WorstPreviews.com Logo Join the community [Login / Register]
Follow WorstPreviews.com on Twitter
What\ News Coming Soon In Theaters On DVD Trailer,Posters,Pictures,Wallpapers, Screensavers PeliBlog.com Trivia/Quizzes
Trailer for "Midnight Special" Sci-Fi Film, with Michael Shannon and Joel Edgerton
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for "Central Intelligence" Comedy, with Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for Melissa McCarthy's "The Boss" Comedy
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for Juan Antonio Bayona's "A Monster Calls"
Nov 23rd, 2015
First Look at "Central Intelligence" Comedy, with Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for "Zoolander 2" Arrives Online
Nov 19th, 2015
Official Trailer for "Now You See Me" Sequel
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for Chris Hemsworth's "The Huntsman: Winter's War"
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for Keanu Reeves' "Exposed" Thriller
Nov 19th, 2015
First Look at Chris Pine on "Wonder Woman" Set
Nov 16th, 2015
Ridley Scott Reveals Another Title for "Prometheus" Sequel
Nov 16th, 2015
Gerard Butler is a God in "Gods of Egypt" Posters
Nov 16th, 2015
First Look at Liam Neeson in Martin Scorsese's "Silence"
Nov 16th, 2015
New Trailer for "The Divergent Series: Allegiant"
Nov 16th, 2015
Trailer for "Moonwalkers" Comedy, with Ron Perlman and Rupert Grint
Nov 16th, 2015
Trailer for Charlie Kaufman's "Anomalisa" Stop-Motion Film
Nov 3rd, 2015
Poster for "Warcraft" Arrives Online, Trailer Coming on Friday
Nov 3rd, 2015
There's a Good Reason Why Luke Skywalker Isn't on "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Poster
Nov 2nd, 2015
First Trailer for Sacha Baron Cohen's "The Brothers Grimsby" Comedy
Nov 2nd, 2015
"Spectre" Breaks Box Office Records Overseas
Nov 2nd, 2015
Final Trailer for Ron Howard's "In the Heart of the Sea," with Chris Hemsworth
Nov 2nd, 2015
New Photos From "Warcraft" Video Game Movie
Nov 2nd, 2015
Lots of New Photos From "Suicide Squad"
Oct 30th, 2015
Trailer for "Dirty Grandpa" Comedy, with Robert De Niro and Zac Efron
Oct 30th, 2015
Sandra Bullock to Star in Female Version of "Ocean's Eleven"
Oct 30th, 2015
Trailer for Jared Hess' "Don Verdean" Comedy, with Sam Rockwell
Oct 30th, 2015
"Indiana Jones" Producer Says Harrison Ford Will Not Be Recast
Oct 28th, 2015
Trailer for Adam Sandler's "The Ridiculous 6" Comedy
Oct 28th, 2015
"The Walking Dead" Fan Kills Friend Who Turned Into a Zombie
Oct 28th, 2015
Another "Monopoly" Movie in the Works
Oct 28th, 2015
"Jumanji" Remake Hires "Con Air" Writer
Oct 26th, 2015
Disney's "Tower of Terror" Park Ride Movie Moving Forward
Oct 26th, 2015
Johnny Depp and Edgar Wright Team for "Fortunately, the Milk"
Oct 26th, 2015
Previous News Stories Next News Stories

"Avatar" is Fastest to $1 Billion Mark

Posted: January 3rd, 2010 by WorstPreviews.com Staff
"Avatar" is Fastest to $1 Billion MarkSubmit Comment
James Cameron's "Avatar" grossed an additional $68 million over the weekend, setting a record for the highest take for a film in its third week of release. "Spider-Man" was the previous record-holder with $45 million.

This raised the domestic total to $352 million, and will likely end up surpassing the $500 million mark. Cameron's "Titanic," the biggest film of all time before accounting for inflation, earned $601 million domestically, followed by "The Dark Knight" with $533 million.

The impressive weekend also put "Avatar" in a very exclusive club, becoming only one of five films to cross the $1 billion mark in worldwide ticket sales. And the movie did it in record time, only seventeen days. This makes Cameron the only director with two films that grossed over $1 billion.

"Avatar" ($1.02 billion) has already beat "The Dark Knight" ($1 billion) at the worldwide box office and now only has "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest ($1.07 billion), "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King ($1.12 billion) and "Titanic" ($1.84 billion) standing in its way.

Click here to read our "Avatar" review.

Source: Various

Bookmark and Share
You must be registered to post comments. Login or Register.
Displaying 102 comment(s) Profanity: Turn On
TeemSelami writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 4:38:28 PM

I'm just glad that celine dion c*nt is no where to be found
Metafact writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 4:41:29 PM

So in other words, James Cameron has made two films with awful stories that were huge successes because they looked "pretty."
Agent Calavera writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 4:44:32 PM

yes Metafact

Jealous? i am.
ilovebatman writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 4:55:54 PM

I wouldn't mind being a punk ass and have a lot of money. sh*t
masKritic writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 4:59:09 PM

hmm i think Cameron is recycling money earned and buying tickets for Avatar himself because im hearing no one i know talk about seeing Avatar these past couple of weeks. Usually the talk of movie-going i hear matches up with the numbers but this doesn for some reason.
Ranger writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 4:59:11 PM

Cameron does it again.


