Not arguing against Avatar here, but just sayin'...people are putting too. much. weight. on James Cameron's name (or the inevitable "from the director of Titanic" line in the marketing).

That's a lot of my argument Zing. Cameron's name really is only a big deal to a group that's smaller than the Trek fanbase. 10 years later and here's the rub:

JJ Abrams and the writers of Star Trek: Popular shows such as Lost and Fringe, Abrams is known for pushing Cloverfield strongly, and the writers gave us the giant hit Transformers, and will be doing it again for Transformers 2.

James Cameron made great movies, but has done nothing for ten years. The most recent productions were a cancelled tv show and a couple of IMAX documentaries. And honestly, the main fanbase that made Titanic a success is not going to go near a sci-fi movie. Especially if a Twilight movie is opening anytime soon thereafter. Cameron always struck me as a kind of Lucas director too, more concerned with effects than anything else. He pulls it off a lot better, but with all his talking, I just can't see the appeal for Avatar other than "OMG CAMERON". T2 and Aliens were 20 years ago, let it go.

I don't believe "From the director of Titanic!" is going to get any more interest than "From the creator of Lost and the writers of Transformers!"

Cameron is great because he makes action and effects-laden films that are great drama. Aliens, T1/T2, Abyss...Titanic was a bit of a slip on the drama part, though.

Titanic wasn't just a teen girl movie or a drama. It's just that it's remembered for that because it stood out.

Um...I Am Legend wasn't a usual Dec film, but it was fine. If people want to see it, it won't stop it. BTW, you could say the same about fantasy and Dec before LOTR.

Anyway, it's less his name, and more the process that he will bring to the film. In other world you can know that there is real reason to think this movie can show stuff that will will very impressive. It's a different kind of film, we can't know yet what it will look like, but I'd feel enough for upper 200s is very possible.

Well there might not be as many core fans, but it can act as a conversation piece about the film either way. If people don't think it looks appealing it won't help, if they do, it will. But after people see a trailer it can help spread word about it, or something to help people remember it by: "hey, I was thinking of seeing that new movie" "oh, etc. titanic etc."

Plus, it should play well in the media and allow for a lot of comparisons, and material for articles.



Abrams and the writers don't have anything that was an event like Titanic. I don't think being the writers of a movie like Transformers (I believe Bay writes the opening weekend stuff - the action) compares at all. I mean what if you advertised in a trailer: "from the writer of Pearl Harbor". My point is just about the gross and a writer's career; I'm not trying to get into a script quality argument.



A movie like this is 4 quadrant. I mean you could have argued a decade ago that teen girls would never see a comic book movie. This is not Star Trek; there are ways to market it to women.

Blasphemy!

Cameron is in a whole different league. Indeed, he pushes sfx forward in his movies but he never lose track of the human element. He makes believable characters and drama whereas Lucas is like a kid mind trapped in a body of an adult.

Maybe there's a disconnect between the adults here that lived through Cameron's work and those that think he's some guy that last made a film 11 years ago.

Some of the comments being made are pretty much insane.

True. That's also in my mind when i say "but this is Cameron!". It's not so much the name that will draw people in but his work (i.e. the movie, in this case Avatar).

I think Star Trek will make a lot more than people here are saying it will...

But Avatar is in a separate league as far as expectations go.

I think Trek will do Mission Impossible III numbers, which considering where the franchise left off, is very respectable.

You guys are going to have to prove me wrong with Star Trek. Even then I won't acknowledge your logic, which I find especially flawed.

Avatar could crash and burn though. But it should make at least 200m on curiosity.

It would actually be incredible.

The sfx can get the opening weekend, and WOM can hopefully keep the gross up through Dec.

How is it flawed, and how have we not proven you wrong?

It's more like reality is going to have to prove you right/wrong after the movie comes out.

I believe the conclusions you are making based on it's associations have flawed thinking. I've detailed that elsewhere.

You will of course disagree with that, but that is the way of things.

Fantasy as a genre didn't work period before LOTR. I'm not saying Avatar is going to flop, but I think around King Kong numbers are where it's going to end up. I'm saying around 200 now, I think I've upped everything a bit. I just think Trek is going to do a little better than most think, based on the trailer and the crowd-pleasing pedigree of it's writers and directors. :-)

I am Legend had Will Smith in a big budget blockbuster. That even got Wild Wild West across the 100mil mark. Avatar is getting a lot of hype for no stars, but for a director who again hasn't exactly been in the public eye for a long time and from effects that are supposedly revolutionary.

I think part of the problem is a lot of misjudging going on, and personal bias getting in the way. Star Trek has hype, could have killed this Christmas but they took a risk moving it. Unless a Speed Racer style disaster happens, it's guaranteed to hit MI3 levels, and I'm thinking a lot more. As we have seen with a lot of movies, you can't make predictions on personal bias. Avatar is coasting on a love of James Cameron, and he does make incredible movies. But other than Titanic and Terminator 2, what movie of his has done *that* well at the box office?

I plan on seeing the crap out of both movies, provided they're good, but I can't place my bets on a hardcore science-fiction effects-focused movie beating out a crowd-pleaser with a guaranteed fanbase that will see it several times as long as it's even passable.

