CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › Is the AVATAR Footage Playing to Half Empty Theaters?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is the AVATAR Footage Playing to Half Empty Theaters? - Page 5

post #201 of 211
9/7/09 at 8:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andre Dellamorte View Post
Avatar is THE MOST EXPENSIVE MOVIE EVER MADE.
If it does indeed cost $300 million, once one factors inflation the 1968 Sergei Bondarchuk-directed Soviet government funded War and Peace still wins. In today's dollars that movie cost about $700 million. It's 8 hours long, shot on 70mm film, props and costumes taken out of museums, and the 2nd most extras in a film ever (GANDHI is #1 for that apparently).

As a side note, Tolstoy would be spinning in his grave over that. He had an intensely moral view of art, regarding both its content and its practical execution. In the book What Is Art? he asserts that opera is an immoral art form because of the tremendous expense involved; he felt that since an equally great artistic achievement could be had through poetry or painting or (minimalistic) theater at a miniscule cost, then massive sums of money shouldn't be spent on operas while people are starving to death.
(Mind you, I'm here, obviously I love movies, I just think it's kind of ironic that the MOST EXPENSIVE MOVIE EVER was a fiercely loyal all-out Tolstoy adaptation)
Reply
post #202 of 211
9/7/09 at 8:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Van Damme View Post
If it does indeed cost $300 million, once one factors inflation the 1968 Sergei Bondarchuk-directed Soviet government funded War and Peace still wins. In today's dollars that movie cost about $700 million. It's 8 hours long, shot on 70mm film, props and costumes taken out of museums, and the 2nd most extras in a film ever (GANDHI is #1 for that apparently).

As a side note, Tolstoy would be spinning in his grave over that. He had an intensely moral view of art, regarding both its content and its practical execution. In the book What , I just think it's kind of ironic that the MOST EXPENSIVE MOVIE EVER was a fiercely loyal all-ouIs Art? he asserts that opera is an immoral art form because of the tremendous expense involved; he felt that since an equally great artistic achievement could be had through poetry or painting or (minimalistic) theater at a miniscule cost, then massive sums of money shouldn't be spent on operas while people are starving to death.
(Mind you, I'm here, obviously I love moviest Tolstoy adaptation)

That is fascinating, I'll have to read up on it! What sort of museum items were used?

I just also must say I stand in firm opposition to this trend of adjusting for inflation for everything from film budgets to box office receipts. When did this start? I think it should be about which number is larger --the numbers only--, not the relative buying power of the numbers when translated to real world economics and adjusted for the era the film was released.
Reply
post #203 of 211
9/7/09 at 8:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess Kate View Post
That is fascinating, I'll have to read up on it! What sort of museum items were used?
I don't know specifically, but wikipedia says: "According to the Guinness Book of Records, the Battle of Borodino scene included 120,000 soldiers, making it one of the largest battle scenes ever filmed. Many museums in the USSR contributed artifacts for the production design, making it one of the most elaborate films ever created."

Quote:
I just also must say I stand in firm opposition to this trend of adjusting for inflation for everything from film budgets to box office receipts. When did this start? I think it should be about which number is larger --the numbers only--, not the relative buying power of the numbers when translated to real world economics and adjusted for the era the film was released.
Why? Money doesn't have absolute value- its value is purely derived from what it can buy. "The numbers only" are completely meaningless information without that context. If we went by the numbers only, War and Peace would seem like a miraculous production, after all, they only spent $100 million for 8 hours of gigantic epic.
Reply
post #204 of 211
9/8/09 at 12:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess Kate View Post

I just also must say I stand in firm opposition to this trend of adjusting for inflation for everything from film budgets to box office receipts. When did this start? I think it should be about which number is larger --the numbers only--, not the relative buying power of the numbers when translated to real world economics and adjusted for the era the film was released.
I've never heard of anyone standing in 'firm opposition' to this so-called trend. You're amazing. By adjusting for inflation, it becomes plausible to figure out the attendance for a particular film, if one were so inclined. Money may be everything, but it ain't everything. Unless you have some kind of emotional stake at making sure such-and-such movie is the highest grosser ever. But that's childish.
Reply
post #205 of 211
9/8/09 at 10:11am
It should be measured in tickets sold, nothing else.
Reply
post #206 of 211
9/8/09 at 1:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
I've never heard of anyone standing in 'firm opposition' to this so-called trend. You're amazing. By adjusting for inflation, it becomes plausible to figure out the attendance for a particular film, if one were so inclined. Money may be everything, but it ain't everything. Unless you have some kind of emotional stake at making sure such-and-such movie is the highest grosser ever. But that's childish.
Well just to try and explain myself a bit further....
Back when I was into Star Wars, I loved the idea of adjusting for inflation. It meant that Titanic was not really the number one movie of all time. You see, I DID have an emotional stake in adjusting for inflation, and yes, it was childish.

Then came the prequels, D-'s and F's in Geometry and other Maths, and a general lack of patience for calculations on my part.

I soon realized that things were much easier to understand and deal with as numbers only , rather than trying to connect a value or meaning to the sum. I feel that if we could all just agree on some uniform ranking system that dealt with numbers only that this would be alot easier to understand for the armature cineast. A system devoid of emotion and nostalgia, based upon unchanging figures and facts.
Reply
post #207 of 211
9/8/09 at 1:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitches Leave View Post
It should be measured in tickets sold, nothing else.
I'd be all for that. Whatever system we ultimately choose it should be based upon numbers whose meaning does not change with time.
Reply
post #208 of 211
9/8/09 at 7:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Princess Kate View Post
A system devoid of emotion and nostalgia
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahaha..ha..h a..a


whew...I agree with Jake. please don't ever change
Reply
post #209 of 211
9/8/09 at 9:19pm
Could Kate be an objectivist? Exposed to too much Scott Holleran during his time at Box Office Mojo?
Reply
post #210 of 211
9/8/09 at 11:47pm
My 2 cents... Maybe people don't want to see only 16 minutes of a (supposedly) 2+ hour film? My guess is people don't want the "experience" spoiled for them by going to this preview.
Reply
post #211 of 211
9/9/09 at 5:39am
Or a helluva lot of people simply booked the free tickets online just in case they had a chance to go, which many people then didn't. I know that would happen around here.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: CHUD.COM Main
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › Is the AVATAR Footage Playing to Half Empty Theaters?