Ranger writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 5:03:59 PM

Avatar will have long legs.

It takes a LOT to get me to go to a theater. This movie will, so they haven't seen my (or my friend's) money yet. We're just waiting for the theaters to thin out a bit. But at almost $16. for a 3D IMAX ticket... these figures aren't hard to add up.

Good on Cameron. He takes the BIG risks... he should get the BIG $'s (as compared to Bay cranking out another Transformers and getting paid $60mil. for that effort).

Watch Avatar his $2bil. by the time merchandising and DVD sales are exhausted.

Love him or hate him... Cameron knows his sh*t (that's pretty impossible/foolish to argue).

gummijoker writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 5:07:14 PM

wooww Jame scameron is the best (behind Spieldberg and Scorase ofc) He has done a awsome job with Avatar and i hope to she somthing like it again.
Preditorian writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 5:10:34 PM

Over 1 Bil.... Damn am I in the wrong career field.
ozymandiass writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 5:14:43 PM

Hah! Gummijoker you are so adorable! You can't spell.
jordan2delta writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 5:16:48 PM

whatever,the guy is definitely king of the world for the second time. well the haters club has still got reasons to smile for Avatar has a long journey ahead to surpass the sinking ship.
triggax writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 5:28:28 PM

Yeah this f*ckers still go staying power.. ive got friends that went to buy tickets at the imax out here for tomorrow and tomorrow mornings shows.. MONDAY MORNINGS show was f*cking sold out.. crazy man... its still going crazy strong.. well worth the buck imo...
TheHerpesOnRangersDick writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 5:29:43 PM

Chris Nolan will beat him with either Inception or a third entry in the Batman franchise...
Dre-EL writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 5:32:52 PM

Does this mean we have to wait another ten years to see a Cameron flic?

Next Cameron introduces Holodeck technology where the audience is transported into the film.

I bet he's writting his oscar speech right now"Avatar haters can suck it, woooo".
SpookyCupcakes writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 5:34:36 PM

"So in other words, James Cameron has made two films with awful stories that were huge successes because they looked "pretty.""


The movie going audience has officially gone beyond repair. I think I'd rather be an underground director that makes amazing stories than a mediocre one that makes billions.
HorrorJunky4Life writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 5:34:44 PM

Gumm: If we are going by boxoffice receipts then I think Cameron is now ahead of the pack.

Avatar is the only movie that I WILL be getting in bootleg form. I don't care how much money it has made, I still didn't like it. (I did love the part where I went drinking booze afterward)

Thanks Selami, now I have the stupid Dion song running around in my head.
SpookyCupcakes writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 5:37:14 PM

Wallace writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 5:39:28 PM

does that mean we can expect another george lucas trilogy, using Camerons technology?
jdDiedforyou writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 5:47:50 PM

my girlfriend saw avatar the other day an she told me that she almost fell alseep during the 3 hr movie.
Ranger....Is Gay writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 5:56:58 PM

who the hell keeps seeing the movie? all it is, is "dances with wolves" meets "the smurfs"
HorrorJunky4Life writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 6:14:48 PM

I see Ranger has another admirer.
TH3D4RKKN1GH7 writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 6:30:34 PM

Cameron is certainly loved overseas. Glad to see the film is doing well.
wonderBOY writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 6:31:16 PM

it still needs like another 50mill in domestic earnings to not be a box offife bomb in usa
TH3D4RKKN1GH7 writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 6:40:02 PM

Since when is 352 a box office bomb? Many films don't even make it to that. America's game isn't the only game in town. The film doesn't really need anything else to be a success.

Spooky I'd like to see some of your work. So intrigued by what you are capable of as a "director/writer". You trash the brilliant minds of cinema for being inventive in anyway. You seem to believe there are new stories out there to be told, I would love to see them.
prowler writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 6:44:51 PM

dark knight earned such a lot of money 'cos poor ledger died. I'm not saying that that is the only reason. batman begins was great, and producers knew that sequel will make more money, but 530 mil. in US box office is just because ledger's death. no doubt about that.

imagine what would it be if now worthington (God forbid) dies? how much money would avatar earn, we could only guess.

if that mockery of dark knight made such a money, why avatar shouldn't?
CCBlev writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 6:53:20 PM

damn thats all im saying
Freudian_Nightmare writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 7:00:15 PM

We go to the cinemas to get an experience. We want to be bedazzled with eye-candy, that only reach it's true potential on a big screen. A "thinker" we can just watch at home, there's no need for a big screen. Actually, I prefer to see those movies in the comfort of my own home.
blinkbomber writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 7:01:18 PM

i didnt see the dark knight fours times in the theaters just cuz ledger passed on.... and neither did all of my friends. so i gotta disagree with ya there prowler.

i've only seen avatar once. i loved it, but i don't know if i wanna see it again in theaters.
dbreuning writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 7:09:51 PM

