>>64553878 It didn't change film forever, it was just released at the time when 3D made a comeback and was the new "it" thing.
You can bet your ass that if it released now it wouldn't make the money it did the first time. Hell fucking My Little Pony could have released first in 3D and been the top grossing movie, it didn't matter, it was "new and exciting 3D".
>>64553994 No, Titanic was a good movie that involved a true love story that women ate the fuck up. Cameron isn't a bad director by any means, but to say Avatar changed film forever or that it's anywhere near his best movie is retarded.
>>64554106 Why was ever film in 3D in the 90s? Guess how that turned out.
Also not every film is in 3D nowadays, the majority are sure, but it's not due to Avatar, the 3D shift was coming whether Avatar happened or not. >>64554022 He didn't, he just utilized what was already getting ready for a massive shift in the movie industry, he just used it first, hence the money Avatar made. Like I said, MLP could have done it first and been in Avatar's position right now.
>>64554329 >revolutionizes Avatar is a piece of shit. When it came out I didn't give a single fuck. Watched it on DVD when I was bored and thought it was awful. Only years later I learned it was actually the highest grossing film of all time and I couldn't believe that.
>>64553831 >implying Cameronbros care about movies from olden times
seriously I fucking love Gone With The Wind, and it's precisely BECAUSE Cameron understands how old Hollywood movies worked that he's such a consistent box office monster. He actually learned the lessons of the old masters on how to grab a mass audience and take them whereever he wants.
>>64554407 And it's cheaper to do post-production. That's good business, not wasting even more money just to use 3D Cameras, the difference in gains would be less. Had Cameron done post-production he'd have gained more money assuming Avatar had made the same amount of money.
>>64554482 Avatar proved, beyond all doubt, that if you spend the extra money, you'll make some more money, even if the movie is a piece of shit. As people will keep putting their asses in expensive seats if your movie is visually impressive.
Do you guys think Avatar 2 will make the same or more than Avatar? I don't think so, nobody cares about 3D anymore, the CGI will be harder to impress since every big movie now and days has a shit ton of CGI. So the only two reasons why people originally went to see the first Avatar no longer hold true for the second. Nobody gives a shit about the character, or world, or story. Avatar was pretty much the Wii, Avatar 2 will be the Wii U
>>64554686 Maybe where you live. Even opening nights in my area were pretty easy to get tickets for a day in advance. 3D (and IMAX) showings didn't sell out at all, and were basically just the "didn't plan? fuck you, double price" showings.
This maymay of starwars selling out everywhere really needs to end.
>>64554672 >the CGI will be harder to impress since every big movie now and days has a shit ton of CGI
Avatar still looks better than any other modern blockbuster, because of how well designed, shot and directed it is. The 3D is also the best to date.
I personally wouldn't have assumed it would make as much, but given how much money TFA has made, there is likely the POTENTIAL for Avatar to make as much or more, because unlike TFA it will be able to go back to a global fan audience.
>>64554528 no one talks about the "domestic ticket sales record." Ever.
And it's obviously much more impressive to have the world record because it has to appeal to the ENTIRE WORLD, rather than just 300 million people, among other reason Avatar's run is much more impressive.
What shithole do you live in. I pay the same fucking price for all my tickets regardless of where I go. >>64554850 If nobody cares about Domestic Sales then why are there tons of articles about TFA beating Avatar domestically all over the internet, including this thread?
>>64554872 They're also exaggerating the "opening" "day one" gross. As they soft-opened on the 16th and had just as many showings the two days before "opening day" as they did opening day, then rolled everything together like, somehow, theaters were showing TFA 3 times per theater.
>>64554832 That, but also I believe that true 3D is still pretty unimpressive, it gets boring after half an hour. I remember watching Avatar in 3D, for a while I was like >oh this 3D thing is kinda kewl and a little while later it was just >I don't even notice the 3D anymore, but the dark screen is annoying as fuck.
3D just doesn't have any redeeming value. When sound film was introduced, it added a new value. As did color. 3D adds a value, depth, which we've been working for centuries to bring to a 2D plane. 3D just shits on centuries of evolution of the flat representation of depth, it takes more away than it adds. That's why it's not interesting as a filmmaking tool (it doesn't add anything), and it isn't interesting for the moviegoer.
