Avatar

Acies · Post by **Acies** » January 1, 2010, 12:18 am

Terrans vs Night Elves.

I enjoyed this movie.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » January 2, 2010, 5:01 pm

Yeah I enjoyed the shit out of this movie. Saw it in 3d at the Imax, I will see it again in 3D but I'll skip the Imax cause their seats would be cramped for all but the skinniest of midgets.

Post by **Sylvus** » January 4, 2010, 12:13 pm

You should find a new IMAX theater. I'm 6'2" and a large man, and ours has lots of room. I don't even have to move my legs for someone to walk in front of me to get to their seats. It probably has the most leg room of any theater I've ever been to.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » January 4, 2010, 12:30 pm

I heard on news this morning that Avatar made another 68 million this weekend and has grossed over 1 Billion already worldwide. Not bad. I guess the 200 million advertising budget was worthwhile after all.

I saw this movie in 3D at regular theater this weekend. The 3D visuals were impressive but not "game changing" IMO. Having seen the movie already, I walked out with about 20 minutes left after getting my fill of 3D.

I thought the 3D was cool but didn't get that "gotta see every movie in 3D" feeling afterward.

Kwonryu DragonFist · Post by **Kwonryu DragonFist** » January 4, 2010, 6:29 pm

Well, it's nothing new that Camerons movies are popular, he has that "Midas-touch".

Gonzoie - Luclin · Post by **Gonzoie - Luclin** » January 4, 2010, 6:34 pm

Winnow wrote:I heard on news this morning that Avatar made another 68 million this weekend and has grossed over 1 Billion already worldwide. Not bad. I guess the 200 million advertising budget was worthwhile after all.

I saw this movie in 3D at regular theater this weekend. The 3D visuals were impressive but not "game changing" IMO. Having seen the movie already, I walked out with about 20 minutes left after getting my fill of 3D.

I thought the 3D was cool but didn't get that "gotta see every movie in 3D" feeling afterward.

The 3D isn't what this movie was all about, granted it was a nice touch. The movie was about the new technology used to create the CGI effects and the realism in the world of Pandora. That is the big deal and what is game changing about this movie, and yes, that is definitely game changing.

Most of the movie, if not the entire movie, was shot in a green room. I would like to see another movie come close to what Cameron has done with that.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » January 5, 2010, 1:05 am

Gonzoie - Luclin wrote:
Most of the movie, if not the entire movie, was shot in a green room. I would like to see another movie come close to what Cameron has done with that.

http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/167741/ ... _time.html

Gonzoie - Luclin · Post by **Gonzoie - Luclin** » January 5, 2010, 1:39 am

Yes, there are plenty of movies with bad CGI. Thanks for quoting something I said and posting something that has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Drolgin Steingrinder · January 5, 2010, 9:16 am

Gonzoie - Luclin wrote: The 3D isn't what this movie was all about, granted it was a nice touch. The movie was about the new technology used to create the CGI effects and the realism in the world of Pandora. That is the big deal and what is game changing about this movie, and yes, that is definitely game changing.

Most of the movie, if not the entire movie, was shot in a green room. I would like to see another movie come close to what Cameron has done with that.

The 3D was all this movie was about. It'd still be pretty to look at in a regular theatre, but without the wow factor of combination of 3D and the CGI, the ridiculously shitty story, poor acting and horrid dramaturgy would take over. I imagine it would get dull real quick.

Until I get a proper 3D projector at home there's no way I'd even consider buying it - the rewatchability factor is as close to zero as makes no difference.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » January 5, 2010, 12:12 pm

Sylvus wrote:You should find a new IMAX theater. I'm 6'2" and a large man, and ours has lots of room. I don't even have to move my legs for someone to walk in front of me to get to their seats. It probably has the most leg room of any theater I've ever been to.

Yeah I've been to a few around here and had the same problem everywhere. I think a new one did open here recently though, maybe I'll check that one out next time.

Gonzoie - Luclin · Post by **Gonzoie - Luclin** » January 5, 2010, 12:57 pm

Drolgin Steingrinder wrote:
Gonzoie - Luclin wrote: The 3D isn't what this movie was all about, granted it was a nice touch. The movie was about the new technology used to create the CGI effects and the realism in the world of Pandora. That is the big deal and what is game changing about this movie, and yes, that is definitely game changing.