Whoa I think it will beat Pirates at least. Maybe Return of the KIng and maybe, MAYBE, it will beat Titanic. Anyway loved this movie. Seen it twice: first time 3D second time IMAX 3D.
TH3D4RKKN1GH7 writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 7:16:51 PM

Worthington isn't a star yet, no one really knows him and he doesn't have a following so if he croaks the same thing won't happen. Dark Knight wasn't going to make Ledger a star like Avatar is doing for Worthington, it was going to make him a legend, which it has.
encoreyourface writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 7:23:19 PM

how sad. Return of the King deserved it, it was a great film, however this fudge-packer film talks about nothing but its "amazing" visuals to cover up its quite obviously broken and terrible cow boys and Indians plot rip-off. i haven't hated something so much since Megan Fox.
tcu21 writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 7:29:24 PM

Some serious haters on this thread.

@Ranger...Is Gay: That pic, name, avatar, and complete jacking of a South Park joke officially makes you the gayest person on this site, congratulations.

@encoreyourface: Return of the King was a book adaptation and that movie was more original than one that had an actual original screenplay? Where's the logic in that?

Congrats to Cameron, cliched story or not, this movie was awesome, and it has the staying power to take on Titanic.
Peter Parker writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 7:32:32 PM

I said it before and I'll repeat it now, "Avatar" is to movies what chocolate is to food, sweet, but with very poor nutritional value.
It's a quick, cheap thrill, that's all.
People can't live on chocolate alone, just like movie lovers can't live solely on pretty pictures.
f*ck "Avatar".

And this crap about it being the fastest to hit the $1 billion mark? What a crock of sh*t!!!
"Brickhouse Butts - The Movie" did it in less than a week.
Parker_Von_Mink_Ranger writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 7:41:07 PM

Spookycupcakes: Haha, u are so got damn retarded. So ure calling Cameron mediocre? Why dont u stick to direct your own underground gay porn? Thats the intelligence that fits you. Really? I must ask in a mature way! Do u think cameron is mediocre as a director? I mean Aliens, True Lies, T1&2, Abyss?

And no, Inception will not beat avatar!
Parker_Von_Mink_Ranger writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 7:43:21 PM

tcu21: Well said!
MeganFoxPlease writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 7:55:39 PM

mr. parker,

when it comes to finding pictures of our favorite female celebrities your abilities are unparalleled.

However, I disagree with your movie tastes....

Ranger is right, Cameron knows his sh*t, and whether or not people actually like his films or the type of guy he is still has no bearing on the fact that the man is arguably one of the greatest directors in history.

I saw Avatar last night and was thoroughly impressed. I believe the characters were stereotyped on purpose.

If you look at a film like district 9 then you'll see that they had to do an in depth character driven story because the type of film they were presenting otherwise would've looked like an independence day rip off.

I've never seen anything like the visuals in Avatar, and I think going anymore in depth with the characters or story would've slowed it down and really hurt the film.

thatz my two cents anyway... now go find me some topless pics of angelina jolie when she was actually hot.

Azureus writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 8:00:44 PM

Look at all you sorry ass mofos :) Still crying about this movie. :D

This is the thing about Avatar - It's not a ground breaking story. It's god damn James Cameron movie. It's a f*cking fun ride at the theater with aliens, robots, spaceships, creatures, big guns and explosions. And might I add that you can actually SEE what the f*ck is going on - and there's no Hiphop robots or JarJar characters.

I feel bad for anyone who is a fan of action adventure films and is to stubborn or stuck up to have a good time watching this film. It's an freakn fun film.
TheStig writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 8:10:48 PM

certainly impressive and I liked the movie quite a bit...but let's be honest. If you are discussing grossing records you need to adjust for inflation where movies like "Gone with the Wind" are far ahead....don't want to sell Cameron short, just want an accurate discussion.
encoreyourface writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 8:20:05 PM


"encoreyourface: Return of the King was a book adaptation and that movie was more original than one that had an actual original screenplay? Where's the logic in that?"

so every book adaption is unoriginal because it started out as a book? where's the logic in that? it's the same story in film, not meant as a rip-off like Avatar's crap story.

Ranger writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 8:21:59 PM

@horror - yeah, I have a few fans. It's kind kewl!

@tcu - LOL!

@Spooky - I like your posts, and your opinions (which you're certainly entitled to). But to deny the success (quality, 'over-hpyed' or whatever) of Avatar, reads from this side of my monitor as jealousy my friend.

Me? I would MUCH rather make ground-breaking (INCLUDING Box Office... YES, commercial success) - and have the skimpy resume of a Cameron as opposed to the Directors/Writers/Creators that we ALL bitch about on here for cranking out sh*t every 6 months.

What Cameron has done here is created the PERFECT commercial movie. Original story... clearly NOT. Does the paying public care? CLEARLY not. Look, I watch 98% of the movies I want to watch by either buying the DVD, or watch it on the Movie Channel. Avatar is a movie that MUST be seen in the theater (like Iron Man). This will get me (a common type of movie-goer these days - see: buy my DVD's instead of going to the theater) to buy a ticket and more than likely buy the DVD. Sure, Cameron is f*cking me in the ass AND giving me a reach-around. But he is decent enough to make this movie visually stunning.

