Tom O’Neil points us to this piece by EW’s Dave Karger about how well Avatar will play on screener-TV. Without the clunky glasses and dazzling 3-D effects …
The question is: Will it matter? When I watched a 30-minute preview of the film a few months ago, Cameron’s gorgeous 3D visuals were certainly the most impressive aspect of the production. But the studio can’t force all 6,000-plus Academy members to show up at a theater to watch it. So for many voters, their choice seems to be either to have them watch Avatar on a regular television, or not at all. Of the two options, they may be smart to choose the former.
My thinking on this is that the members of the Academy inclined to like and/or vote for Avatar will have already seen it in the theaters. When it opens, I dare say, it will become the must-see film of the holiday season. It will be a reason to actually hoist one’s cookies into the car, shell out the dough, put on those hideous glasses and enjoy the ride. It is the kind of movie you show up for.
So if you make the effort and if it’s good enough, Avatar is in. It isn’t going to need to play well on screener, in my opinion. Also, once it starts screening, just try to keep people from showing up, for free, to see it. The only thing that can derail this film for Oscar are horrid reviews. If those start piling up to the Amelia-like degree, it’s over. Then it will ace the visual effects, sound and perhaps art direction Oscars but will stop shy of the big categories.
32 Responses for "Avatar on Screener-TV"
I don’t see a James Cameron film with this much preparation & anticipation being an all out dud. Maybe it doesn’t match the box office expectations but I don’t see it being a bomb and very well is a player in the Best Picture race. This has to be seen in 3D and even more 3D IMAX but a legit IMAX screen not those mini IMAX’s a lot of theaters are putting up.
I’m not interested in seeing it at all.
If I had a quiet neighborhood and a superawesome TV I think I’d watch something like that at home if it looks just as good. I’m assuming most of the people we’re talking about have just that. So I disagree that they’ll all see it in theaters. Do you know how annoying our fellow man is?
“The only thing that can derail this film for Oscar are horrid reviews. If those start piling up to the Amelia-like degree, it’s over.”
I think this is a misreading. The only thing that can derail the film for Oscar as I see it is if it sucks. And then, like Amelia, the bad reviews will pile up. Critics don’t decide en masse to give something uniformly horrid reviews: it takes a village of unhappy spectators.
So, we’ll see.
I’m sorry but I’m a little fed up with people that say that are disgusted with the theater going experience. Watching film in a theater can’t begin to be compared to watching it any other way.
I have a 71″ Plasma with a beautiful sound set up. This for dvd, for my home video collection but STILL choose to go see a movie in theaters if I really want to see it rather than saving it for home and waiting 3+ months for it just because of the nuisance of being around other people.
In the last two years I’ve gone to the movie theaters over 100 times in that period I can probably count about 5, 6, or 7 times where there was an instance that a fellow film goer really annoyed but never even to the point of pulling away from the movie. Unless I’m just very fortunate to go to great theaters or watch films with more sophisticated and serious film-goers than I think there are just too many people making excuses for not going to theaters or just too picky. Either way attendance in theater’s is way up and steady since 2006 (4 straight years at 9.2 billion or more) and this year has an outside shot for 10 billion domestic if Avatar opens big or at least it could have the record surpassing 2007 for the highest grossing domestic total at 9.66 billion.
You’re very fortunate. I still go. All the time. But I’m either listening to crackling wrappers, people talking to their friends loudly, texting or some other nonsense.
During Inglourious Basterds (first showing) there was some douche kicking my chair I asked him to stop twice and then I had to move. I missed a whole scene because I could only see red. During This Is It I had to get up walk back two rows and across the aisle to tell two old ladies to shut it.
If this was ten years ago I wouldn’t be complaining at all. People just think they’re at home and therefore can do whatever they want.
nothing beats the experience of seeing a movie in the theatre. it’s all about sharing something. it seriously is one of my favourite things to do. in fact, i almost never watch movies for the first time at home.
as for avatar…the only thing that will drag me into the theatre is oscar nominations.
everyone is talking about this movie like it’s going to be the must see movie of the season but seriously, everyone (literally everyone, even people i was sure would be all over this thing) i’ve spoken to is far from excited about this. it’s going to need amazing word of mouth i think.
