Saturday February 11, 2012 7:53 AM AEST

The massive success of Avatar

By Simon Brew
10:10 Jan 12, 2010 | 31 Comments
Tags: avatar | critical | success | james | cameron | topoftheworld | movie | news
 »
The massive success of Avatar

Six months ago Avatar was all set to fail big time? Yet now James Cameron sits atop another huge commercial and critical hit. So just what happened?

It's not, to be fair, the first time that James Cameron has triumphed against the odds. It's been an oft-told story over the past month that he stared into the eyes of disaster before, throughout the notorious production of Titanic back in the mid-to-late 90s.

Back then, everyone knew better than Cameron: the film was going to bomb, it was going to lose lots of money, and his career was going to come tumbling to an end. Terminator and True Lies sequels were to be the best he could hope for afterwards.

And Titanic, let's remember, was made before the influence of the Internet came to pass. Can you just imagine the tittle-tattle that would be around now, had Titanic been made under the scrutinising gaze of the online world?

The press the movie was receiving prior to its release was savage enough as it stood. Had online swords been allowed anywhere near it, it would have been beaten harder than a piñata at a particularly sugar-fuelled kids birthday party.

Hindsight has, I'd argue, tempered the critical reaction to Titanic somewhat (it has moments of utter brilliance, but the love story is still sappy and hardly Cameron's strength), but it's hard to contest the numbers. The film stands as the most successful (not adjusted for inflation) movie of all time, a position it's held for over a decade now. Furthermore, its $US1.8bn worldwide box office takings haven't been challenged in the remotest since. The closest any other film has come has been the $US1.119bn that Lord Of The Rings: Return Of The King brought in. Only Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest and The Dark Knight have grossed the billion mark at all.

Then Avatar came along.

However you look at it, Fox's marketing campaign for Avatar came across as erratic. For most of 2009, nothing was seen of the film at all, unusual for what was slated as one of the biggest releases of the year. This, of course, led to the build up to what we can fairly call that trailer.

We're talking about the original, underwhelming promo for Avatar that impressed some, but left many wondering whether James Cameron was, once more, staring disaster in the face. It wasn't a bad trailer, in hindsight. But neither was it the kind that shook you by the shoulders and demanded that you go to see the film.

And given the reports of the price tag for Avatar, that's the kind of trailer that many were expecting to see. What we knew about the film, up until that point, was more about the technological side of things, with 3D taking centre stage.

What we knew about the film after that trailer wasn't a great deal more than that. And while it may seem a little unfair that so much was heaped on the shoulders of just over two minutes of footage, it did lead to suspicions that Avatar might be all style, no substance.

Fox, however, reacted, and from where we were sitting, it seemed to go overboard in the other direction. Perhaps the days are gone when a major blockbuster can hit cinema screens without at least 10-20 minutes of footage being released in advance, but there was a period of a month of two in the build up to Avatar's release when it seemed that pretty much every day there was a new clip, new featurette or piece of promotional material.

That's on top of the unprecedented screening of nearly 20 minutes of the film at the end of the summer, which drew thousands upon thousands of people around the world into cinemas just to see some material from a film still months away from release.

Even then, however, while interest in Avatar was clearly high, the consensus didn't seem to be that the film itself was looking particularly staggering. Ferngully? Dances With Wolves? The parallels were being thrown in its direction (with some grains of truth to them, as it turned out). And when the first press screenings of the film began, there was a genuine feeling that people had no idea how strong a film they were going to get. It felt like it could go either way. Just what kind of film was Avatar going to be?

 
 »
 
Behind the scenes with Mass Effect 3! GTX 560 VGA round-up! Essential Skyrim tweaks to improve your game! Plus reviews, news, hardware, more games, and easy to following modding guides for PC builders. ON SALE NOW!
31 Comments
31imin8r
Jan 12, 2010 2:02 PM
I for one, loathed the trailer when I first saw it (i think when watching Funny People?) the reason is.. Because I thought it was Avatar (the last air bender) and I was going through a phase with that.

So I watched the trailer, disgusted, I quote myself "thats the biggest piece of crap ever, it will ultimately fail". I immediately put it on my "movies I am not going to see" list and never gave it a second look.

