my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Ground Level   » 2012 vs. Avatar (Page 2)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Author Topic: 2012 vs. Avatar John Wilson Film God Posts: 5438 From: Sydney, Australia. Registered: Dec 1999 posted 11-03-2009 05:31 PM                     quote: Mike Blakesley I would play "Monkey Beer Farts Part 12" if it would put a lot of butts in the seats. I think it's all internet hype. 'Monkey Beer Farts Part 11' grossed less than half of 'Part 10'. I think it's over.  |  IP: Logged Mark J. Marshall Film God Posts: 3188 From: New Castle, DE, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 11-03-2009 05:58 PM                    quote: Mike Blakesley who wants to see the Eiffel Tower collapse again? Or see New York get laid to waste...again? Lots of folks. A lot more than would want to see a bunch of silly blue elfs teach us about why we should all love the trees ... again. (If that ends up being the case.) quote: Greg Anderson Why? Because the Mayans didn't bother to update their calendar before their ancient civilization officially disbanded? They "disbanded"? Is that what happened to them? Wow! Thanks for clearing THAT up! Why people believe what they believe is irrelevant. My point is that people believe it.  |  IP: Logged Greg Anderson Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 766 From: Ogden Valley, Utah Registered: Nov 1999 posted 11-03-2009 07:09 PM                        Yes, they disbanded (officially), they sold their web site to another ancient civilization and they specifically mentioned something about the Eiffel Tower coming down in 2012. They also predicted the end of James Cameron's box office success after mid-1998. All of these are excellent reasons to believe that the movie 2012 is somehow based on facts.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 11-03-2009 11:07 PM                     quote: Joe Redifer Which one will you all buy on Blu-ray? Both movies must work fairly hard to earn a place in my collection of movie discs. I won't buy a copy of either movie if they both suck or aren't good enough to be worthy of repeat viewings. There's lots of good movies that are only good enough to see just once, either in the theater or via rental. I think Avatar has more going for it in terms of pre-release guessing. That situation may change and even change radically once both movies are released.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-03-2009 11:53 PM                        I can pretty much guarantee I won't buy either one on Blu-Ray. On DVD either, for that matter. I have yet to buy anything from either one of those directors, although I've been tempted to get TITANIC since we got the big TV at home.  |  IP: Logged Scott Jentsch Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1061 From: New Berlin, WI, USA Registered: Apr 2003 posted 11-04-2009 08:31 AM                        A movie has to be pretty good to be worth buying on Blu-ray (or DVD, but who buys or watches those anymore?), or it has to be a decent movie at a really good price. From what I've seen of both 2012 and Avatar, I don't think either will reach the status of "decent" in my book. Who knows, though? The first Avatar trailer really stunk, and the second is better. Maybe by the time they release the movie, it will be even better than its trailers! With Netflix making it so incredibly easy and inexpensive to rent movie, buying them is a rarity for me. When I can get something delivered from them in the same timeframe it would take to get something delivered if I ordered from Amazon, the movie has to have lots of replay potential (including the desire to impulse-watch without wanting to wait for the turnaround from Netflix) to make it worth buying. Most movies these days just don't reach that level of desirability for me. I'm fine with watching them once, and most likely never again. I'm expecting that to be the case with both 2012 and Avatar.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 11-04-2009 09:57 AM                     Something tells me that we should start bashing both of them right here and now.... or we can just add these two in over at the Transformers 3 bashing thread... Mark  |  IP: Logged Sam Graham AKA: "The Evil Sam Graham". Wackiness ensues. Posts: 1431 From: Waukee, IA Registered: Dec 2004 posted 11-04-2009 10:04 AM                        2012 is a Roland Emmerich film, so I am automatically not going. Avatar is a James Cameron film, so I am automatically going.  |  IP: Logged Richard P. May Expert Film Handler Posts: 243 From: Los Angeles, CA Registered: Jan 2006 posted 11-04-2009 12:16 PM                     I have seen a running time for "2012" as 157 min. AVATAR is probably in the same range. The creatures look like animation. That's a lot of destruction.  |  IP: Logged John Wilson Film God Posts: 5438 From: Sydney, Australia. Registered: Dec 1999 posted 11-04-2009 01:58 PM                     quote: Sam Graham 2012 is a Roland Emmerich film, so I am automatically not going. Avatar is a James Cameron film, so I am automatically going. I like your way of thinking.  |  IP: Logged Caleb Johnstone-Cowan Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 593 From: London, UK Registered: Mar 2006 posted 11-04-2009 03:16 PM                     A competitor of ours has opened advance booking on Avatar, and their programming suggests a 160-minute run time. I'm more excited about 2012 purely because the marketing has been so good. The best way to get people in the cinema is by showing an aircraft carrier smashing in to the White House on a tidal wave! The poster with the monk looking at the Himalayas being consumed by waves is also great.  |  IP: Logged Mark J. Marshall Film God Posts: 3188 From: New Castle, DE, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 11-04-2009 06:04 PM                    quote: Caleb Johnstone-Cowan The poster with the monk looking at the Himalayas being consumed by waves is also great. I thought that trailer was great.  |  IP: Logged Jonathan Althaus Master Film Handler Posts: 435 From: Bedford, TX Registered: Dec 2008 posted 11-04-2009 06:07 PM                     I've seen conflicting reports on the Avatar runtime. Some sites say 166, some say 189. More sites seem to indicate 166.  |  IP: Logged Scott Jentsch Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1061 From: New Berlin, WI, USA Registered: Apr 2003 posted 11-05-2009 09:25 AM                        We've got it clocking in at 166 minutes, but West World Media (CinemaSource) has it at 160. I wouldn't put it past Cameron to push it up to 3 hours, but I'm hoping that he exercised some restraint for the theatrical release.  |  IP: Logged Jonathan Althaus Master Film Handler Posts: 435 From: Bedford, TX Registered: Dec 2008 posted 11-05-2009 04:43 PM                     Isn't Cameron known for putting out just one version, that his "directors cut" is whats in theatres? I hope 165ish is the max, because with trailers 3+ hrs is pushing it, especially for 3D. (Cue Avatar IMAX film length/platter size)  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.