Eh, I’ll see this at a second-run theater for two bucks, but I really don’t understand shilling out 13-16 bucks for any movie unless it’s, like, Vertigo or Ran on an IMAX-sized screen. That, I would pay 50 bucks to see. But this? Nothing in the trailers, stills, or publicity materials makes it look like anything more than an okay action/fantasy film. I have no investment in James Cameron’s career, so I don’t factor in his “track record”. It’s just…what the hell do you see in this film that makes it scream OSCAR to you? I think the Avatar for Oscar hype is a mistake, and everyone buying into it is going to regret it when Avatar gets okay reviews, and does King Kong levels of box office. There is not a single reasonable justification for it being in contention that I have seen. And no, the “IT’S JAMES CAMERON=OSCAR” argument doesn’t work, since it was only Titanic that established that prestige, and, need I remind anyone, that was TEN YEARS AGO. Neither does the “it’s a game-changer” argument work, because, from the visuals, it clearly isn’t. Thinking the visuals of Avatar are revolutionary requires an impressive amount of cognitive dissonance. Of the chase sequence that recently debuted online, someone said, perceptively, that it really reminded them of the “there’s always a bigger fish” sequence in Phantom Menace. And yes, this is a very bad thing.
Here here!
The footage I saw on Avatar Day was amazing. The footage I’ve seen online is pretty damn good.
It’s going to be a fun ride come mid-December when reviews start pouring in and Avatar becomes THE FILM to see. Latecomers and bandwagon jumpers aplenty. The rest can stick their heads in the sand with Devin Faraci.
Stick their heads in the sands…? I don’t know what you even mean by that. Besides, it sounds like you’re getting ready to be an enormous piss-ant if Avatar is a hit, lording it over everyone that YOU WERE ON THE AVATAR TRAIN BEFORE ANYONE ELSE. Is this mature? No. Is this healthy? No. Does it make you, and other Avatar boosters look like bullies? Yes.
Besides, I’ll be too busy seeing The Lovely Bones, Up in the Air, and Nine. Woo, real Picture contenders!
#8 ” And no, the “IT’S JAMES CAMERON=OSCAR” argument doesn’t work, since it was only Titanic that established that prestige, and, need I remind anyone, that was TEN YEARS AGO.”
Avatar being a sci fi/fantasy, unlike Titanic, is why “Cameron = Oscar” argument may not work, more than “10 YEARS AGO” argument anyway. That he hasn`t made any feature film in 10 years may spark interest and goodwill on AMPAS part if what he delivers is incredible on all levels. After all, recent wins are usually a reason for snubbing contenders. But he made some sci fi classics with iconic characters and they shut him out for those movies save techs and Weaver`s BA nom.
@ Vermicious Knid
“I’ll be too busy seeing The Lovely Bones, Up in the Air, and Nine.”
So you only have time for 3 films, two of which that have already been screened. Your Oscarwatching skills are quite weak Knid. Is this your first trip to the rodeo?
It’s like amateur hour around here sometimes. Let’s fast forward to December 18th and be done with the idiocy.
@Loyal I second every word you said.
The real, genuine Oscarwatchers go see all the players. If you only have time for 3 films in a given month then you’re a casual fan at best.
If you don’t want to see Avatar, DON’T. But making a lame excuse why you shouldn’t is just annoying. Yes, AD is an open forum so you can mouth whatever is on your mind.
I’ll probably see “Avatar”, but I don’t have the money for IMAX, so I’ll just see it in normal 3D.
We should make a list of films we’d like to see in IMAX. For my money, it’d be between “The Lord of the Rings” movies and “The Thief and the Cobbler: Recobbled cut”. Both would blow my mind. The Dark Knight was excellent in Imax, but “Where the Wild Things Are” had some gorgeous shots as well.
