Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: 2012 vs. Avatar

This is topic 2012 vs. Avatar in forum Ground Level at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=002283

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 11-02-2009, 03:28 PM:

Which one is going to be bigger? Despite the Roland Emmerich-ness of it I think 2012 will be more popular. Avatar is trying too hard and that's a bad sign. Besides - those creatures look cartoonish and I think that could turn people off.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 11-02-2009, 04:37 PM:

Avatar all the way.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-02-2009, 05:37 PM:

I think people don't want to see the world destroyed in movies so much anymore. It all looks the same. A movie about a small town getting destroyed would be more interesting.

I think Avatar will outgross 2012 by at least 3x or more.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 11-02-2009, 06:12 PM:

Looking at the original trailer of AVATAR I was really worried. I bet Fox and Cameron are mightily pissed they went with that lame trailer first. If they'd just hit with the new 3.5 minute one the buzz would be huge.

2012 just bores the crap out of me.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-02-2009, 07:45 PM:

I'm not sure if I quite understand the story premise of Avatar. I worry the script may contain a lot of heavy handed, preachy allegory about what we're doing to our planet and its environment today. And I'm a little concerned about the 12 year span of time that has passed since James Cameron's previous film was released.

Despite those concerns, I think Avatar will probably make a huge amount of money. There is a lot of really cool futuristic eye-candy on display in this show. James Cameron has a bankable name and enviable track record.

2012 vs. Avatar? No contest. I think Avatar wins.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-02-2009, 11:22 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
I'm a little concerned about the 12 year span of time that has passed since James Cameron's previous film was released.

Yeah - look at what happened to George Lucas when he took a break.

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 11-02-2009, 11:50 PM:

Do you mean the part about how most of us can't stand the newer Star Wars movies or the part about how Episode One grossed over $400 million?

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 11-03-2009, 06:51 AM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
I think people don't want to see the world destroyed in movies so much anymore.

Are you kidding? People love watching stuff blow up and get destroyed.

I'm worried about Avatar too. It looks like it could be preachy, and THAT is what turns people off - especially now. People are pretty tuned into that stuff and reject it when they see it. So if Avatar took that path, it stands a chance of having a big opening and then dying quickly.

On the other hand, TONS of people already believe (or suspect) that the world is ending in 2012 and not for any man-made reasons. I think those folks will go see the movie to "inform" themselves on how it will happen.

If nothing else, I think if 2012 sticks to the premise of what 2012 theorists already believe (Earth crossing galactic equator, poles switching, etc.) and doesn't try to say it's OUR fault the world is ending, it stands a really good chance of giving Avatar a run for its money. On the other hand, everyone remembers The Day After Tomorrow and how THAT movie tried to say it was our fault, so 2012 may have an uphill battle. Especially since one of the ads I saw for it bragged "From the Director of The Day After Tomorrow". That was NOT a savvy move in this political climate.

Tough choice.

Posted by David E. Nedrow (Member # 4981) on 11-03-2009, 07:28 AM:

LOL, I have to agree with Mark.

My wife and I went to see Zombieland this past weekend, and they ran the newest 2012 trailer. After the trailer ended, I leaned over and whispered to my wife, "I love disaster films!"

-David

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-03-2009, 01:12 PM:

quote: Mark J. Marshall
People love watching stuff blow up and get destroyed.

Yeah, but I meant "major landmarks" like in every recent film. Car chases and explosions are great, but who wants to see the Eiffel Tower collapse again? Or see New York get laid to waste...again?

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 11-03-2009, 01:30 PM:

quote: Mark J. Marshall
On the other hand, TONS of people already believe (or suspect) that the world is ending in 2012

Why? Because the Mayans didn't bother to update their calendar before their ancient civilization officially disbanded? That seems like a silly reason.

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 11-03-2009, 01:36 PM:

Yeah Greg - that is the silly reason! My "Hot Mormon Muffins" calendar only goes through 2010!

Watching the trailer for 2012 I was thinking how much fun it COULD be...watching Avatar I was wondering wtf they are trying to do.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 11-03-2009, 02:11 PM:

On the other hand...Roland Emmerich made one half decent movie (Independence Day) then continued to turn out crap. 'Godzilla', 'The Day After Tomorrow', '10,000 BC'...while James Cameron has always delivered a great film. 'The Terminator', 'Aliens', 'Terminator 2', 'True Lies', 'Titanic'...

I know who I'm putting my faith in.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-03-2009, 04:54 PM:

quote: Greg Anderson
Do you mean the part about how most of us can't stand the newer Star Wars movies or the part about how Episode One grossed over $400 million?

Well, the former, obviously. I would play "Monkey Beer Farts Part 12" if it would put a lot of butts in the seats.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-03-2009, 05:30 PM:

Which one will you all buy on Blu-ray?

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 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.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 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! [Smile]

Why people believe what they believe is irrelevant. My point is that people believe it.

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 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.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 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.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 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.

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 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.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 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

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 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.

Posted by Richard P. May (Member # 3598) on 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.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 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. [thumbsup]

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 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.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 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.

Posted by Jonathan Althaus (Member # 5042) on 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.

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 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.

Posted by Jonathan Althaus (Member # 5042) on 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)

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-05-2009, 11:53 PM:

Wow. I never thought of the 3D angle there. Having gotten "tired eyes" from 85 minutes of "Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs," I predict major amounts of complaints about eyestrain, headaches and glasses discomfort for such a long film with NO INTERMISSION. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-06-2009, 12:37 AM:

What is the maximum running time/length for an IMAX 3D film? I wouldn't be surprised if the 160 minute barrier had something to do with this cut of the movie (I refuse to call it a "film" since it was not shot on film).