Then I started to see "behind Jame's Cameron's Avatar" specials on the TV, and I was watching, amazed at how he was doing all of this great stuff over 4 Years!

The day is came out, I booked myself a Vmax session with 3D. to say I was blown away, would be a massive understatement, sure the general plot is very generic, and can be reference to other movies, the fact that Mr Cameron came up with the entire world, the Na'vi, the planes and ships they use, right down to the plant and creatures, all came out of that man's imagination, and I would be honored to meet him.

I confess... I have Avatar Fever, I have seen it 4 times, all Vmax 3D, I'm too scared that watching it 2D will wreck it for me, 3D is just way to engrossing.

What amazes me is (I'm on the Gold Coast) the Event cinemas at Robina (the biggest and best, the only one with Vmax) is SOLD OUT for Avatar, both Vmax, Gold Class and normal, for the next Week! BOOKED SOLID!

This Movie, I believe, WILL be the biggest movie of all time...

How about that Sherlock Holmes movie... pretty good aye? Shame its over shadowed by Avatar, that must effect it's taking wouldn't it?

Ok I've stopped my fanboism.

Peace.

-31imin8r
hectorbustnuts
Jan 12, 2010 2:26 PM


I think I'm the only person to think that "Sherlock Holmes" was average...at best.

A serviceable enough popcorn film, but nothing exceptionally praise-worthy. Three stars, tops.

*Might* have been three and a half if the Australian version hadn't had the Rachel McAdams in a corset scene trimmed out.

"From Hell" did it all much better, I feel.
tantryl
Jan 12, 2010 2:33 PM
Ditto to hector on the Holmes remark. It's entertaining enough, but I wouldn't go as far as to call it good.
Hawkeye
Jan 12, 2010 2:37 PM
Gotta disagree - Downey Jr's Holmes is one of my latest movie boyfriends :)

In fact, I'd say it's a better film than Avatar...
hectorbustnuts
Jan 12, 2010 2:49 PM

I think Downey Jr. played his part well enough and I was surprised at enjoying Jude Law's performance, his usual low-key, stand-on-the-mark-and-say-the-line style working in Watson's favour. But apart from that...nothing to make it a real stand-out film.

It brought no real innovation to the characters, setting or genre, McAdams and Strong were both frightfully underused, and I felt the climax lacked any real punch, both visually (I found the CG Tower Bridge very lacking) and the story had too many ingredients but came out the oven too early.

I really wanted to like it, hoping for a Ritchie-redeeming film, but all I saw was a throw-away, middle of the road Hollywood flick.

orcone
Jan 12, 2010 3:07 PM
Lion King with guns.
Hawkeye
Jan 12, 2010 3:25 PM
"It brought no real innovation to the characters, setting or genre,"

So, it's just like Avatar, huh?

:)
tantryl
Jan 12, 2010 3:33 PM
As I've mentioned in one of the threads, Sherlock Holmes had a lot going for it. Downey and Jude Law were unquestionably good and McAdams and Strong played their roles well.

The story was just poorly told. I didn't once feel that any of the characters believed in magic (which seemed essential to their motivation). There were odd inconsistencies like setting up Holmes' fight analysis then not using it and Watsons' miraculous physical recovery and odd abscence from the device that he'd just choked out a giant next to when Moriarty removed a piece of machinery and why was there a bobby there that early on?

It was all... just... off. The characters especially. The only nuance they were given seemed to be good actor choices (like the way Downey ate his steak after getting a face full of vino).

Haven't seen Avatar yet, so can't really make a comparison.
hectorbustnuts
Jan 12, 2010 3:54 PM

Yes, but Avatar DID bring innovation on the technology side, as well you know.

Had "Sherlock Holmes" been presented as the visual smorgasbord that "Avatar" was, it would've been a different story altogether.

:D

tantryl also concisely sums up many of my other gripes with the film.

"...McAdams and Strong played their roles well." should really be followed by "with the little they were given" and the entire Moriarty/sequel set-up felt terribly tacked on, truth be told.

I felt Downey, too, could have done more. Much of his performance echoed his now 15 year old portrayal of Chaplin. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, he was brilliant in "Chaplin", but it wasn't really anything new.

