosses.
How will Fox sell the TV rights? Home Video? Rentals? Where the real profits are? After all, Family Guy did so well on DVD release that Fox re-upped it after canceling it.
Besides once the effects wonder dies down (next year’s films will inevitably out-do AVATAR in effects wow factor), the story is lame and dumb. Titanic was a simple story, but it had (if thinly drawn) real characters people cared about, played by real actors. AVATAR has lifeless CGI animations, with even less characterization in the story than your average Michael Bay film.
Its not likely to age well.
But we will see the effect of AVATAR on the News Corp bottom line, next FY. One way or another.
Again, you are a dumb, dumb man. It’s already sold domestic tv for a record number to FX (which should have gotten a sweetheart deal and didn’t). It’ll do so in every market. Next year its effects will look poor? You LITERALLY do not understand what it took to make it look like that. It took thousands of man hours by the most talented people on earth (not anyone you’re likely to meet, circular thinking troll). there’s no film in production (and certainly not before it which it would have been to come out next year, or don’t you understand production schedules) that will undertake that. No film will match it for a while, but eventually, you’re right, they will. Not for a bit. You really think it’ll bomb on DVD? You’re bananas. Your ‘guess’ is blather based on nothing but ill will. No actual analysis of this picture sees it doing anything less than Transformers 2 biz on DVD.
Effects pictures generally don’t age well, but this will be for the ages. It’s very nearly photoreal. That’s landmark.
If it does 2B it still has more fans than any film released in a long, long time. I just think you are a sad, dumb lame person who begrudges the success of others while having nothing to show of your own that compares.
Dead on.
Thanks for an intelligent comment for once.
Whiskey, I did’t know you had a brother named Mark? Brother or not, congrats on having at least 1 fan who is open to your psycho-babble. “Intelligent” is the furthest adjective which comes to mind everytime I read one of Whiskey’s posts but I do get a laugh so can’t help myself.
Mark was making the comment on what Micky said above, not Whiskey. No one agrees with Whiskey…LOL
Actually, 6th sense was the last film to have 5 consecutive #1 weekends.
Hey Whiskey!
Just thought you’d liked to know. James Cameron is not only working on his next film, but he also has ideas for two more Avatar movies.
In case you didn’t see the article on Yahoo, here is a quick run-down of what it says:
“…it’s not a huge surprise that the director confirms this week that he has always planned to do an ‘Avatar’ sequel, and hopefully even turn the franchise into a trilogy.”
“I’ve had a storyline in mind from the start – there are even scenes in ‘Avatar’ that I kept in because they lead to the sequel,” Cameron tells Entertainment Weekly in this week’s issue.
“…’Avatar’ star Sam Worthington has already signed on to reprise his role as Jake Sully…”
“…Cameron is currently in pre-production on his next movie, “Battle Angel” in which he’ll use some of the same CG technology he created for “Avatar.” That film is slated to hit theaters in 2011.”
What this shows us, our clueless friend Whiskey, is that James Cameron does what he wants to. He doesn’t want to make another Avatar movie right now. He makes the movies he wants to make at the time that he chooses. Hollywood doesn’t tell him what to do, he tells Hollywood what he wants to do and then they plan accordingly.
Yes, he could cash in by doing the next Avatar, but instead, he starts on another project. And when “Battle Angel” comes out and proves you wrong once again, we can have this same debate. But just a little advice for future reference…Stick with your original “facts” and don’t make up additional “facts” along the way…LOL
I’m sorry, but I would take the word of Yahoo, Entertainment Weekly and James Cameron himself over your false accusations.
Battle Angel…sounds like another time-honored classic in the making
god I hate the way nerd tastes have destroyed movies
Last year there were over 500 movies released. If you don’t like Avatar, there was plenty of other movies to choose from. One successful movie hardly destroys movies.
And for the record…I don’t think Avatar is the greatest movie of all time or anything like that. It wouldn’t even make it into my top 100. Winning Best Picture at the Golden Globes is ridiculous! This is not the best movie of the year.
Although, I have to say I don’t think there were too many great movies this year. Most movies were extremely disappointing, including Best Animated Feature winner “Up”. Pixar has really gone downhill with their latest efforts (Wall-E, Ratatouille, Cars). And now they are working on Cars 2!
At least they are bringing back Toy Story this year! I can finally enjoy a Pixar movie again!
Wait. I logged on to see if anyone’s talking about the best movie of 2010: “Leap Year”
Just kidding….
Avatar is going to be the STANDARD for years to come. Embrace that, Mr. Whiskey.
The Book of ELI is another name for THE BIBLE. That’s what the Bible was called. So it is a Christian Movie. They are trying to make you think it’s not with all the action but that’s what it means.
All this money money money talk…jeez get off it people.
Everybody’s feelings are hurt because their favorite money will not
box office king anymore, who cares. Lets face it people AVATAR
is going to break every record in the book, even TITANIC and
certainly DARK KNIGHT so lets stop trying to make excuses with the
inflation shit and profit crap.,the movie is raking doe like a beast
but that doesn’t mean its a great movie or even a good movie. It
just means a whole lot of people are caught in the bullshit and thrill of watching a movie in 3-D. Personally i thought AVATAR sucked ass and was about as exciting as watching paint dry.