Analogue film formats, on the other hand, don't really add anything nor take it away, but it's just a different medium for generating an image, with its own peculiarities, THAT is a tool which can be useful for filmmakers.
>>64555062 Putting IMAX3D to great use makes it an extremely visually impressive movie, though. And avatar proved that as long as the story is functional, that's all you need to keep putting asses in seats.
>>64554952 I'm not saying there are no 3D films, but if you look at how many screens (regardless of what film their showing, since obviously there's going to be 3D-only films trying to push 3D on moviegoers wether they like it or not) show 3D films versus 2D, especially outside the US, you'll see that 3D projections are the exceptions, 3D productions even more so. Unlike sound or color, which were immediately seen as the next step and where adopted as fast as possible (sound was adopted in most of the world by 1930-ish, just a couple of years after The Jazz Singer, color was adopted worldwide by the late 50's-early 60's, when monopack color film became cheaply available), 3D is generally irrelevant, other than as a gimmick.
>>64554964 There is a quote that Abrams originally only said there was going to be one trailer.
I think Disney screentested the film and realized that they needed to manufacture a huge success or Star Wars would simply become another Sci-fi movie franchise like Star Trek. the reported $300 million marketing budget is literally insane for a movie with this amount of a built-in audience.
>>64555109 I don't disagree, but it proves that people will eat up anything as long as it looks good, which is damaging to the industry as a whole. >>64555114 They're both visual mediums at this point. Nobody cares about interaction/gameplay or storytelling. It's all about how fancy it can look.
>>64555143 They can manufacture all the success as they want as far as I'm concerned. I'm just kinda confused how no one is calling disney on the fact they rolled 3 days worth of screenings into one day, and tried to act like they broke records.
Definitely. My mother told me she was excited when she got old enough that she could go see it - which would have been in the late 60s or early 70s (she was born in '56). With no home video, they just kept putting movies back in theaters if people would see it, and for GWTW, they would.
It's a little unfair to compare it to movies nowadays. I bet if you added in DVD sales and rentals some movies would blaze past others - Star Wars probably would be a lot higher.
Incidentally, re-releasing the OT in theaters when they made the Special Editions is another throwback to the older days when movies were re-released all the time. George Lucas fucking loves throwbacks. Maybe that's why he's never happy.
Every one of the highest grossing movies of all time dropped off sharply after three weeks, making most of their money in those first three-four weeks. This is happening to TFA now. It's made most of its money already, and will only make about 10-20% more.
The exceptions to the 3-week drop off are Avatar and Titanic. They kept making money steadily for many more weeks.
>>64555062 there are people who would literally never enjoy an environmentalist movie about blue alien native Americans. it could be done in any way and you'd still hate it and be unable to conceive of anyone liking it.
that's fine. it's still the most successful movie of the modern era.
Do you legitimately not understand businesses operate (projections, quarterly stats, gradual reports, etc.) or are you shitposting? Because I honestly can't tell anymore with a lot of /tv/, especially the fanatics.
>>64555111 I don't disagree except with the negative connotations of the word "gimmick".
3D is just not called for for most films. but I think that doesn't mean Avatar 2 won't duplicate Avatar's success, because Cameron has established his own set of precedents. the movie WILL take full advantage of the technology and I think people will remember the first movie and give it a chance again.
Projections are based on volumetric data which is updated daily. When this story was written three weeks ago, the launch of the TFA line was clearly well-received by the public based on factors such as wish lists, Web 2.0 mentions/searches, pre-orders, real-time orders, and so on. As with all large-scale product launches (including movie tickets, which there was so much hype around when TFA was "projected"---and actually did---to break records), these statistics are developed by complex algorithms that people and firms get paid a lot of money to ensure their accuracy.
We will see where the numbers are in a while, but it's very likely the TFA toy-line is able to make back Disney's investment on its own. I understand you're likely an adolescent caught up in fanatical shitposting to who knows what end, but the truth is Disney is doing very well, and their president is probably slurping caviar with Cameron tonight while they heartily compare their fabled lives.
