Thursday, December 17, 2009

Avatar

AvatarUnranked at time of writing.

James Cameron (or at least his marketeers) claimed that Avatar will change cinema forever. Having watched the preview in front row seats at IMAX last night, I finally understand what he means.

Avatar is a stunningly beautiful, comprehensively realised vision that absolutely must be experienced in a cinema. That’s the kicker – I doubt this film would have anywhere near the same impact on a TV screen. Two dimensions would not do this movie justice.

So if Avatar changes cinema it will be by making it more like going to the theatre – you have to see it live. More likely, I think, is that this movie - which is James Cameron’s first outing since 1997’s record-smashing Titanic - will precipitate the advent of 3D in our living rooms (for one thing, they might have to sell a lot of DVDs to break even – the production is rumoured to have cost $300m and as much again is being spent on marketing).

3D films often feel fairly flat, apart from the occasional thing jumping out at you, but the 3D in Avatar has an incredible depth of field. The landscapes of the planet Pandora seem to stretch away for miles. Another bar raised is the CGI. The attention to detail is breathtaking.

Yes, the story uses every trick in the Hollywood book to hook you in, but – wow! – Mr Cameron is a master of those tricks. The pace and interest don’t flag for a moment in the 162 minutes running time. It’s truly epic; it feels like the three Lord of the Rings films rolled into one.

You might argue that the characters and the plotting are a little close to formula, but as an aesthetic and dramatic experience, Avatar is – without exaggeration – the film of the decade. Truly hypnotising.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, January 11, 2006

How much does it cost to make a film?

$218. That's how much it costs to make a film.

At least, that's how much it cost Jonathan Caouette to make Tarnation, released in 2003. And it grossed well over half a million at the worldwide box office, making it the film with the second highest return on investment ever (the highest being The Blair Witch Project with a 354,614% return on investment - eat that William Hill).

Ironically, IMDb users rate Tarnation as a better film than Titanic, which is one of the costliest films ever made.

Face on Mars
The whole Mars Pathfinder mission cost
millions less than the film Titanic


A quick glance over The Numbers list of Movie Budget Records reveals what a terrifying risk studios take when they agree to spend a 9 digit sum to make a film. God knows how Warner Bros. is still solvent after losing some $96million on The Adventures of Pluto Nash. That's the same amount that Bush Senior and Clinton managed to raise for their entire Hurricane Katrina Fund.

And yet it's Warner Bros. that are about to release the most expensive movie ever made. The budget for Superman Returns is $250,000,000. A quarter of a billion simoleons. That's the Queen of England's whole fortune. No pressure, then, folks.

Personally, I quite like the idea of spending the $218 I have in my bank account on making a film.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, January 09, 2006

Box office musings

I've just been browsing through IMDb's list of films that grossed the most money in worldwide box offices. It makes for interesting reading.

The big three are represented right at the top, as you would expect: Star Wars: Episode I comes in at number four with $922,379,000 of box office receipts. That in itself is incredible - it's 15 cents for every single person alive.

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone enjoys the number three spot with $968,600,000 - which approaches the GDP of Belize. Number two goes to The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King with an astronomical $1,129,219,252. That's more than all three Indiana Jones films put together.

And guess how much the number one grossed. Nope, guess again. A little more... You're getting warmer...

Titanic stands alone with $1,835,300,000.

That's incredible. There are fewer than 40 films that have ever grossed more than half a billion, and then there's Titanic, which grossed nearly two billion. Look, I've put it on a graph so you can see how ridiculous it is:

Titanic spike

A Titanic spike indeed.

Adjust for inflation, however, and there's a different story. Titanic drops to sixth, according to Box Office Mojo's list. The number one, thanks to 67 years of inflation and a re-release or two, is Gone with the Wind.

Interestingly, there is almost no correlation between the films with that grossed the highest at the box office and the films that were ranked as best by IMDb users. In other words, no correlation between popularity and quality:

Popularity versus quality

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,