Alvin and the Chipmunks 2 outguns Avatar - IMDB

A large part of its 237 million dollars budget was spent on technologies that are already licensed by others. It's not just money sunk into a single movie. Go complain about Spiderman 3 or 2012 regarding budget, not Avatar.

Baranga

A large part of its 237 million dollars budget was spent on technologies that are already licensed by others. It's not just money sunk into a single movie. Go complain about Spiderman 3 or 2012 regarding budget, not Avatar.

Baranga

How much of that budget?

That's just embarrassing...

[QUOTE="Baranga"]

A large part of its 237 million dollars budget was spent on technologies that are already licensed by others. It's not just money sunk into a single movie. Go complain about Spiderman 3 or 2012 regarding budget, not Avatar.

biggest_loser

It's only a matter of time.

How much of that budget?

MrGeezer

I don't know, thinking about it it must be around a third of the budget.

Designing the innovative camera system took a few years. WETA built a second mo-cap stage and increased its CGI farm by 50% or so. They wrote groundbreaking software - ILM wanted to buy the program that creates realistic eyes, which was the Holy Grail of CGI, and they refused to sell it. The performance capture technology sets a new standard. Many CGI assets can be reused, and not only for the sequels.

Directors like Ridley Scott, Spielberg, Soderbergh, Favreau, del Torro and others are already using the stuff created for Avatar. Tintin and The Forever War use the very same cameras, CGI software and performance capture technology.

It's an investition that will pay off a lot in the future. Even if Avatar tanked, they would've made a profit from licensing their technologies and funding movies in partnership with WETA.

Those rumours about a 500 million budget were bullcrap, since Avatar wasn't made in 1999 because the cost was too high - 400 million...

I don't think any sane person expected Avatar to make more than Alvin today. Just like nobody though it would pull off these numbers Monday and Tuesday.

And anyway, FOX is the true winner, since it produced both movies.

It's only a matter of time.

Baranga

3D seems to give more life and immediacy to the sense of place but I just dont see why it would be necessary in anything other than these high concept films. It doesn't make the film anymore emotive, unless the script allows it.

I mean, whats next? Mystic River 2.0: He's Back and He's Angry (3D)?

Again this goes back to a similar point I made a few months ago, about the studios and the big highly payed stars. If every film is put into 3D thats a lot of money being thrown around when people might not see these films.

Smaller independent films that are significantly cheaper - IE: Paranormal Activity, Juno - have made it big, without outstanding visuals.

I'm not surprised. Avatar is all hype. And honestly, I hope it bombs and proves that a good movie doesn't have to cost over $300 million.

foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="Baranga"]

It's only a matter of time.

biggest_loser

3D seems to give more life and immediacy to the sense of place but I just dont see why it would be necessary in anything other than these high concept films. It doesn't make the film anymore emotive, unless the script allows it.

I mean, whats next? Mystic River 2.0: He's Back and He's Angry (3D)?

You can slap together two cameras and make a 3D movie. Like My Bloody Valentine.

Independent filmmakers couldn't afford digital cameras back when Vidocq was launched, look how that changed. By the end of 2014, it's estimated 40 million 3D TVs will be sold. In 2004, HDTVs were basically alien technology...

If they focus on narrative and character, then why most of them try to make a visually striking movie? And what does a movie lose if it's using 3D? Is it not better to be more lifelike?

I don't know, thinking about it it must be around a third of the budget.

Designing the innovative camera system took a few years. WETA built a second mo-cap stage and increased its CGI farm by 50% or so. They wrote groundbreaking software - ILM wanted to buy the program that creates realistic eyes, which was the Holy Grail of CGI, and they refused to sell it. The performance capture technology sets a new standard. Many CGI assets can be reused, and not only for the sequels.

Directors like Ridley Scott, Spielberg, Soderbergh, Favreau, del Torro and others are already using the stuff created for Avatar. Tintin and The Forever War use the very same cameras, CGI software and performance capture technology.

It's an investition that will pay off a lot in the future. Even if Avatar tanked, they would've made a profit from licensing their technologies and funding movies in partnership with WETA.

Those rumours about a 500 million budget were bullcrap, since Avatar wasn't made in 1999 because the cost was too high - 400 million...

I don't think any sane person expected Avatar to make more than Alvin today. Just like nobody though it would pull off these numbers Monday and Tuesday.

And anyway, FOX is the true winner, since it produced both movies.

Baranga

Which makes the "movie" out to be in the $160 million range, easily "big budget blockbuster" territory.