Most of the movie, if not the entire movie, was shot in a green room. I would like to see another movie come close to what Cameron has done with that.
The 3D was all this movie was about. It'd still be pretty to look at in a regular theatre, but without the wow factor of combination of 3D and the CGI, the ridiculously shitty story, poor acting and horrid dramaturgy would take over. I imagine it would get dull real quick.

Until I get a proper 3D projector at home there's no way I'd even consider buying it - the rewatchability factor is as close to zero as makes no difference.

I highly disagree that the 3D is all this movie was about. From people I have talked to that saw this in regular, without the 3D, still thought the CGI was light-years above anything they have seen visually. The fact remains that this movie used all new technology for motion capture, which was the big deal. The same way The Matrix brought about all new technology for filming a single sequence with the circular camera setup. You can argue that you think it is not, but that is an opinion and you are entitled to your own.

I will say again, show me another movie that was mainly shot in a green room that produced this kind of quality with the visuals. Lord of the Rings had a lot of green room, as well as King Kong, but when you think technologically advanced movie of the decade, there is only one option in the field of visuals.

Also, I most likely won't see this movie a second time because I didn't enjoy it for the story as much as I did for the orgasm of visuals on screen. If I were to see it a second time it would be for the same purpose.

Post by **Sylvus** » January 5, 2010, 1:06 pm

I disagree with Drolgin and agree with Gonzoie. The CGI was leaps and bounds ahead of anything else I've seen. It all looked photo-realistic.

I also don't think the story was that bad. It wasn't particularly original, but that doesn't mean it was bad.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » January 5, 2010, 1:33 pm

Sylvus wrote:I disagree with Drolgin and agree with Gonzoie. The CGI was leaps and bounds ahead of anything else I've seen. It all looked photo-realistic.

I also don't think the story was that bad. It wasn't particularly original, but that doesn't mean it was bad.

Exactly on both points. People have such obnoxiously high expectations for movies that pretty much anything is set to fail from the start.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » January 5, 2010, 3:11 pm

Well as someone who's seen it twice (almost, walked out 2nd viewing), I walked out on the amazing 3D visuals with 20 mins left so at least for me, the visuals weren't that overwhelming after one viewing, having already known what was coming in the final 20 mins from the non 3D experience.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » January 5, 2010, 3:26 pm

Winnow wrote:Well as someone who's seen it twice (almost, walked out 2nd viewing), I walked out on the amazing 3D visuals with 20 mins left so at least for me, the visuals weren't that overwhelming after one viewing, having already known what was coming in the final 20 mins from the non 3D experience.

You also seem to have the attention span of a 8 year old with ADD and very odd standards for things

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » January 5, 2010, 3:47 pm

The ad blitz made me not want to go see this movie, the couple reviews I looked at + the commercials made me think it was "a video game movie".

I might go see it when it comes out on DVD.

Post by **Sylvus** » January 5, 2010, 4:51 pm

Funkmasterr wrote:
Winnow wrote:Well as someone who's seen it twice (almost, walked out 2nd viewing), I walked out on the amazing 3D visuals with 20 mins left so at least for me, the visuals weren't that overwhelming after one viewing, having already known what was coming in the final 20 mins from the non 3D experience.
You also seem to have the attention span of a 8 year old with ADD and very odd standards for things

I bet if they showed that main Navi chick wearing a catholic schoolgirl skirt with a hint of her panties showing for 2.3 seconds after the credits rolled, Winnow would be able to tell us who the Best Boy Grip was.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » January 5, 2010, 4:59 pm

Sylvus wrote:
Funkmasterr wrote:
Winnow wrote:Well as someone who's seen it twice (almost, walked out 2nd viewing), I walked out on the amazing 3D visuals with 20 mins left so at least for me, the visuals weren't that overwhelming after one viewing, having already known what was coming in the final 20 mins from the non 3D experience.
You also seem to have the attention span of a 8 year old with ADD and very odd standards for things
I bet if they showed that main Navi chick wearing a catholic schoolgirl skirt with a hint of her panties showing for 2.3 seconds after the credits rolled, Winnow would be able to tell us who the Best Boy Grip was.

Hilarious!

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » January 5, 2010, 10:17 pm

ZING!