And I know (even from my friends) there are a TON of us awaiting the theaters to wind down even a bit, before JC sees my $'s ($15.50 - IMAX - 3D), then that genius will still see more from me for the DVD buy. Good on him.

Should anyone want to further cast (jealous) disparaging remarks towards the CLEARLY successful, genius that is James Cameron... have at'er!


Thousand of people work in Hollywood - and ONE man holds the records for the two HIGHEST Grossing Movies in history. Show BUSINESS is a BUSINESS. $'s matter. And I'll bet oh, a billion $'s that fans to date fans think (mostly) there money was well-spent.
Ranger writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 8:24:31 PM

@TheStig - good post. Agreed.

I have always said they should have an 'equalizing system' to match the ticket price of today against a movie like 'Gone with the Wind!', population back then, etc.

But no one alive today wants to hear it. They feed on hype. Avatar $1bil. in ticket in so many days will get millions more people to see it that probably didn't plan on going to see it. Hype sells tickets. Facts don't.
tcu21 writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 8:36:35 PM

@encoreyourface: I didn't say Return of the King was unoriginal and you can say (and I would agree) that Return of the King written by JRR Tolkein is a more original story than the Avatar story written by James Cameron, but to say that a movie based on a book is more original than an actual original movie makes no sense. Was it better than Avatar? Arguably. But more original? It can't be.
Peter Parker writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 8:42:02 PM

@ MeganFoxPlease:

I saw what you wrote about "District 9" a couple of days ago. We'll definitely have to agree to disagree on this one.
I believe you may have missed the point behind the story there.
The movie never intended to be an "Independence Day" rip-off.
It's a story about xenophobia and social segregation, and not your typical summer blockbuster.

In the movie, they took beings from another planet, closed them up in refugee camps, built walls to keep them in there and call them "aliens".
The choice of Johannesburg for story location was a very interesting detail too.

The evident corrosive irony and sarcasm there, makings allusions to situations like the apartheid, Indian reservations and immigrants' rights are the foundations of "District 9".
The action scenes in there are just means to an end. It was never supposed to be an action movie, I think.

Maybe you didn't miss this at all, maybe you just didn't find it appealing. You tell me.
I personally think Neill Blomkamp and Peter Jackson did a great job with it.

"Avatar", on the other hand, isn't a bad movie, but it's being extremely overrated, in my opinion. It's not worth this much hype.
There are some political messages in there too, it's not an innocent movie but, at the end of the day, you take out the CGI and you're left with very little.

Now, in respect to the Angelina Jolie pics, how about some bestiality?
Here's a little treat from uncle Pete:



ifakos writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 8:50:22 PM

Stop hattin'. Avatar was an EXPERIENCE, so I was happy to pay 20 $ for the movie. The movie-industry needs movies likes these so the won't collapse do to pirating.
Ranger writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 9:05:07 PM

NO argument here that Avatar may be nothing more than a visual spectacular. If so, that's enough of a change to get people into the theaters. It's pretty hard to come up with something new, NEW. Yet JC (no... not Jean Claude) has managed to pull another rabbit from his hat.
wonderBOY writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 9:12:19 PM

it cost like 400-500 million to make the movie so it needs to recoup that much in the domestic box office because the studios get less or nothing from other countries
Parker_Von_Mink_Ranger writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 9:13:07 PM

Why must every movie be so got damn original? Canīt we just enjoy a good story, may it be a simple one.
Parker_Von_Mink_Ranger writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 9:14:48 PM

wonderBOY: I think you need to check boxofficemojo to back that statement.

Avatar gets alot from rest of the world.
TH3D4RKKN1GH7 writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 9:19:19 PM

Since when do studios get less or nothing from worldwide gross where in the f*ck did you obtain that notion? The movie cost 230 to really make. It's made its money back.
Ranger writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 9:23:59 PM

@TH3D4RKKN1GH7 - good post my friend.

@wonderBOY - please check your facts. MOST of Avatar's cost was to develop new technology that JC can/will re-sell.

Avatar will be a $2bil. flick by the time the dusk settles (if not by ticket sales alone, add the merchandising).

@PP - I get a laugh from that site! I send from there quite often.
tcu21 writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 9:24:54 PM

The movie cost 387 million to make (production and marketing included)

Source: http://www.thewrap.com/article/true-cost-and-consequences-avatar-11206?page=1

So with 352 million in its 3rd weekend, I don't foresee a "box office bomb in the USA". Even if it didn't gross that much in the USA, who cares? Money is money. It could have taken in nothing in the USA and still have grossed almost twice what it cost.

