The biggest movies in the UK in 2010 were almost all genre films of some kind according to the list produced by Screen International.
Topping the list was TOY STORY 3, which some wouldn't call genre because it's a kids' movie, but it features toys that come to life when there aren't any humans around and how much more fantasy-related can you get than that?
AVATAR came next followed by the latest HARRY POTTER, Tim Burton's ALICE IN WONDERLAND, INCEPTION, SHREK FOREVER AFTER, TWILIGHT:ECLIPSE, IRON MAN 2 and CLASH OF THE TITANS.
The only film in the list that you couldn't make a case for being either sci fi or fantasy was SEX AND THE CITY 2 at number 8.
If ever there was more proof needed that, in the cinema at least, genre IS the mainstream then this is it. When people are spending their money then they are going for the fantastical.
Admittedly, five out of the nine were sequels and two were remakes with only AVATAR and INCEPTION as being really new.
This is at a time when budgets are being squeezed everywhere and Hollywood will no doubt take note that ticket buyers are still expecting good visual and big movies for their money. What that means for the future of big screen genre outings is uncertain, but it can only be to the good.
Showing posts with label money. Show all posts
Showing posts with label money. Show all posts
Friday, 7 January 2011
Friday, 29 January 2010
AVATAR biggest money grabber ever
James Cameron's AVATAR has lumbered past the impressive box office record held by TITANIC (made of course by James Cameron). It's no wonder that studios keep entrusting this man with more money than was lost by Icelandic banks to make his pet projects because his huge budgets bring in huge receipts.
But is AVATAR really a film?
Sounds like a silly question since it's showing in cinemas all over the world, but bear with me.
Films are about narrative, about character, about plot development and emotional involvement. AVATAR is about pretty pictures. HUGE pretty pictures...and in 3D. Watch in awe as cartoon creatures sweep over huge landscape paintings. Wonder as mountains float in the sky. Gasp at the beauty of a tree hundreds of feet high releasing its seeds. Fantastic images all, but do they add up to a movie.
The characters in AVATAR are cyphers, barely deep enough to be called characters. The plot is back of a postage stamp stuff and nobody develops at all. If it's a film then it's a bad one.
So how come it's made more money than the Mint?
AVATAR isn't a film it's a spectacle. It's intent is not to tell a compelling story, but rather to use what minimal story it can be bothered to come up with as an excuse to create those compelling, startling and wonderful images. It's no surprise that AVATAR is available in 3D and on the IMAX system because it is here that those images will have the greatest impact be they aerial journeys, mystical moments of giant machines blowing the hell out of everything in sight in an orgy of mechanistic (but nonsensical) violence.
The problem here is that success talks and AVATAR will make Hollywood think that throwing enough special effects at the screen is all you need to do make a great sci fi movie and that means we'll get more films from the likes of Michael Bay where eye-candy takes the place of mind candy and we really don't need more of that. Our only hope is the fact that the same year brought us the mind-blowingly brilliant MOON (infinitely better on 1% of the budget) and the entertaining DISTRICT 9 both of which acheived more with less.
So well done to AVATAR for making so much money in the middle of a global financial meltdown, but we just hope that the cost hasn't been too high and the damage too deep.
But is AVATAR really a film?
Sounds like a silly question since it's showing in cinemas all over the world, but bear with me.
Films are about narrative, about character, about plot development and emotional involvement. AVATAR is about pretty pictures. HUGE pretty pictures...and in 3D. Watch in awe as cartoon creatures sweep over huge landscape paintings. Wonder as mountains float in the sky. Gasp at the beauty of a tree hundreds of feet high releasing its seeds. Fantastic images all, but do they add up to a movie.
The characters in AVATAR are cyphers, barely deep enough to be called characters. The plot is back of a postage stamp stuff and nobody develops at all. If it's a film then it's a bad one.
So how come it's made more money than the Mint?
AVATAR isn't a film it's a spectacle. It's intent is not to tell a compelling story, but rather to use what minimal story it can be bothered to come up with as an excuse to create those compelling, startling and wonderful images. It's no surprise that AVATAR is available in 3D and on the IMAX system because it is here that those images will have the greatest impact be they aerial journeys, mystical moments of giant machines blowing the hell out of everything in sight in an orgy of mechanistic (but nonsensical) violence.
The problem here is that success talks and AVATAR will make Hollywood think that throwing enough special effects at the screen is all you need to do make a great sci fi movie and that means we'll get more films from the likes of Michael Bay where eye-candy takes the place of mind candy and we really don't need more of that. Our only hope is the fact that the same year brought us the mind-blowingly brilliant MOON (infinitely better on 1% of the budget) and the entertaining DISTRICT 9 both of which acheived more with less.
So well done to AVATAR for making so much money in the middle of a global financial meltdown, but we just hope that the cost hasn't been too high and the damage too deep.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