I agree with Drolgin and disagree with Gonzoie and Sylvus. As such, Aab, if you're going to see this at all you should absolutely go find it in a theater.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » January 5, 2010, 10:56 pm

I do admit the movie was missing a little T&A. If the Na'vi prototype would have been based off of Alizee in her sailor's outfit, it would have added a bit to the movie's final score.

And how come every creature in Pandora breathed out of their chest vents except the Na'vi who were mouth breathers and had perfect human teeth? CGI not good enough to make them chest vent breathers as well?

Drolgin Steingrinder · January 6, 2010, 1:58 pm

Funkmasterr wrote: Exactly on both points. People have such obnoxiously high expectations for movies that pretty much anything is set to fail from the start.

Obnoxiously high expectations? I'm sorry if I would like THE MOVIE EVENT OF THE DECADE!!!1! to be more than regurgitated pap, storywise. I'd like more than "oooer, pretty colors".

I'm glad you enjoyed it, more power to you. Don't hate on me for wanting some other and more than standard_hollywood_action_adventure_script_002.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » January 6, 2010, 2:07 pm

Drolgin Steingrinder wrote:
Funkmasterr wrote: Exactly on both points. People have such obnoxiously high expectations for movies that pretty much anything is set to fail from the start.
Obnoxiously high expectations? I'm sorry if I would like THE MOVIE EVENT OF THE DECADE!!!1! to be more than regurgitated pap, storywise. I'd like more than "oooer, pretty colors".

I'm glad you enjoyed it, more power to you. Don't hate on me for wanting some other and more than standard_hollywood_action_adventure_script_002.

Wasn't singling you out at all. I'm just sick of nothing ever being good enough, especially for people here. Loosen up and fucking enjoy something without bitching about how it wasn't original or whatever for once.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » January 6, 2010, 2:43 pm

Funkmasterr wrote:
Wasn't singling you out at all. I'm just sick of nothing ever being good enough, especially for people here. Loosen up and fucking enjoy something without bitching about how it wasn't original or whatever for once.

It's not that nothing's ever good enough for people here, it's that the same movie or whatever else is being discussed isn't good enough to everyone at the same time. As an example, you'll hate an actual quality movie some of us like at a later date.

I'm not totally against cookie cutter movies when it comes to certain genres of movies. Comedies usually can follow the same god damned plot every time and still be entertaining. When it comes to Dances With Wolves...it's been done....several times. If a director is going to be so bold as to copy so closely another movie, he'd better bring it with some interesting dialog and acting and not count on CGI to hide the fact that he's dropped the ball completely in every other aspect of the movie.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » January 6, 2010, 3:28 pm

Winnow wrote:
Funkmasterr wrote:
Wasn't singling you out at all. I'm just sick of nothing ever being good enough, especially for people here. Loosen up and fucking enjoy something without bitching about how it wasn't original or whatever for once.
It's not that nothing's ever good enough for people here, it's that the same movie or whatever else is being discussed isn't good enough to everyone at the same time. As an example, you'll hate an actual quality movie some of us like at a later date.

I'm not totally against cookie cutter movies when it comes to certain genres of movies. Comedies usually can follow the same god damned plot every time and still be entertaining. When it comes to Dances With Wolves...it's been done....several times. If a director is going to be so bold as to copy so closely another movie, he'd better bring it with some interesting dialog and acting and not count on CGI to hide the fact that he's dropped the ball completely in every other aspect of the movie.

Yeah I still think people need to get over themselves. Guess what else, just because you read the book (this doesn't pertain to Avatar particularly) or you've had a nerdON for the comic book since Nam, doesn't mean you need to hold it to any kind of standard when it's made into a movie. The book is the book, the movie is the movie. I realize it's hard for people to grasp the difficulty of things like inner monologue, etc being transferred to film, but try to go see a movie and judge it on it's own merit.

And if this story (Avatar) is a retelling of Dances with Wolves, then I guess that's an added bonus, in my book. I consider it a noteworthy accomplishment to tell me a story that I've been told is a good one without making me suffer through the fucking dumpster of Kevin Costner's acting career.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » January 6, 2010, 3:40 pm

I'm going to see this in 3D on the Imax this weekend. I'm a little late to the party, but I look forward to giving my impressions after I see it!

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » January 6, 2010, 4:28 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:I'm going to see this in 3D on the Imax this weekend. I'm a little late to the party, but I look forward to giving my impressions after I see it!