Stop hatin on the movie and accept it, it's better than you wanted it to be!
Ranger writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 9:27:12 PM

@TH3D4RKKN1GH7 - that was to have read: Good postS (plural). See what happens when a phone call distracts my typing... ugh!?
GeneticalAnomaly writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 9:31:15 PM

^tcu21 exactly my sentiments!
also quit trash-talking you d*ck-sucking faggots, all you do is bring negativity and your rotten *sshole to the table. STFU. Avatar is a masterpiece; any movie that makes me feel that much must be.
lost_addict writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 9:36:43 PM

big tits rule
lost_addict writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 9:37:55 PM

and my new avatar is indeed Habib f*cking Marwan
Peter Parker writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 9:46:58 PM

@ tcu21:

Like they say in Hollywood, the really creative folks are the accountants.
I wouldn't really trust a source from FOX, when it comes to finding the real cost of the movie.
Businesswise, the less FOX says the movie cost, the more it'll be worth. Happier investors, stronger company, more people wanting to put money on their hands...
Don't be surprised if, two months from now, you see someone publishing that the movie cost 20% more than what they are saying it did now, with real information to back that up.

@ wonderBOY:

Are you high?!?!
Unless what you said is some weird, never-seen clause specified in the contract, the studios get paid, and very well paid, from all foreign distributing companies that buy the movie to distribute it abroad.
encoreyourface writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 9:48:25 PM

next thing you know an avatard convention is being rammed down our throats with the author of the Na'Vi/English dictionary doing autographs and the trailer for the next game and for the next movie, and there is always the Avatar comic book series and the three books which all explain how the Na'Vi "sync" each other (that's right, there's a manual) ... all this next week.
tcu21 writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 9:59:03 PM

@encoreyourface: Don't act like there's not LOTR nerds who do the same crap.

Peter Parker writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 9:59:43 PM

@ GeneticalAnomaly:

"Avatar is a masterpiece; any movie that makes me feel that much must be"

- Oh really? "Brickhouse Butts" had a great effect on me too, does that make it a masterpiece?

Sorry, dude, giving you some sort of special feeling does not qualify as criteria to classify a movie as a masterpiece.
You can call it one of your favorites, but hardly a masterpiece.

"all you do is bring negativity and your rotten *sshole to the table. STFU."

- Yeah, because doing what you do, bringing your overwhelming excitement over 3D images to the table is so much better, right?
You sound like an ignorant idiot talking like that.

There are a lot of good reasons you can use to defend "Avatar"'s merits.
Simply saying it makes you feel all warm and special inside IS NOT one of them.
encoreyourface writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 10:01:34 PM

yes except that franchise has been going on since what, the 30's? Avatar came out less then a month ago and James Cameron wants the same fandom, it seems like he's refusing to wait.
tcu21 writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 10:02:19 PM

You're right he should put a hold on wanting to expand a franchise and make money
encoreyourface writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 10:02:26 PM

btw i was responding to tcu21
encoreyourface writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 10:08:40 PM


"You're right he should put a hold on wanting to expand a franchise and make money"

that's what I've been saying. it would benefit Cameron more to wait and lay down the bricks more slowly, haste makes waste.

GeneticalAnomaly writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 11:19:58 PM

murphyslaw93 writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 11:20:59 PM

This is no surprise, I knew Cameron would do it, even if I didnt really want it to happen. Neither of Cameron's "1 billioners" are anything great, Avatar's better than Titanic but Avatar is nothing more than decent, but there were people who believed the film wouldn't even make its budget back. Its grossed 700 million bucks more than its budget. My guess for domestic was $350 million, but it seems I'm wrong.
jeffw1978 writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 11:29:56 PM

So OK it hit a billion still doesn't make up for lacking a good story Visually stunning and technologically amazing sure, actual plot not so much.
Sleuth1989 writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 11:36:27 PM

Anyone else notice the irony here. James Cameron's new movie beats out the previous holder "Spider-Man". The irony is James Cameron almost did a Spider-Man film himself back in the 90's. It's almost like he is taking back the record that might of been his if he had done the film.
warriors187 writes:
on January 3rd, 2010 at 11:59:12 PM

I'm normally not a "hater", but damn it, I hated the hell outta this movie...
It was pretty, yes,
and like you said, there was ZERO story.
And for the characters? I cant name one character in the movie that I actually cared for. I disliked the aliens, and i disliked the humans equally as much..
Right after I saw this movie I logged into my Facebook with all the intentions of posting a short but subtle review to my friends about how much I hated this movie,
and i was VERY surprised to see that they all loved it!!!???
eff this flick,
The 2 movies that I've seen since I saw "Avatar" have now been "MOON" and "THe lovely Bones"-
Both of which are a thousand times better than an "Avatar"
warriors187 writes:
on January 4th, 2010 at 12:01:15 AM

good movies don't make money...Avatar can please a 5 year old, as well as a modern day 30 year old who has the mentality of a 5 year old
TheGrittyNitty writes:
on January 4th, 2010 at 12:18:15 AM