>>64555748 The articles are providing citations referring to models that you, yourself, describe as updated daily to accurately reflect daily yeilds, margins, and projected volume, which is functionally meaningless, but it looks good on paper and the people creating said models are being paid a pittance, so keep at it.
You then act like the fact these models are as accurate as possible is proof of their complete veracity and therefore the people who generate them are an authority, and then you appeal to that authority.
Then you adhom'd all over yourself.
So the reality is since the models are shifting, as they're designed to be, in order to minimize loss and maximize profits, their day-to-day accuracy is irrelevant and projections are ultimately meaningless. So until we have actual data on what has happened, projections of what might happen are meaningless.
This thread has made me realize that if Avatar was screening in 3D near me I would literally go and see it right now just so I could luxuriate in how totally different to the Disney/Marvel experience it is.
>>64555894 >the people creating said models are being paid a pittance, so keep at it.
Can you cite this? For instance, one of the models used to forecast sales is developed by Fluent, a major marketing firm partnered with heavyweights such as Oracle and Experian.
>About 31% of shoppers who planned to buy "Star Wars" products as gifts for the holiday season intended it for someone 6 to 10 years old, according to a survey conducted by Fluent Inc., a brand marketing and advertising technology firm
Also, just to be clear, are you saying projections should always be taken with a grain of salt? Because that's pretty obvious and a non-argument at best. However, when it comes to a behemoth such as Disney, you have to take into account the professionalism of the launch and the buzz surrounding it, which is nothing short of the culmination of a cultural phenomenon. You can look at any bestseller list and see Star Wars merchandise on it. Here are some examples:
Again, strong initial buzz + brand "royalty" (i.e. Lego) + behemoth conglomerate + unparalleled distribution + heavyweight royalty fees (reports indicate Disney commands up to a 20% royalty clause for this launch, along with a monstrous upfront fee from all retailers indicates that the market is all-in. Such solidarity wouldn't be apparent for something that wasn't as close to a sure thing as economics allows.
>appeal to that authority
You misunderstand. I simply stated models used by Fortune500 companies are reliable. Therefore, I have confidence in Disney and its subsidiaries to reap success. This isn't an appeal to authority. This is referencing historical precedence.
>So the reality is since the models are shifting, as they're designed to be
Shifting occurs in the minutiae, not in long-term projections, especially not in a way that'll buck endgame trends unless something goes drastically awry. So far, nothing is there to indicate that. There is only good buzz; there are only "hotlists"; there are only optimistic (at worst) projections. What leads you to believe these models would fundamentally shift, especially in the polar direction?
> their day-to-day accuracy is irrelevant and projections are ultimately meaningless
The first part I can agree with; the second, not so much. If projections were meaningless, marketing and advertising firms, amongst others, wouldn't be such a prevalent part of the business model.
>So until we have actual data on what has happened
No one's forgetting this, but I'm sure Disney has other exterior and interior auditors and similar checks which make sure numbers sprouted from such firms don't make national headlines unless Disney itself is comfortable with the projections.
Also I like the image you paint of massive corporate entities having a paid network of shitters trying to determine if their employer is being shitted by shittiers and marketing shitters pushing the envelope of how much shit they can shit based upon cost-benefit ratios of shit to maximize their shit to profit ratio in order to derive the most revenue from their ability to bullshit.
and by "I like" i mean it makes me want to blow my brains out.
>Also I like the image you paint of massive corporate entities having a paid network of shitters trying to determine if their employer is being shitted by shittiers and marketing shitters pushing the envelope of how much shit they can shit based upon cost-benefit ratios of shit to maximize their shit to profit ratio in order to derive the most revenue from their ability to bullshit.
This makes you come across as extremely unintelligent. Why don't you try again. Try to use "shit" less than one time, though.
>and by "I like" i mean it makes me want to blow my brains out
Starwars TFA >based on one of the most iconic film franchises in history with decades of exposure to a wide spectrum of demographics >the full Disney hype machine behind it with accompanied video games and merchandising as well as shilling by Disney owned media outlets >brings back iconic characters from the canon >hollywood 'it' director JJ Abrams
I'm bewildered by the fact you think any outsourced firm can make Disney believe anything without solid evidence. I can't tell if you're cynical past the point of no return, egregiously uninformed, shitposting, or some combination of all three (the most likely).