You just threw out a bunch of names, but ALL of those are prominemt directors who are going to be making movies and having no problem getting them seen. A few of those guys are even over the hill. Spielberg? Scott? They're long past their prime, getting by on name recognition alone.

Again, I don't give a crap if those guys get a new toy to play with. I don't live in a major city. It's pretty much guaranteed that I'm gonna get to see these guys' movies on the big screen. But when someone like Kathryn Bigelow comes along and directs a movie that's getting serious press as a contender for best movie of the year, it is extremely disappointing to NOT be able to see it so that the cinema can add another showing of Transformers or something.

Unless you happen to live in a major city with a significant "art house scene", then it's getting harder for a lot of people to see anything BUT the blockbusters and the "sure bets".

If they focus on narrative and character, then why most of them try to make a visually striking movie? And what does a movie lose if it's using 3D? Is it not better to be more lifelike?

Baranga

Because "striking visuals" tend to get people's asses in seats.

Why do you think Michael Bay's and Roland Emmerich's movies make so much money, even though they suck?

[QUOTE="biggest_loser"]

[QUOTE="Baranga"]

It's only a matter of time.

Baranga

3D seems to give more life and immediacy to the sense of place but I just dont see why it would be necessary in anything other than these high concept films. It doesn't make the film anymore emotive, unless the script allows it.

I mean, whats next? Mystic River 2.0: He's Back and He's Angry (3D)?

You can slap together two cameras and make a 3D movie. Like My Bloody Valentine.

Independent filmmakers couldn't afford digital cameras back when Vidocq was launched, look how that changed. By the end of 2014, it's estimated 40 million 3D TVs will be sold. In 2004, HDTVs were basically alien technology...

If they focus on narrative and character, then why most of them try to make a visually striking movie? And what does a movie lose if it's using 3D? Is it not better to be more lifelike?

Well you know more about the finance than I do.

I didn't say it loses anything. A film can be visually striking without being elaborate, as in 'we set out to make you take notice of the colour scheme' or whatever.

A lot of Eastwood's films are very simply and cleanly shot and still remain immediate and extremely effective.

If you can educate myself and others as to why a simple drama or a small budget comedy like Juno needs 3D effects then I'm all ears.

The sort of films that embrace the technology well are fantasy epics that make these magical places seem more real. Thats all fine and its smartly used there.

But with a film like Juno, which is not about visuals, I dont need to be as thoroughly convinced that its life-like through 3D because the themes and issues in the script are what makes it 'real', human.

You can never underestimate how life-like a script will make a film. Thats why really counts.

If you had a really terrible and unlikely scenarios with a script, then no 3D tech in the world is going to make it more credible just because its coming towards you off the screen and seems like you can touch it.

And also: Remember we're paying a lot more to see these films in 3D here in Australia.

$20 for a movie?!

And also: Remember we're paying a lot more to see these films in 3D here in Australia.

$20 for a movie?!

biggest_loser

I'm sure that the ticket prices will go down eventually (even though I've NEVER personally seen ticket prices go down in my city).

[QUOTE="biggest_loser"]

And also: Remember we're paying a lot more to see these films in 3D here in Australia.

$20 for a movie?!

MrGeezer

I'm sure that the ticket prices will go down eventually (even though I've NEVER personally seen ticket prices go down in my city).

[QUOTE="lil_zelda_dude"]And to foxhound, ignorant is not a name its a description. And you still can't back up anything you have said because of one simply fact, you havent even seen the movie.foxhound_fox

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/avatar/?critic=creamcrop

It actually has received universal praise.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]

[QUOTE="lil_zelda_dude"]And to foxhound, ignorant is not a name its a description. And you still can't back up anything you have said because of one simply fact, you havent even seen the movie.reveiwer

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/avatar/?critic=creamcrop

It actually has received universal praise.

So has this POS. Have you actually seen this thing?!

Money cant buy me love...yeesh...if only..

Its all subjective though.

Its all subjective though.

biggest_loser

You're right. I loved Avatar to death, I reserve the right to love Avatar to death, and I will continue loving Avatar to death until the inevitable Avatar 2.

[QUOTE="biggest_loser"]

Its all subjective though.

psn8214

You're right. I loved Avatar to death, I reserve the right to love Avatar to death, and I will continue loving Avatar to death until the inevitable Avatar 2.