Like I say, a three-star movie. Could've been better, could've been worse. Maybe an eventual bargain-bin DVD purchase, but I'm more likely to re-watch Depp in "From Hell" than Downey Jr. in "Sherlock Holmes" for my Old-London-Town-murder-mystery-with-a-touch-of-the-black arts filmic enjoyment.
Hawkeye
Jan 12, 2010 4:03 PM
Na, gotta disagree - I thoroughly enjoyed Holmes. Got a lot more actual entertainment out of it than I did Avatar.
GhostFaceKilla
Jan 12, 2010 4:08 PM
Awful awful cliched movie with virtualy every scene and story line unashamedly stolen from other movies with every character a 2 Dimensional cariacture enveloped in shallowness. It had me yawning and looking at my watch. Virtually every dialouge scene is cringe worthy.

The actual world, in attempting to be all alien, clearly stumped the designers who were unabvle to actually think realistically what an alien planet would look like. The world they came up with is merely a mirror of our own, with attempts to differntiate it defying the laws of physics (floating mountains?) and evolutuionary biology (horses with 6 legs? Why oh why??). And so on and so on.

Objectively, imo quite possibly one of the worst 'sci-fi' movies ever made. To suggest objectively otherwise says 1) you are aged between 8 and 14 years old, and/or 2) you have watched zero sci-fi till now, and/or 3) you have never seen Dances with Wolves, Braveheart and so on.

Extremely dissapointing.
hectorbustnuts
Jan 12, 2010 4:17 PM

More power to you, Hawkeye!

I seem to be in the majority for disliking "Sherlock Holmes". Actually, "dislike" is too strong I think..."disappointed" is more apt, for the distance between "could have been" and "was".

I think this too reflects your "Avatar" dilemma. All the elements that went into "Avatar", James Cameron's magic touch etc. and being disappointed with what the end result was, compared to what it could have been.
Hawkeye
Jan 12, 2010 4:29 PM
Yeah, and even more so when you look at the true quality SF that came out last year. The idea that Avatar might pick up a Best Film Oscar, when clearly better films like Moon and District 9 don't even get a mention, is nothing short of... well, cranky-making!
31imin8r
Jan 12, 2010 4:30 PM
"awful cliched movie with virtualy every scene and story line unashamedly stolen from other movies"

What movie dosn't contain element of other movies these days? look at almost every boxing movie out there.. Most of them have the struggling boxer, the big fight, and the big victory... (one of many examples). I beleive it is becomming a real challenge for writters to come up with original content.

Now im not saying this to start a fight, so dont go in that direction, I will not participate, I m just respectivly opposing your comment there.

If you dont like the plot/design of Avatar, at least give it the recognition of the technological advancements it made along the way, the CGI in that movie is nothing short of amazing, flawless, nothing IMHO looked cheesy (as opposed to the latest Transformers).
Hawkeye
Jan 12, 2010 4:36 PM
No argument here - it's an amazing technical achievement, and entertaining enough in its own way.

But greatest movie ever made? Hell no. Not even best movie of the year. As a demo-reel for a new tech it's top notch, though :)
hectorbustnuts
Jan 12, 2010 4:55 PM

I'm right there with you.

"Moon" was an absolute stand-out film of 2009, with a tiny budget and just oozing atmosphere.

"Star Trek" eclipsed all my expectations and was a hell of a lot more fun than Avatar (I've gone as far as to call it my #1 film of 2009).

"District 9" I really liked, but seeing it in a double-bill with "Moon" put me in all the wrong head-space to fully enjoy it. Must pick it up on Blu-ray and re-watch it.

And the woefully unrecognised "Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs" was one of the most fun-filled movies of 2009 for my money. Completely fantastical in its sci-fi elements, it was a damn good movie.

http://forums.atomicmpc.com.au/index.php?showtopic=25657
Hawkeye
Jan 12, 2010 5:00 PM
I only saw Moon on the weekend, and it was stunning. From the set design, to the music, to the acting and the absolutely kick arse plotting... loved it.

And it's directed by David Fucking Bowie's son!
Hawkeye
Jan 12, 2010 5:19 PM
Uh... spoilers?!
hectorbustnuts
Jan 12, 2010 5:24 PM

I've not said anything that's not in the trailer...I don't think.