I said this movie would do Star Wars and LOTR like business. I love being right. That said, at the end of the day, Cameron will be responsible for the highest grossing and 2nd highest grossing movies ever (unadjusted for inflation). I don't think enough is being said about how amazing of a feat that is. Say what you will about your opinions on the man as a director/writer, one thing is for certain: the man understands the heart and mind of the movie going public. All the other movies in the billion dollar club are sequels, aside from Titanic, which, gasp, is another Cameron flick. Cameron broke into the club TWICE with original movies. By that I mean non-sequels, or the fact that the movies are not even based on some existing franchise or novel with a huge fanbase (Twilight, Harry Potter, etc). It's pretty frickin' impressive.
vaodsi writes:
on January 4th, 2010 at 12:50:01 AM

vaodsi writes:
on January 4th, 2010 at 12:50:42 AM

agreed ranger
warriors187 writes:
on January 4th, 2010 at 1:06:11 AM

The Gritty Nitty-
everybody knew that it would make money...that was obvious.
The real question was whether or not it would be good...
actually scratch that, it was pretty damn obvious that it would suUUUCK,
and seeing it just confirmed my suspicions.
encoreyourface writes:
on January 4th, 2010 at 1:35:15 AM


i agree
TheGrittyNitty writes:
on January 4th, 2010 at 2:23:12 AM


Yeah, there was never any question about the movie doing some decent business. Maybe even enough to make a small profit. Or not. But there wasn't overwhelming unanimous consent or anything that it would go on to be one of the biggest grossers of all time. 70 something million dollar opening weekend. Not phenomenal for a movie with the kind of budget Avatar had. There were plenty of voices here and elsewhere, even professional industry analysts, expecting the typical 40-50% drop offs after the opening run and the worldwide box office finishing at around the 600 million-ish mark you would expect from the opening figures. I countered that it would do considerably better than that. That we had another Star Wars, The Lord of the Rings, Titanic, Gone With the Wind type movie on our hands. That it would have legs, etc. I wasn't alone in the opinion or anything. There were people that suspected the same. It didn't even require some great inductive or deductive leap of the intellect or the prophetic abilities of Nostradamus to suspect that something great might be in the horizon (we're talking numbers here, not the quality of the movie which I agree to an extent is a mixed bag, though allegations that the movie is nothing but utter suckage with no redeeming qualities utsoever or opinion regarding the general craptasticness of the movie does leave you in the minority). Still, opinion was split, and I didn't see the site flooded with proclamations that the movie would go on to actually challenge Titanic's towering numbers. I bet that it would. And when you're right, you're right. That's all I'm saying.
bacci40 writes:
on January 4th, 2010 at 3:18:01 AM

i think cameron is great...but if this is the future of movies, then i am quite sad
Kara writes:
on January 4th, 2010 at 3:25:23 AM

very impressive James..
rocketman writes:
on January 4th, 2010 at 3:48:23 AM

Sound,bet he hasn't had his f*cking landlord let himself in his house ,wake him up and telling him that theres a fukking gas leak outside and to f*cking evacuate...
Jim_Camerons_Ego writes:
on January 4th, 2010 at 4:03:05 AM

Mother f*cker I'm sooooooooo over this whole Avatar sh*t... D9 was much better...
pomme writes:
on January 4th, 2010 at 5:36:15 AM

that cost $3 more usual price to see the movie in 3D and 75% people saw it in 3D so it's a fraud!
SACdaddy writes:
on January 4th, 2010 at 7:06:02 AM

How quickly everyone forgets that this is the most expensive movie ever made. It nearly cost twice as much to make as the previous record holder. Add in the cost for your local theater to upgrade to digital 3D projectors and your little extra $3 ticket increase seems more than justified. I dont know about "fraud" but $4 for a bottle of Dasani, $4 for some Gummy Bears, and $6 for popcorn sounds like highway robbery to me. Blame Coca Cola, AMC, Regal, and Cinemark not Cameron.

Anyway, enough with the Avatar love/hate fest. BRING ON THE WOLFMAN!!!! Please let it be as disturbingly gorey as Avatar was visually stunning.
SACdaddy writes:
on January 4th, 2010 at 7:21:13 AM

BTW, its not a crime to like both D9 and Avatar. Considering all the crap Hwood put out this year (and the last 10 years), its extremely encouraging to see 2 films so innovative in their own perspectives both do so well. I cant wait to see talented up and coming directors like Blomkamp and other established directors like Speilberg and Jackson get there hands on the new tech Cameron has created. The future of film could really be bright if the Hwood execs dont find a way to f*ck it all up.
Sonic writes:
on January 4th, 2010 at 7:33:16 AM

It's about time a film sinks the Titanic from the top.
Ranger....Is Gay writes:
on January 4th, 2010 at 8:04:15 AM

It's freaking FernGully in space
Freudian_Nightmare writes:
on January 4th, 2010 at 8:33:13 AM

@SacDaddy: Oh, they will find a way.
rocketman writes:
on January 4th, 2010 at 9:01:41 AM

Anyone remember that rumour from a few months back where it said that George Lucas would consider a new Star Wars film/s if Avatar was a success? I read that if it makes X millions he would greenlight a new set of films(Ep's 7,8+9?) using the Avatar tech and get Coppola,Spielberg to direct.I wonder whats up with that? Guess i'l find out soon how much bullsh*t that one is.I will be interested what other people will do with the tech though,4 years from now i can see some crazy sh*t on the horizon.
rocketman writes:
on January 4th, 2010 at 9:11:29 AM

Another thought,if this tech costs loads to use will the studios only trust the 'Elite' Directors or save money and plonk any music video director in to save money.Personally i think they should keep this as an exclusive club where only the proven solid guys can make these 'Avatar-tech' event films rather than have a slew of ropey B movies.Think of all the sh*tty cgi we've been sujected too over the years.I say big budget tentpole giant epics only.
Peter Parker writes:
on January 4th, 2010 at 9:28:23 AM

"I say big budget tentpole giant epics only."