Make sure the Imax you go to isn't designed for gnomes.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » January 6, 2010, 8:40 pm

While I understand that for many, movies need not be original, as we all have our own way of being entertained, I agree with Drolgin on most points.

And it really isn't this particular movie, or its Costner predecesor (which was total ass). It just fits its "Classic Hollywood Cinema" formula, as Hollywood regurgitated movies have since the early part of the 20th century. CHC formula works and generates revenue. That is its purpose. The beauty of it is a simplistic, leading-by-the-nose script (re: Vanilla Sky) with the illusion of complex characters.

Modern technology allows for shinies and KABLAMMOS@U!!!1 to even further hide obvious raping of filmmaking as an art form. 2012 was a good example of this...

It's all how you look at it!

Drolgin Steingrinder · January 7, 2010, 9:29 pm

Funkmasterr wrote:
Drolgin Steingrinder wrote:
Funkmasterr wrote: Exactly on both points. People have such obnoxiously high expectations for movies that pretty much anything is set to fail from the start.
Obnoxiously high expectations? I'm sorry if I would like THE MOVIE EVENT OF THE DECADE!!!1! to be more than regurgitated pap, storywise. I'd like more than "oooer, pretty colors".

I'm glad you enjoyed it, more power to you. Don't hate on me for wanting some other and more than standard_hollywood_action_adventure_script_002.

Wasn't singling you out at all. I'm just sick of nothing ever being good enough, especially for people here. Loosen up and fucking enjoy something without bitching about how it wasn't original or whatever for once.

If you read my posts, you would see that I described how thoroughly I was entertained while I sat there. I had a fucking blast. Afterwards, like eating too much popcorn.

I love being surprised when I go to the movies. I love being entertained by something I had low hopes for or no opinion on. In 2009, that would be films like Moon, The Hurt Locker, Sherlock Holmes (surprised the fuck out of me that it wasn't absolute shit), The Informant (a film about price fixing in the corn industry? How can this be interesting?), I Love You Man. I would absolutely love if Ghostbusters 3 will surprise the fuck out of me and be an entertaining movie - I doubt it, but I'm going in with an open mind when it opens sometime in 2011.

But "entertained" does not equal "a great film". Movies, like all artforms, are best when they manage to talk to us on more than one level. When they tell us a story, take us to a new place and leaves an impression that lasts longer than the smell of popcorn in our clothes. In four or five years, when average tech levels have reached and surpassed the achievements of this film, it will be remembered only as a technical milestone. And I think it's a shame that he didn't try harder to tell a good story to go along with all those lovely pieces of kit he had to play with. He went to the pick'n'mix of tried&true Hollywood cliches, took the ones he liked and added nothing other than admittedly amazing special effects and cgi.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » January 11, 2010, 1:26 am

I've seen it too:

http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/251890

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » January 11, 2010, 4:57 am

I enjoyed the movie. It was worth seeing as an event. It's hard for me to believe it's going to be the best selling movie of all time. It wasn't that good!

Imax was sold out 3 days in advance and this is what, it's 4th week? Goddamn!

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » January 11, 2010, 6:01 am

I may be rehashing what's already been said, but for me this movie was amazing because of two things:

-The technological advancements are huge. The facial animation and virtual camera techniques are game changing for the future of CG film-making.

-The last half or third of the film felt completely epic and gave me a total nerdgasm. The third act, all the way to the very last shot, was fucking exactly what I expected from a film like this. LotR was the last film that felt this epic.

Yes, the dialogue was terrible. The social/political commentary was so overt it was literally laughable and there was an unbelievable lack of creativity through 95% of the dialogue. Still, it was a perfect big screen joyride and that's all I wanted from it.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » January 11, 2010, 11:56 am

Drolgin Steingrinder wrote:
Funkmasterr wrote:
Drolgin Steingrinder wrote:
Funkmasterr wrote: Exactly on both points. People have such obnoxiously high expectations for movies that pretty much anything is set to fail from the start.
Obnoxiously high expectations? I'm sorry if I would like THE MOVIE EVENT OF THE DECADE!!!1! to be more than regurgitated pap, storywise. I'd like more than "oooer, pretty colors".

I'm glad you enjoyed it, more power to you. Don't hate on me for wanting some other and more than standard_hollywood_action_adventure_script_002.