Cameron has clout. I think he could get away with a 4 hour cut of a movie if he felt like delivering such a thing.

Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 11-06-2009, 04:00 PM:

That long running time is not good news for those folks who only have one 3D house. It translates into three shows per day as opposed to the customary four.

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 11-07-2009, 08:06 AM:

Exactly, unless you do what we will do and open at 9am and close at 3am the next day to get five shows in our only 3D house on opening weekend.

Posted by Geena Phillips (Member # 3726) on 11-10-2009, 07:26 PM:

Every trailer I see for 2012 looks progressively worse. The latest one (attached to Michael Jackson's This Is It -- real appropriate placement, Sony) is set to a bland pop song. I can smell Sony's flop sweat on this one all the way from here in Georgia.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 11-10-2009, 11:30 PM:

I almost want to not go to Avatar because I loathe 3D and its push on us by greedy studios. The fact that Cameron made it may give it some credibility though.

2012 looks ridiculous, sad, and downright awful. I'll go only if I get in free.

AJG

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 11-11-2009, 10:45 AM:

I don't know about you guys but I remember a time when two films were being made about Wyatt Earp - one by Lawrence Kasdan and starring Kevin Costner and the other by Disney and starring Kurt Russell. Now which one would you at that time have thought would turn out to be a joke? Which one today is a classic?

Don't judge a book by it's cover.

Posted by Alex Edwards (Member # 5413) on 11-11-2009, 01:02 PM:

Not to ruin 2012 for anyone but apparently Roland Emmerich got a little antsy with his next project and had to reveal that maybe 2012 wasn't actually the end of the world. link

Exclusive: TV version of Roland Emmerich's '2012' in the works
by Lynette Rice

Roland Emmerich, the director/producer of the apocalyptic film 2012 (opening Nov. 13), confirmed to EW exclusively that a small-screen version of the end-of-the-world movie is already in the works. Emmerich said there was “plenty to do in a TV show” and that 2012 executive producer Mark Gordon – who’s also an exec producer on TV shows like Grey’s Anatomy and Private Practice - would be attached.

“The plan is that it is 2013 and it’s about what happens after the disaster,” Emmerich told EW while walking the red carpet for the 2012 premiere Tuesday. “It is about the resettling of Earth. That is very, very fascinating. (2012 writer/producer) Harald Kloser and I came up with the idea and we have the luxury of having a producer on the film who is a big TV producer, Mark Gordon. We said to Mark, ‘Why don’t you do a TV show that picks up where the movie leaves off and call it 2013?’ I think it will focus on a group of people who survived but not on the boats … maybe they were on a piece of land that was spared or one that became an island in the process of the crust moving. There are so many possibilities of what they could do and I’d be excited to watch it.”

Word in Hollywood is that Gordon has already entered talks with ABC to develop the disaster drama. Though Gordon wouldn’t confirm this, he did tell EW that ABC “will have an opening in their disaster-related programming after Lost ends” (An ABC spokeswoman declined to comment). “I think people would be interested in this topic on a weekly basis,” Gordon said, who also attended Tuesday’s premiere. “There’s hope for the world despite the magnitude of the 2012 disaster as seen in the film. After the movie, there are some people who survive and the question is how will these survivors build a new world and what will it look like. That might make an interesting TV series.”

Added Emmerich, “The movie talks about the varied reactions people have in the face of disaster and who should survive and how we carry on and what parts of our culture do we save. The TV show could carry on all that.”

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 11-30-2009, 11:56 PM:

Well, I heard from my 16 year old cousin today on Avatar. He's a sci-fi nut worse than I am, and he said it looks "just weird". I'm hearing that a lot lately.

But then again, 2012 just barely broke 100 million so far.

Question, will extra 3D/DLP/IMAX surcharge on the Avatar tickets count towards the total reported box office take?

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 12-01-2009, 12:46 AM:

Of course the surcharge counts - just like the inflated ticket price for "The Princess & the Frog" counted toward its box office this past weekend.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-01-2009, 12:54 AM:

What were the prices for Princess?

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 12-01-2009, 05:26 AM:

At Walt Disney Studio's theatre in Los Angeles, the tickets are priced at $50 each, plus $2 surcharge. This was for the Wednesday showing at 7PM. Tuesday is sold out.
There are some other goodies that the patron gets but I forgot what they were...it took forever for me to find the theatre that was playing it. It's NOT at the Downtown LA theatre they own...that one's playing A Christmas Carol through into January, then they play an exclusive showing of Dumbo.

Posted by Jeremy Weigel (Member # 4208) on 12-01-2009, 10:18 AM:

Has anyone else received a call from Fox asking what type of masking you have (fixed height or width) on you digital screens?

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 12-01-2009, 01:04 PM:

I've been waiting for the masking issue to come up. Did they give you any details as to what their plan is?

Posted by Jonathan Althaus (Member # 5042) on 12-01-2009, 03:38 PM:

We're in a competition zone, and Fox called us about the masking, then the following week we find out our competitor is booked for it, and not us. We have horizontal masking in our 3D house, guess that won't work with Avatar.

Posted by Jeremy Weigel (Member # 4208) on 12-01-2009, 06:19 PM:

No details. Just a quick and simple question and answer. Both of our digital houses are fixed height (side movable). We only have 2 screens that have fixed width (top movable). These are screens that Regal added on in 1995. Glad we didn't pick one of these to convert to digital.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 01-12-2010, 05:33 PM:

[Smile]

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 01-13-2010, 08:36 PM:

There was a movie called 2012?

Posted by Jonathan Althaus (Member # 5042) on 01-13-2010, 09:47 PM:

Yeah, it's going to win an Oscar for Most Falsified Scientific Claims In A Film.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 01-13-2010, 09:50 PM:

Yay!