If you were running a business, would you blindly accept what people were telling you without having a system of validation in place?
What do you considering "defending" marketing? This isn't exactly a moral debate. I'm simply stating that projections from many legitimate sources, one of which happens to be a well-reputed marketing firm, forecast a massive return for Disney. I've also stated that Fortune500 companies are very obviously smart enough to be funneled the correct information, or else they wouldn't remain in their positions.
>new avatar movies being released >new star wars movies being released >battle for the box office where your film is a flop if it doesnt make a billion in a week is this the golden age of sci fi cinema bros?
>>64557160 >if you honestly believe these firms are unassailable
At this point it seems you're either suffering from illiteracy or experiencing cognitive dissonance. I shall attempt to explain the paradoxical nature of marketing firms in another way.
Since marketing firms live and die by reputation, it is in their best interest to ensure their reputations are as positive as possible. Since they don't actually do anything, their reputations aren't based upon anything but their track record. Since they're glorified rainmakers, they distribute their presence as much as possible in order to act responsible for when it does rain. So the bigger the firm, the more they can appear responsible for rain.
You're right. A multi-trillion dollar industry likes giving away tens of millions of dollars annually, for free, to marketing firms that don't actually do anything. And this multi-trillion dollar industry clearly isn't as intelligent as you, so it can't recognize the utter uselessness of said firms.
>>64554672 Avatar only sold well because it was the first big movie to be filmed in digital 3D. A lot of idiot normies actually thought it was the first 3D movie. The ridiculous amounts of studio hype + the expensive tickets made it an unstoppable juggernaut, but it's not enough to beat Star Wars.
>>64557414 The factor you're either forgetting, ignoring, or are simply ignorant of, is how, when you have over a billion dollars in play, you basically can't fail without exerting effort to that end. Because you can distribute that wealth between a sufficiently large number of ventures (or just leave it in a bank to accrue interest and borrow meaningless amounts against it) to where it becomes a mathematical impossibility for your value to decrease.
Your own choice of wording (trillions, millions) should impress upon you the meaninglessness of the latter to the former.
So the idea here is marketers simply have to put forth the air of legitimacy and repute in order to secure funds with which they'll do the smallest amount they possibly can in order justify what amounts to a glorified ritual sacrifice.
So you agree—these trillion-dollar industries are incapable of recognizing valuable assets from garbage, and therefore willingly hand out tens of millions due to incompetence. And this has been an ongoing tradition since the latter half of the 20th century.
So because it doesn't hurt them, they don't mind giving away tens of millions of dollars for free, or for a service that amounts to being an infinitesimal factor. That's what you're saying, right? Because the industry is worth trillions, they have no qualms with multi-million-dollar handouts. There are no checks in place to stop this simply because it is a mathematical impossibility for them to lose money, so they're complacent when it comes to hemorrhaging a small country's GDP.
>>64558066 >they have lots of money >they keep expanding >they keep making more money >they've been around for a long time
Yeah, they're pretty smart. Capitalism doesn't really allow for legacy standings in crowded markets.
>>64558286 Thanks for proving your inability to understand how multi-billion dollar entities operate is founded in the fact you can't understand how a value that would be meaningful to you could be meaningless to another party.
A billion dollars in interest accruing bank accounts would generate tens of millions of dollars a year, just by existing. Multi-billion dollar industries allow for certain levels of failure/loss, because failure/loss isn't something that is completely preventable. Corporate culture is all about shifting blame and appearing competent valuable, but since very little has actual value, its all just a [trigger warning] load of shit.
>>64558486 >how a value that would be meaningful to you could be meaningless to another party
If it were meaningless, they wouldn't keep resigning contracts for annual million-dollar payouts.
Furthermore, a billion-dollar entity still has divisions, which you very clearly fail to comprehend. The moviemaking division of Disney isn't responsible for paying a marketing firm. Each division is allotted a certain amount of resources. Tens of millions a year for any one division is a lot of money, even if Disney's total net revenue is much larger than that.