- And porn!
rocketman writes:
on January 4th, 2010 at 9:34:51 AM

Thats what i ment by 'tentpole';p
Peter Parker writes:
on January 4th, 2010 at 9:50:14 AM

A man of good taste, therefore!

Cameron's CGI 3D technology should be able to make justice to "Chunky Asses - The Movie".

3D ass cheeks... Mmmmmmmmmh!
rocketman writes:
on January 4th, 2010 at 10:54:25 AM

How lomg before they release the worlds first
'3DSOME.c*mmin atcha in gloryarse 3D'
TheGrittyNitty writes:
on January 4th, 2010 at 11:25:00 AM


A Star Wars movie using Avatar tech in the hands of a capable director? Sounds too good to be true. However, Lucas being the tech whore that he is, I'm sure he's itching to incorporate the new 3D technology into Star Wars somehow, so even if the earlier rumors were complete bullsh*t, I actually think we're going to see a 3D Star Wars project in some form or another down the line. Lucas won't be able to resist himself.

I had always figured we'd have to wait until Lucas croaked before other directors would get a shot at doing something set within the Star Wars universe. But if he's willing to let go of the directing reins...think of the possibilities.

I'd love to see what Neil Blomkamp does with an actual budget, or see gritty Nolan-esque sensibilities brought to bear in something set within the Star Wars universe. Ridley Scott hasn't done sci-fi in a while, but I'm sure he still has in it him somewhere to do something interesting with Star Wars. I mean, besides the more obvious movies that prove his capacity for sci-fi greatness in Blade Runner and Alien, I always think back on the battles in Black Hawk Down as one of the heights of his achievements, some of the other flaws of the movie itself notwithstanding. Some of the most intense action scenes ever put on film, imho. And I bet J.J. Abrams would love to get his hands on Star Wars, a much better universe than Star Trek no matter how hard trekkies will argue otherwise. Possibilities are endless once the directorial reins are opened up to other candidates not named Lucas.

Spielberg is a no-brainer, given his involvement with the original trilogy, but where the hell did Coppola come from?
jeffw1978 writes:
on January 4th, 2010 at 11:26:59 AM

I don't know about the whole c*mmin at ya angle. But how about some 3DD.
Freudian_Nightmare writes:
on January 4th, 2010 at 11:37:59 AM

@Gritty: Coppola came from his mother's vagina. And as far as Star Wars goes, it should be left alone, to be touched by no one. Cause in a time where sequels and remakes are kings, Star Wars is a franchize I'm really sick with. Let us just keep the memories of Star Wars that we have (goddamn ewoks) and let the rest wither and die.
rocketman writes:
on January 4th, 2010 at 1:04:28 PM

@ The GrittyNitty
Agreed with Ridley Scott 100%.
As for the Coppola rumour,3rd paragraph/sentence down.
TheGrittyNitty writes:
on January 4th, 2010 at 3:51:30 PM


Interesting link. Pretty thin stuff though made even less credible by the Coppola name drop. I mean, he made some of the greatest movies ever made in my book and everything (Godfather 1+2, Apocalypse Now), but the possibility of Coppola helming a Star Wars flick seems a little preposterous. Not that I'm against the idea or anything. If he could even APPROACH his Godfather heights again with a Star Wars movie, I'd probably be content not ever asking for anything from a movie ever again. Okay probably not. But that would really be something else.

@Masochistic Dreams About Mom

Thanks. Good to know he didn't claw his way out through his mother's rectum.

But I gotta ask, why so averse to the idea of another Star Wars movie? In my opinion, what distinguishes the potential theoretically involved in future Star Wars movies from the "remakes and sequels" you're talking about, is that Star Wars is more than just a movie. It's its own universe. You could almost tell any story you wanted to within that universe and still call it Star Wars.

What I mean is, for example, a large chunk of movies being made today are set in the real world, at some place and time in history. You have movies set with WWII as the backdrop, or the Victorian era, or movies set in Boston circa 2000, whatever. It's set in our world. You know, reality, more or less. We'll call this universe the universe of Real Wars. Well, we have a helluva lot of Real Wars movies. The possibilities for storytelling in Real Wars are endless. From the Godfather, to the Hurt Locker, to pretty much any movie that's not a fantasy or sci fi. They all take place within the universe of Real Wars.