And there's no edit function here to remedy it. Feel free to kill the post at your end if you can.
Hawkeye
Jan 12, 2010 5:28 PM
The trailer does suggest stuff, but it could be a lot of things... I know if I'd read that before the weekend I'd feel annoyed :)
SlickGrunt
Jan 12, 2010 5:32 PM
So glad that Avatar came through; kudos to the cast and crew.
hectorbustnuts
Jan 12, 2010 5:36 PM
That's cool. Just re-watched the trailer and, yeah...I *was* a shade over the line of spoilerdom.
Atosniper
Jan 12, 2010 7:03 PM
I agree with Hawkeye for once yay! Think we share movie tastes better than gaming tastes O_o
t1k
Jan 12, 2010 9:01 PM
I'm a HUGE James Cameron fan but I'm sorry.. Avatar is more like a Disney movie than a Cameron film. Cameron films are hardcore sci-fi and thrillers.. Avatar is so damn candy-arsed. I was bored shitless for the first hour (apart from oggeling the 3D which was indeed entertaining) and thankfully it picked up after the first hour and got moving a bit.

I'm not saying it's Disney because it's a retelling of the oft-told tale that was also told in Pochahontas... I'm saying it's Disney because it lacked what ever other Cameron film had in spades.. HUGE BALLS and a HUGE HEART.

1000
the_13th
Jan 12, 2010 10:50 PM
Too my Fern Tree Gulley references have been noticed ;)

I enjoyed the movie myself, not saying its the best movie ever and time will tell as far as movie of the year is concerned but i think it was a genuine achievement
w1LLz
Jan 12, 2010 11:01 PM
Take away the 3d-ness and uber cgi you are left with not much of a movie, but i guess that's what the masses want these days (all for show). Typical 'you're following a good guy on a quest to slay some baddies then you find out you're on the wrong side and swap sides...' probably would not watch it again. Like a Lady of the night they look great but it's dead on the inside. My 2cents
silpheed
Jan 14, 2010 10:07 PM
Saw it with my brother and he said it was ok but nothing on District 9 - which I haven't seen...

I feel it works cause its talking to people about our world right now - trashing the planet and the lack of connectedness - and that's what the majority are coming back for... maybe its the whole 2012 thing kicking in and people just want to know they are loved ;)

I'll go back for a second helping of the 3D super mush scifi though before its out of the cinema... nice one James!
pumpjockey02
Jan 15, 2010 10:02 AM
In the UK Loved sherlock holmes as I am a robert downey fanboy and it was very british!!! Also did not even faint an
intrest in avatar, but saw it in 3d and wow it was good!!!
You cant have every movie to be the best ever and you are far to hard on these two movies, I saw two very good films which i thought was better than moon, harry brown and nativity because it directly effected my life living in the uk.
Anyway just be happy they both were not flops like the new vampire movie with sam neal and the actor out of gattica absolute rubbish.
Seloh
Jan 15, 2010 11:51 AM
I just want those curved HUD screen monitors they had in the offices of the mining company :)
Timmeh
Jan 16, 2010 4:48 PM
I'd give this a solid 7/10. Its got great CGI but thats about it.
Aliens is James Camerons masterpiece.
Bundywow
Jan 18, 2010 10:18 AM
I have heard rumours that James Cameron will start making hardcore 3D pornos.... I know I'm sold..
Comments have been disabled on this article.
 
Latest Competitions
 
Atomic Magazine

Issue: 133 | February, 2012

Atomic is a magazine aimed squarely at computer enthusiasts, gamers, and serious PC upgraders.

Every month we bring you the latest reviews of new technology and PC components, in depth features on everything from overclocking to console hacking, and gaming previews and interviews.
 
Latest Comments
 
Latest User Reviews
Battlefield 3 is the new benchmark online FPS
90%
A very fun and realistic multiplayer ride.
 
Antec Kuhler 920 - liquid cool
90%
Antec Kuhler 920 silent but effientive out of the box no maintence water cooling kit
 
Antec's Lanboy Air - our new favourite case
90%
Antec Lan boy Air in red a very cool design
 
Antec's Lanboy Air - our new favourite case
90%
This product overall is awesome.
 
MSI's GT780 laptop as fast as it gets
90%
Nice laptop
 
 
Close Get the February, 2012 issue of Atomic mailed to you for $8.95, including postage.

Buy nowDigital Version