Just an irritation: why do people say “here here” when it should be “hear hear?” Drives me nuts.
@Vermicious Knid
You would understand the “game-changer” talk if you saw this in 3D. It’s truly incredible. These 2D trailers and screencaps mean fuck-all when it comes to the actual experience this movie gives people. I understand your hesitance, and I even understand the cynicism over this movie, but it WILL speak for itself. The weight of its impact on the movie-going experience is where the Oscar talk comes in. What if it DID realign the movie industry? I know a lot of people don’t want anything to change in that respect, but if 3D caught on because of this, I could see Best Picture talk being pretty valid.
Unless there is some giant misstep with the story and direction (which I don’t forsee), I’m confident a sea of opinions will change for the better after December 18th.
Banana:
Haha, now we get to the “if you only saw in in 3-D argument”. I was wondering when that would come up. See, 3-D is just a gimmick. And it will always be just a gimmick. It may add to the entertainment value, but I don’t think it has legitimate artistic applications, or is anything but a box office ploy. That said, I think it will be around for a significant length of time, probably the next ten years or so, but it will never gain “respectability”.
Besides, wearing glasses gives me such a splitting headache, that I probably wouldn’t be able to focus on the movie at all. Not everyone can even watch a film in 3-D.
And “unless there is some giant misstep with the story” is the real key here. Of all the stories Cameron could have gone with, he went with the Dances With Wolves form. But that was Kevin Costner and Mary McDonnell, two actual people. Can audiences possibly relate to a romance involving two ten-feet tall cat people?
Loyal:
What does the films being screened have anything to do with it? I don’t live anywhere near places where screenings are taking place. I’ll admit, I’m an amateur at this, not an insider or journalist. But, to be frank, I’m more interested in quality in what I pay 10 dollars to see. IF, and only if, certain people whose opinions I trust say Avatar is worth a look, I’ll reconsider (or if a friend of mine wants me to see it with him). But I’m not suggesting everyone else shouldn’t watch Avatar. If you’re looking forward to it, go ahead and see it! But as of this time, I have no plans to, because to me it seems inessential. Besides, I’m probably seeing more than just those three, but those are the ones that come easily to mind.
Everyone is an amateur in Oscarwatching, because, remember, nobody knows anything.
Last, what idiocy are you referring to? If it’s just an ad hominem attack on me, that just reflects badly on you and your position. If it’s about all Avatar skeptics in general, we’re back to the whole gloating scenario, where you are the wise prognosticator, and all those nonbelievers are fools who should bow before your prodigious prescience. Please refrain from using the words “moron”, “idiot”, “dumbass”, “retard”, etc. if you want to retain any semblence of credibility.
Honestly, no one I know is anticipating this film. I have no doubt it will make a lot of money but chances are New Moon will still wear the crown as box office champ. Anyway, I have a more “we’ll see” attitude than others who are already proclaiming it a Best Picture nominee
“no one I know is anticipating this film.”
Except me. Totally anticipating it. Could you tell? Have I been enthusiastic enough?
And me. And everyone I know.
HA! At times it appears you have been the only one cheering this film on – but I meant people I know in the REAL world.
People in the real world have more on their minds than what movie they are going to see in a month’s time.
Hunter…tell that to the Twitards that bought their tickets a month and a half before the film’s premiere. Grown women, going crazy.
I wouldn’t call the audience for that picture grown women, Alfredo. But there are a lot of them. It made me laugh to hear the claim the other day that it couldn’t just be young girls going to see it because the numbers were so large. Teenage girls, like great minds, think alike.
#19 ” I have no doubt it will make a lot of money but chances are New Moon will still wear the crown as box office champ.”
Avatar won`t break NM`s opening day and weekend because it won`t be this frontloaded. My friends and I are working hard on giving NM legs and we are succeeding since it had a great hold on Monday and went up on Tuesday. It aslo has two holiday seasons to push it over $300 mio comfortably. Juggernaut indeed.I wish it surpasses that piece of shit Transformers 2 but that`s probably unlikely.