Just the same, you could have stories of similarly varied nature take place in the Star Wars universe? Why? Cuz it's a damn compelling place. Anyway, you could even theoretically do a Godfather type movie, or a Hurt Locker type movie, or whatever in the Star Wars universe. I mean, at its very core, all we're really talking about is the backdrop here. Instead of driving cars, you're hovering around on a landspeeder or something. And of course, you have aliens and Jedi Knights, jetpack strapping bounty hunters, and cool sh*t like that. Lucas created an amazing universe with Star Wars and it's begging to be explored on the big screen, rather than some comic book or videogame iteration of the universe which pales in comparison to the potential resting in its big screen counterpart to put truly fantastical images onscreen in its full glory--now in stereoscopic 3D. There are plenty, I repeat, PLENTY of stories you could tell, either with or without the Skywalkers. All I'm saying is, I'd love to see few made like real movies by people capable of making them, not the Pixar movie that we got instead...except of course it was a Pixar movie without any of the charm or quality, and in its stead, we get some annoying ass bunny-eared bipedal dinosaur that was only funny when we found out its real name was Jakovasaur.

I'm rambling. I guess I just don't understand how anyone could be opposed to the idea of the POSSIBILITY of a good Star Wars movie. Yea, that's the fanboy in me talking.
IsaacRuth writes:
on January 4th, 2010 at 4:20:25 PM

Has anyone considered that maybe the only way this movie worked was that it had a simple, comfortable plot? What's groundbreaking about the movie is the technology used to make it; that's not an argument from just one side, it's the truth. The same thing happened with Titanic; it was the first movie to use computer technology to create CGI characters that acted out "lives" based on the aspects around them, the same one used later in LOTR to create the epic battle sequences. Cameron isn't there to be the master of the narrative, he's there to bring people back to the theater for something they haven't seen before. If this movie had some zany plot that was supposed to "challenge" the audience, I don't think it would have been nearly as effective. You're supposed to get lost in what you're seeing, not confused by it.
jeffw1978 writes:
on January 4th, 2010 at 4:30:16 PM

Well it definatley lost me near the end with the hippie tree-hugging propaganda and the feeling of I have seen this story before.
MoneyHayabusa writes:
on January 4th, 2010 at 4:45:19 PM

@Isaac Ruth: That is a good point. I mean, its already got main characters that are 10 foot tall blue aliens, a photo-realistic (is it different if its in 3d? Is it just 'life' realistic?) alien world with all original (though archetypal) organisms. A big audience needs coaxing to enjoy visual overload like that, and so I do think the story was kept somewhat simple... or I guess you could call it 'archetypal'.

I saw it in 3d and I really did love it so I saw it a second time. I'll probably see it again, but only in Imax 3d if I do cuz I haven't yet. The story isn't particularly enthralling, but as a sort of 'origin' story I thought it was awesome.

Clearly, something about this movie has resonated with literally the whole planet. Now that Cameron's told this story, I wanna hear where sequels might take us, because the outlandish potential for those movies is huge! Now that we're already able to watch from a Navi perspective, they could make stories entirely without humans, about crazy machine-alien invaders or something. Thers so many f*ckin possiblities,
MeganFoxPlease writes:
on January 4th, 2010 at 5:19:27 PM

@peter parker

first off, the links were masterpieces, no offense ranger but ur links scare the living crap out of me....

as far as district 9 vs. Avatar

I didn't miss those messages at all, in fact they were excellent messages that gave the film real depth and meaning. It was just told in terms far to graphically for me to really enjoy. I was cringing before every scene as opposed to really enjoying or cheering for a character

However, strip away those messages from the film and what you are left with is a floating ship over a city

a.k.a. independence day

in essenc, aside from it's messages which were told in very graphic terms, the film had nothing else to offer. Going into any more action would've detracted from the film.

Avatar is the same thing in reverse. The 3D visuals are the films lifeblood. Detract from that with in depth character plots and you miss the stunning visuals like the destruction of home tree or taming of the flying dino things.

So I guess I don't disagree that the film has little nutritional value apart from its visuals, I just think the film finds as much of its identity its visuals as D9 does in its messages.

Does I make any sense?

takai writes:
on January 4th, 2010 at 11:20:37 PM

"Avatar" is Fastest to $1 Billion Mark"

Not hard to do when most tickets bought are $12+

Show me the number of tickets sold so I can compare it to Star Wars and put Avatards in their place.
warlord writes:
on January 5th, 2010 at 1:49:50 PM

just shows people cant waite to piss thare money away

There's a Good Reason Why Luke Skywalker Isn't on "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Poster

"The Walking Dead" Fan Kills Friend Who Turned Into a Zombie

Ridley Scott Reveals Another Title for "Prometheus" Sequel

"Indiana Jones" Producer Says Harrison Ford Will Not Be Recast

Johnny Depp and Edgar Wright Team for "Fortunately, the Milk"

"Spectre" Breaks Box Office Records Overseas

Paul Bettany Responds to Jason Statham's "Avengers" Insult

Sandra Bullock to Star in Female Version of "Ocean's Eleven"

"Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Demolishes Pre-Sale Records

Daniel Craig Would Rather Commit Suicide Than Return as James Bond
Lace Wedding Dresses from ViViDress UK online shop, buy with confidence and cheap price.
WorstPreviews.com hosted by pair Networks WorstPreviews.com
Hosted by pair Networks
News Feeds | Box Office | Movie Reviews | Buzz: Top 100 | Popularity: Top 100
Poster Store | About Us | Advertising | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Web Tools | Site Map
Copyright © 2009 WorstPreviews.com. All rights reserved