>A billion dollars in interest accruing bank accounts would generate tens of millions of dollars a year, just by existing.
There's no bank in the world that has a billion dollars or more deposited. Again, absolutely clueless. Net worth doesn't mean liquid cash or bonds sitting in a safe somewhere.
> Multi-billion dollar industries allow for certain levels of failure/loss, because failure/loss isn't something that is completely preventable
Not outsourcing a marketing firm IS preventable. There's a difference between sunk cost and intentional hemorrhaging of money. There is no accountant in the world that works for a Fortune500 company that would allow for this to continue if it could be prevented while the other guys in the room can make a presentable argument for why the marketing firms aren't needed.
>Corporate culture is all about shifting blame and appearing competent valuable
Disney has nothing to shift blame for. They're having a banner year. The last part isn't English; try again.
>very little has actual value >its all just a load of shit
Glad you went from zero business sense to nihilism in a span of ten seconds. You're a fucking mess.
No, you're just a NEET who's trying to play businessman without having any clue about how things work. You actually think Disney would be okay with continuously signing contracts, giving away tens of millions a year for absolutely no return, when it could be easily prevented.
You are a moron. Accept this and improve yourself.
The modifications are minute in nature (i.e. Selection occurring mostly at the individual/genic level). The foundational ideas of natural selection, gradualism (although punctuated equilibrium has gained traction recently), mosaic evolution, and so on are the basis of bioevolutionary law.
Darwin never believed evolution had an endgame toward perfection. You may be thinking of Lamarck's inheritance of acquired characteristics, but even then, there was no mention of attaining the perfect characteristic.
There were, of course, Greek philosophers who thoughts this way (Aristotle, Plato), but even then, essentialism was variation is accidental imperfection because of the concept of eidos, which conveyed that Earthly forms were imperfect imitations of transcendent perfection.
Bottom line: Darwin never thought evolution was a road to perfection.
Here is scientific literature on Darwin's views: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/taxome/jim/pap/mallet%2010%20darwin%20revisionism.pdf
Feel free to peruse for his thoughts on evolution being a vehicle toward attaining perfect traits.
Also, pic related is an excerpt from my textbook on Evolution (from my undergrad days). The fundamental principles are just as I stated.
I don't understand why some of you go out of your way to make yourselves appear absolutely clueless. Sure, the lack of credibility won't extend beyond this thread, but still, what drives that compulsion to appear informed in an area in which you have no expertise? I wonder...
>>64557468 >Jimjam in JUST state after Avatar 2 flops >Landslide victory for Ep. VIII >Avatar 3 cancelled >Star Wars IX top grossing film of all time >He doesn't have enough stamina in his old age to make a comeback >Disney will keep hiring young directors in prime for Star Wars
Scientific vocabulary and everyday vocabulary are very different things. A theory is basically a law. That's why gravity is a "theory." A theory has a rigorous amount of testing behind it; it's supposed by consistent, reliable hypotheses, which themselves are validated by years or decades of observations based on a multitude of factors.
A "workable theory" is analogous to "functional law."
>All good science is assailable
No—all good science has rock-solid support.
>Anything that isn't falsifiable is not science, it is doctrine
So relativity is a doctrine? Because from a scientific standpoint, that's not what it is.
Science is a method of investigation, but that doesn't mean there aren't things which govern the laws of our universe based on physical constraints and elements.
You have no idea about science, just like the other guy had no idea about business. If you want to keep eliciting responses, that's fine, but I just want lurkers to understand you're clueless.
For further reading, here is what a "theory" truly is.
Can a theory be assailable? Sure, once there is proof against it, but that doesn't happen very often because of the inherent nature of a theory. Darwin's theories on evolution are, as of yet, unassailable.
>>64561768 >For further reading, here is what a "theory" truly is.
Sorry, forgot to link: http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html
>The difference between a "law" and a "theory" often confuses people. This happens, in part, because even among scientists there can be different usage of these terms. To the general public, these terms have very different meanings and connotations.
>Both are based on tested hypotheses; both are supported by a large body of empirical data; both help unify a particular field; both are widely accepted by the vast majority (if not all) scientists within a discipline. Furthermore, both scientific laws and scientific theories could be shown to be wrong at some time IF there are data to suggest so. >if
>>64561902 No, there is no way a theory and a law can be described as equal in any way, shape, or form.