[QUOTE="psn8214"]

[QUOTE="biggest_loser"]

Its all subjective though.

biggest_loser

You're right. I loved Avatar to death, I reserve the right to love Avatar to death, and I will continue loving Avatar to death until the inevitable Avatar 2.

Maybe, but it will be worth it. In the meantime, I can hardly wait to see Avatar again in IMAX...

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/avatar/?critic=creamcrop

It actually has received universal praise.

reveiwer

avatar has made 300mil so far and GOING!!. Alvin wont break 200mil everLanceSSJ

it is all opinion to begin with.

foxhound_fox

Very true. I would rate the film higher than most of those reviews... :P

[QUOTE="reveiwer"]http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/avatar/?critic=creamcrop

It actually has received universal praise.

foxhound_fox

Well have fun watching all of your movies that were rated %100 on RT while everybody enjoys the visual phenomenon that goes by 'Avatar.'

I liked District 9 more than avatar. The fact that it is done on a moderate budget makes it even more impressive.

I liked District 9 more than avatar. The fact that it is done on a moderate budget makes it even more impressive.

tonberry007

i saw district 9 today, eh, what's so good about it?

Avatar still is one of the best movies I seen, how in the hell is that movie beating it. OH WAIT!!!!!!!! a lil kids movie ummmm I wonder?

[QUOTE="reveiwer"]http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/avatar/?critic=creamcrop

It actually has received universal praise.

foxhound_fox

and wat makes ur opinion higher than everyone else, OH YEAH ur the guy that thinks a 94% isnt a good score. I know ur opinion has to be of the most important.

Alvin & Chipmunks looks reallyyyy annoying. I'm not seeing that movie.Immortalica

Compare Chipmunks opening day to Avatar's opening day. Avatar wins. But that shouldn't matter. My main concern is... People are actually seeing that Chipmunk movie? I guess there's a lot of kids out there.Nerd_Man

Agreed. :P

I'm watching Coraline tonight. I'm really looking forward to it. :D

[QUOTE="tonberry007"]

I liked District 9 more than avatar. The fact that it is done on a moderate budget makes it even more impressive.

Ncsoftlover

i saw district 9 today, eh, what's so good about it?

The mock-documentary was actually quite well done and in the opening things like the characters weren't to clean cut.

Well have fun watching all of your movies that were rated %100 on RT while everybody enjoys the visual phenomenon that goes by 'Avatar.'

Jipset

I never knew 94/100 was a low score, when I get a 94% on a test paper the teacher call that a A and I think A's are good but I could be wrong!!!

and wat makes ur opinion higher than everyone else, OH YEAH ur the guy that thinks a 94% isnt a good score. I know ur opinion has to be of the most important.

x8VXU6

I'm not surprised. Avatar is all hype. And honestly, I hope it bombs and proves that a good movie doesn't have to cost over $300 million.

foxhound_fox

I agree wth you. I was utterly disappointed with Avatar, it was a pretty mediocre film. I didn't even find it entertaining; I was bored half way through. With the money Cameron spent on Avatar a good film maker could've made 10 films. I think Avatar is getting to much praise for its visuals and too little criticism for everything else.

I'm not surprised. Avatar is all hype. And honestly, I hope it bombs and proves that a good movie doesn't have to cost over $300 million.

foxhound_fox

I enjoyed Alvin and the Chipmunks 2 way more than that overhyped Avatar.

People are actually paying to see Alvin and the Chipmunks 2? :?chessmaster1989

you got to be kidding me :|

It's only the first day it's out and Avatar has been out a week. We'll wait until Monday to see who came out on top.

I'm seeing both. :oops:

Renegade_Fury

omg lol

it's not just the kids who are watching the movie, it's the parents as well....

I'm seeing both. :oops:

[QUOTE="Renegade_Fury"]KYLEseXY

omg lol

I'm seeing both. :oops:

[QUOTE="Renegade_Fury"]KYLEseXY

omg lol

Alvin dropped 57% yesterday. Holy cow. It grossed 8 million, and Avatar 11.

Well, that settles it.

Also George Clooney's Yearly Oscar Bait is at number 3.

[QUOTE="KYLEseXY"]

I'm seeing both. :oops:biggest_loser

lol! You can go with my 23 year old brother when he sees Alvin!

I'm actually going with asome of my co-workersin their 20s (like me (and your brother)) and someone in his 40s. We just think it's a light, fun to watch movie...

[QUOTE="KYLEseXY"]

I'm seeing both. :oops:

[QUOTE="Renegade_Fury"]Juggernaut140

omg lol