Jane and I just returned from Regal Cinema after seeing James Cameron's Avatar
in 3D. But first, this financial message:
Production cost of making Avatar
: "probably closest to the figure the Los Angeles Times’s John Horn and Claudia Eller cited earlier this month—$280 million for the production, plus marketing costs" (Vanity Fair
). Marketing costs, about $150 million, according to the same Vanity Fair
article. And the worldwide gross take as of today (January 3, 2010) according to Box Office Mojo
Ok, now that that's out of the way, here are my initial pros and cons for what will probably be the largest grossing movie to date.
Pro: The 3D is fairly cool. I actually had a slightly acrophobic response at one point.
Con: The large animal animation in the early scenes was stiff.
Pro: The flying animal animation was awesome.
Pro: Surely the best 3D movie made to date--of course it's my first, so what do I know.
Con: Some of the plant colors were "Fantasia"-ish rather than interesting.
Pro: The insects seemingly fluttering in the space in front of the screen were awesome.
Neutral: I involuntarily cried in the "I see you," "I see you" sequence.
Con: Sigourney Weaver can't run.
Con: Sigourney Weaver is not a believable scientist.
Con: The floating mountains sequence is a blatant ripoff of Miyazaki's Laputa.
Pro: Possible increase in environmental consciousness in viewers.
Pro: Anti-torture message.
Con: Revenge fantasy pandering.
Paradox: Intensive use of technology to send anti-war technology message.
Con: Expensive to gain entrance.
Con: Very heavy-handed music.
Con: Background details not rendered clearly.
Pro: Breakthrough use of movie-making technology (credit to Lord of the Rings
Con: Going to make a lot of money for Rupert Murdoch.
Con: Takes all the suspense out of the Academy Award for best picture/best director. The Academy will never be able to resist this one.