Also when someone accuses you of trolling, you should take that as an indication you have said something so wrong, so fundamentally incorrect, the only way you could actually believe if is if you were too retarded to be literate, thus, are saying it for reaction.
To say "law = theory" you're basically conflating the theory of gravity and the law of gravity or other such examples where there's an infinitely repeatable "how" but not a concrete "why."
False. They have many equivalents. Look at the above link.
>Also when someone accuses you of trolling, you should take that as an indication you have said something so wrong, so fundamentally incorrect, the only way you could actually believe if is if you were too retarded to be literate, thus, are saying it for reaction.
I don't exactly care what people on /tv/ think of me. You will never be the reason for me second-guessing myself.
>To say "law = theory" you're basically conflating the theory of gravity and the law of gravity or other such examples where there's an infinitely repeatable "how" but not a concrete "why."
The law and theory of gravity are still intertwined, and thus conflated. They have different bodies of explanation, but the two go hand-in-hand.
There's no mathematical certainty behind evolution as a broad stroke, although there are things such as the Hardy-Weinberg equation to demonstrate allele populations in equilibrium. However, even then, there is no math-derived proof to demonstrate selection at the molecular level due to the many contrasting agents of selection, as well as tradeoffs.
Anyway, if that was your trump card, that's laughable. I said (most) laws have theories; I never said all theories have laws.
>>64562835 and there is just as rigorous a process working against every theory, because science is all about fallibility. Laws are not theories, theories are not laws, and the fact a theory can be proven incorrect, at any point in time, means the theory is assailable.
Christ its almost like you're just arguing semantics or something.
A theory can be proven incorrect. Thus far, there has been no evidence to disprove evidence, or to even legitimately entertain an alternative.
Any given theory is assailable PROVIDED there is evidence. The Theory of Evolution is unassailable because there is no argument against it with compelling evidence. Therefore, thus far, it is unassailable.
You are a fool. I honestly sympathize for those who bear the burden of listening to you every day.
"A given theory" means I'm not specifying anything. When I do specify a theory, i.e. Evolution, I'm telling you this specifically is unassailable so far. Therefore, Darwin's Theory of Evolution is unassailable. There has been no evidence against it. At this point, it is almost a certainty that there NEVER will be evidence against it.
Talk about arguing semantics. Holy shit, you're an unbearable faggot.
Is the Theory of Evolution POTENTIALLY assailable? Yes, provided revolutionary evidence is brought to light. Is it currently assailable or has it in its recent history been assailable? NO.
>>64562835 >Can you cite one? desu no - I think we've moved too far past the observation phase of science for there to be any. Looking back, I'd guess gravity / gravitation was one until Einstein came along. Did anyone have much of a theory for it before then? I suppose people must have had something.
>Also, I apologize if I came off as aggressive or condescending. Oh no, no worries.
>I can't keep up with all the idiots (see below). Might as well try and push water up a hill with your hands bro.
>Did anyone have much of a theory for it before then? I suppose people must have had something.
You may be interested in this read: http://www.space.com/25729-albert-einstein-before-after-relativity.html
Again, I apologize. You were trying to have a genuine conversation and I mistook you for the average /tv/ user screaming his head off with both ears plugged. Thank you for having the patience to deal with that.
>Might as well try and push water up a hill with your hands bro.
It's certainly getting to that point.
Out of curiosity, which field do you specialize in?
>>64563359 Thanks man, I'll check out that link in the morning (need to get up in five hours, fuck)
>which field do you specialize in? Degree was in microbiology, but then a while later did an MSc in Information Security, and now I'm a computer nerd. That's what I get for dropping out of CS and taking biology in my undergrad years.
How it's potentially* assailable. Until opposing evidence is brought forth, the given theory is unassailable.
Similarly, the Law of Gravity is potentially unassailable (there's, of course, an infinitesimal chance, as with the Theory of Evolution). That doesn't mean it's actually assailable. For all intents and purposes, both the LoG and the ToE are unassailable. They will continue to be unassailable in the foreseeable future.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.