However, Avatar may go for longevity rather than big opening. If WOM kicks in and the spectacle lives up to the promise of a special movie-going experience, it`ll go places.
@ Vermicious Knid
“Everyone is an amateur in Oscarwatching.”
Please speak for yourself. I’ve followed Oscar since the early 90s.
Considering Sasha herself is excited for Avatar, perhaps AD isnt the website for you since you seem deadset on your dislike for a film you haven’t seen outside of internet clips.
At least I’m basing my feelings on the footage I viewed twice on Avatar Day.
I don’t dislike it so much as have no interest in it right now when there’s a bounty of interesting-looking films in theaters around the same time, and believe we’ve already had two brilliant sci-fi films that will both coincidentally be coming out at the end of December on DVD. Sam Rockwell & Sharlto Copley > Sam Worthington. Also, I’m simultaneously going through all the 00’s films I’ve missed, so I can compile a Top 50 or 100. Currently have In the Mood for Love, You Can Count on Me, 25th Hour, Traffic, The Pledge, A History of Violence, and 3-Iron here yet to see.
Also, are you suggesting I shouldn’t be here since I disagree a lot with Sasha and Ryan? That…would make this place a dull echo chamber. Debate is healthy, especially in this crazy time before we really know anything about the shape of the awards season.
“See, 3-D is just a gimmick. And it will always be just a gimmick. It may add to the entertainment value, but I don’t think it has legitimate artistic applications, or is anything but a box office ploy.”
Oh shit… you’re right.
I can’t believe it, nobody has ever said that about 3D before. I’m actually real glad you talked down to me like that and explained a technology you don’t understand. I’m grateful you knew that, because now I’m completely enlightened. 3D = gimmick: got it! I mean, no consideration for how it triggers memory creation and activates geographic synapses in the brain to where it literally tells your body you’re in the place you’re seeing. Or the fact that even a movie like Atonement or Little Children could be a more captivating experience if seen in 3D, because it amplifies the feelings we already get from watching movies (loud or quiet, fun or depressing). Or even the fact that there is 3D projection that can be viewed without glasses. You just steamroll past any possible benefits from the technology and shoot from the hip – I like that. I think the Internet needs you to stay on it and do nothing else.
You should have a blog of your own, dude. Or even a book. That is, whenever you’re done compiling your next “Top 100″ list. I know those take up a lot of time with little reward. Martyrdom is a bitch.
A 9.5 for cutting sarcasm, banana! Skilled sarcasm is rare on these here internets!
Also, I fail to see the benefits of “being in the place you’re seeing”. That’s not the point of a movie, is it? Would it improve the Godfather if you could feel just like you’re RIGHT THERE when Sonny Corleone is murdered? Cinema requires distance. I think it would be a terribly bad thing for a lot of movies to have the YOU ARE THERE feeling, and that really only blockbuster/action/cheesy horror needs that. One of my favorite movies of the decade, The Fall, has intensely gorgeous visuals, but I’d NEVER want to be “immersed” in them. If you’re immersed in the film, you can’t simultaneously think about the film, engage with it on any intelligent level.
Amplifies the feelings? Why do we need that in the first place? If you need technology to amplify your feelings while watching a movie, perhaps you shouldn’t be a movie buff.
I guess in essence this is an ideological conflict, and boils down in a large extent to your opinion of what film should be and how it should be viewed. 3-D may have its uses, but I’m absolutely terrified about your suggestion that it should be used on films like Atonement and Little Children, not that I’ve seen these films (will certainly soon get around to them with my special project), but because films with a brain and a heart don’t need this.
Advocates of 3-D talk of its benefits, but I’m not so convinced those are benefits, and they may in fact have a negative impact on film.
Vermicious Knid, what’s the deal with all the films you haven’t seen? Were you in a coma?
I wasn’t a serious film buff until late 2007.
Leave a reply
All comments should respect the Awards Daily House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please let us know, quoting the comment in question.