Whoever loses, though, Zoe Saldana wins, as she's in both :-D

The movie's gross doesn't prove you right or wrong because that assumes that in making an accurate prediction you knew every reason everyone went to see the movie (I mean there could be thousands of somewhat significant things that have an influence). There's only a tendency to indicate a likelyhood of being right. That's why sample size matters. Over 2 years a Box Office Derby score will tend to be very close to the ability to predict (given the rules). A prediction can only prove one right or wrong if the odds of it happening are extremely unlikely enough.

Plus, predictions are one dimensional. Play it safe, and stay in what is considered the middle, and you will reduce risk. But the ideas and theories depend on something else. They have many dimensions and using them depends on working with everything that could influence the most accurate theory. So the odds of creating a theory that explains many factors and patterns very well, and being wrong, is very low.

With say Einstein, how could it even have been possible for him to imagine his theory, as if a dream, and then have it proven by experimentation? The odds of that happening by chance are too small to consider. I makes perfect sense then (and I'd say it's the only explanation) to say that he somehow figured out how to look at the problem in such a way as to do something in his brain that helped him leap to the solution. I think that's obvious, but I'd put it this way: could that sort of ability not be possible to develop? I'm creating ideas right now.



You said you could throw one movie or another at me as comparisons and I think I showed why they are different.

Comparisons are validated not by having similarities, but by being the most likely reasons. Lots of things can have random similarities. The best way to know it's the most likely reason is the strength of the patterns and reasoning. In other words the construction of the theory itself and the theory's applicability. Patterns can be statistically unlikely, so they can then indicate causes. Being socially acceptable or not doesn't determine it. It depends on whether it can be counted on to match how thing really work.

I don't want to be rude, but this is what I need to say if you attack my way of debating. I'm putting a lot more energy to move this conversation forward. You might believe in the Socratic method, but it's not of use in discussing, debating, or creating theories or anything like them them. That's for the same reason I described in the first part. A quality theory is extremely unlikely to be randomly useful. The odds of me creating this argument here without investing a lot in it myself, and having it be useful, are astronomical.



There's nothing wrong with guesses or speculation, but I think we propose theories for the sake of creating value. So, how do we know the value? It must be in the most mathematically reliable theory construction.

Well, Harry Potter. It doesn't matter if it was right before, it still would have been a hit either way.

Anyway HP. LOTR shows even more that not having something successful before of some type doesn't prove it won't work.



If you think that and debate me, respond to my arguments for why not. I think in the ST 125m+ thread.



I was just saying that action movies can fit in December, which I think LOTR and IAL prove. The date can be fine.

The potential for the movie is a separate matter.

Avatar has more potential to look extraordinary than IAL.



Ok, but if so show it.



You're bias then? Come on, back that up.



Why does it need to? We know at least he has the potential. Directors don't guarantee grosses at all. I think that's obvious.



The fanbase has been shrinking based on all data.

Avatar is the type of movie that studios almost always try to make for all audiences. Plus Cameron has a history of being able to reach most demographics that exist. It's very likely that this will repeat that.



Nice, I guess...

What I've said about Avatar relates to the 3D aspect, and is based on the assumption that it ends up looking as good as has been promised. Although I was impressed with the Trek trailer.

Behind all the arguments though I might care who directs the films, but it's not the thing that will actually make the difference to audiences. What matters is whether they see a film that has widespread potential to appeal to all audiences. Being unique/mindblowing/impressive can be the key. Every process, shot, trailer, logic, and scene is working towards that. Liking movies is a matter of taste. Whether a movie is good for society is a separate thing, and can be debated. The Box Office arguments should make sense if for no other reason than the fact that they are being made for some reason so they should be as accurate as possible.

Same thing for science: it should be built to be used to create new things useful to wonder/think/imagine/dream about. The strength of the way it's constructed creates value.

In addition I think that

Ok, I'm resurrecting this thing. STILL no trailer or anything official on Avatar released besides some "OMG FX!" talk, and Star Trek is getting the best reviews of the year. Deadline May 1st. Lets do this.

In:
Me
Munkpool

Out
Everyone else.

NO.

Avatar will have the hype and headlines and FOX knows it needs to be big so they will market the hell out of it. Star Trek will do well....it might even hit $200 million but unless Avatar is a flop (if it makes less than $200 million) I can't see ST getting very close.

Since when is, say, $190m a flop?

Everyone knows that I'm the biggest believer in STAR TREK (I heard many, many things, when I opened the $100m opening weekend club back in November), but AVATAR - if everything goes right - is a lock for $300m plus x while STAR TREK should finish with something like $250m - so NO...

Fox may be in desperation mode by the time this comes out, since the crap that's happened with Wolverine, and if that and NATM2 disappoints they may be left without a huge hit for this year, so they indeed will be pushing Avatar. However the movie has to have something other than effects, and storywise it has a long way to go, again based off the old scriptment which is several years old.

I think it will be close, but I feel much better about this club than I did last year, since Paramount is doing one of the best marketing jobs I've ever seen with Trek, and Fox has been extremely silent thus far.