the rum soaked fist: internal martial arts forum

Hmm, I remember when there was a big todo about "Cleopatra" with Liz Taylor. She got 1 million for that role and people thought stuff was getting out of hand. I wonder how Cameron would compare to DW Griffith, DeMille or Irwin Allen, or even Chaplin in terms of the relative cost of making a film to revenue returns, adjusting for inflation, of course.

Steve James wrote:Imo, what eventually matters is how many people go back to theaters to re-see the film. That's what will really add up.

I think so too... This is exactly how Dark Knight got so high IMO.

More generally/switching the topic for a moment -- it really sucks that quality of movies apparently have very, very little effect on their box office success.
I can't believe Alvin and the goddamn chipmunks (rated the measly 3.0 on IMDb which judging from the previews it fully deserves) earned more than really good ones like 'Up in the Air' and 'Princess and the Frog'...

fuga wrote:I am not sure that is has reached profitable yet. Didn't it cost $500 million to make?

Just found this... Looks like it's already doing a LOT better than I thought, worldwide -- it's currently #2 at $760,800,000
(source)

Alien's tits should have been bigger.

'Avatar' passes 'Star Wars' with $491.8M in US

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- James Cameron's "Avatar" has shot past "Star Wars" to become the No. 3 movie on the all-time domestic box office charts. Next stop: "The Dark Knight."

Cameron's sci-fi saga took in $41.3 million over the weekend, raising its domestic total to $491.8 million. Worldwide, "Avatar" has grossed $1.5 billion.

"Avatar" topped "Star Wars," which took in $460.9 million domestically in its original run and several reissues over the years. Factoring in today's higher admission prices, "Star Wars" remains well ahead on actual number of tickets sold.

"Avatar" is closing on "The Dark Knight," No. 2 domestically with $533.3 million. After that, only Cameron's "Titanic" at $600 million will remain ahead of "Avatar" domestically.

Michael wrote:Alien's tits should have been bigger.

all I needed to know. cheers, Michael.

Avatar - IGNORED!

Yeah, but Ian, he didn't mention that she's got a tail... that should compensate for your virtual loss there, no?

Ignore unless you can sustain interest in tree hours of B- cup, blue-skinned side boob. And there's almost nothing political in the film. One reference to Iraq, one reference to Afghanistan, and vague references to US foreign policy, a la economic hitman, corporate raiders, etc. One good performance in the whole film from the guy playing the USMC Colonel. The suckiness of this movie begs oodles of description, but is not worth the time. Sigourney Weaver's lines were so lame. Cliché-o-rama to the max.

Why did 2012 have to be out of the theaters? Why? I like John Cusack.

Dmitri, if I needed to fap to alien tail, I'd watch something Japanese. Btw, Avatar pr0n - we all know it's coming.

B-cup side boob

lol

Ian wrote:

Michael wrote:Alien's tits should have been bigger.

all I needed to know. cheers, Michael.

Avatar - IGNORED!

They were big enough considering the size of the things.

I liked it, they took enough time to develop the story. There were some cliches though but it was very entertaining.


Still, LOTR was much better even though it was in plain ol' 2D.

I just saw it. Go see it while it's still in the theatres, and make sure to see the 3D version. I think if I'd seen it in regular 2D I would not have been nearly as impressed.

Saw it a few weeks back, i got a good copy from a nice fella selling pirate dvds near my house, cost me 25 pesos, approximately 40 pence, uk. I hadnt heard any hype or anything so had no expectations, in fact i thought it was one for the kids. Thoroughly enjoyed the whole movie but again i had no expectations and i would definitely not put my tackle anywhere near any creature with a tail ( especially after seeing the thread of the goat with a human face ) but thats just me and probs gonna go see it at IMAX/ 3D too which will undoubtedly cost me a hell of a lot more than my original 25 peso street copy.
Picked up a copy of Guy Ritchies Sherlock Homes movie too which is very, very nice. Robert Downey Jr makes a great Sherlock Homes with a very nice bare knuckle fight scene where he analyzes which bones, organs to hit as he fights to inflict the most damage Jude Law was not too bad either.

Haven't seen it but just wanted to mention, the reports of the movie having been banned are apparently overrated. It was playing in theaters in Beijing just a couple days ago. Not sure what the whole hubub was about.

Saw it in 3D last week, special effects were cool and i did dodge one of the gas canisters that were fired into the tree, it missed me and hit the guy behind me. I heard him scream for his momma!
Story and acting were playing second fiddle to the special effect but still worth going to see.
Omar it was the 2D version that was to be banned not the 3D version!

Ditto what Allen said. The plot was cliche, and even Sigourney Weaver was not anything special, though to be fair she didn't have much of a character or script to work with. The star was the special effects and stunning scenery, themselves worth the cost of admission.

The 3-D was okay, but in the scenes where it was supposed to be the most prominent I took the glasses off and put them back on to compare the effects, and found that there wasn't a big difference in "dimension." However, if you watch the 3-D edition without the glasses for too long, it makes you nauseous since the images are slightly out of synch so that wearing the 3-D glasses "aligns" and layers them to create the 3-D effect. Maybe that could be part of the fun.