Wasn't singling you out at all. I'm just sick of nothing ever being good enough, especially for people here. Loosen up and fucking enjoy something without bitching about how it wasn't original or whatever for once.
If you read my posts, you would see that I described how thoroughly I was entertained while I sat there. I had a fucking blast. Afterwards, like eating too much popcorn.

I love being surprised when I go to the movies. I love being entertained by something I had low hopes for or no opinion on. In 2009, that would be films like Moon, The Hurt Locker, Sherlock Holmes (surprised the fuck out of me that it wasn't absolute shit), The Informant (a film about price fixing in the corn industry? How can this be interesting?), I Love You Man. I would absolutely love if Ghostbusters 3 will surprise the fuck out of me and be an entertaining movie - I doubt it, but I'm going in with an open mind when it opens sometime in 2011.

But "entertained" does not equal "a great film". Movies, like all artforms, are best when they manage to talk to us on more than one level. When they tell us a story, take us to a new place and leaves an impression that lasts longer than the smell of popcorn in our clothes. In four or five years, when average tech levels have reached and surpassed the achievements of this film, it will be remembered only as a technical milestone. And I think it's a shame that he didn't try harder to tell a good story to go along with all those lovely pieces of kit he had to play with. He went to the pick'n'mix of tried&true Hollywood cliches, took the ones he liked and added nothing other than admittedly amazing special effects and cgi.

I understand. I disagree that this isn't a great film, however I see movies that entertain me all the time but I wouldn't consider great.. The difference is I enjoy them for what they are/were and move on, I don't bitch about how much better it could have been every_single_time this happens. That was my point really.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » January 11, 2010, 12:47 pm

This is is the movie equivalent of the Wii. It's got a cool newfangled tech twist to it but the movie itself sucks.

My Avatar 3D glasses sit in a junk pile, same as were my Wii remote would be if I had one!

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » January 11, 2010, 1:02 pm

I had my Avatar 3d glasses recycled. Shame on you for not doing the same!

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » January 11, 2010, 1:07 pm

Recycle those Wii remotes as well!

Winnow wrote:This is is the movie equivalent of the Wii. It's got a cool newfangled tech twist to it but the movie itself sucks.

My Avatar 3D glasses sit in a junk pile, same as were my Wii remote would be if I had one!

Ah hell, Nick's going to give me shit now!

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » January 11, 2010, 2:07 pm

Winnow wrote:Recycle those Wii remotes as well!

Winnow wrote:This is is the movie equivalent of the Wii. It's got a cool newfangled tech twist to it but the movie itself sucks.

My Avatar 3D glasses sit in a junk pile, same as were my Wii remote would be if I had one!
Ah hell, Nick's going to give me shit now!

Stupid fucking American.

Kwonryu DragonFist · Post by **Kwonryu DragonFist** » January 15, 2010, 9:35 pm

Dances with Wolves, Last Samurai and Pocahontas?

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » January 15, 2010, 9:44 pm

Yeah, I knew that already, but it's somehow even more sad reading it that way, lol.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » January 15, 2010, 9:44 pm

"and the two cultures resolve their differences"

that last line just gave away the entire plot for Avatar 2.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » January 17, 2010, 11:51 am

You know, I always thought that the story for this movie shouldn't be that great. Who saw this in 3D and wasn't staring at the environment the entire time. I had to be reminded by myself several times that there was an actual story going on. That having been said, the next two should have kick ass complicated stories, though I'm not sure that Cameron is possible of such things.

Kwonryu DragonFist · January 17, 2010, 12:36 pm

No matter how intricate, fresh, new, complicated and riveting story Cameron's next movie will have, there will be boatloads of people seeing it, while Cameron is laughing all the way to the bank as usual with his Midas-touch!

Bojangels · Post by **Bojangels** » January 17, 2010, 1:52 pm

I saw a show last night called The Making of Pandora or something like that. They said he came up with the story in 1995, but they didn't have the technology to pull it off until now. So I can kind of forgive the weak story.

If you google some of the behind the scenes, 'making of' stuff, there's some really cool stuff they use to make this movie.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » January 17, 2010, 5:36 pm

Bojangels wrote:I saw a show last night called The Making of Pandora or something like that. They said he came up with the story in 1995, but they didn't have the technology to pull it off until now. So I can kind of forgive the weak story.

Dances with Wolves: 1990
Pocahontas: 1995

hmmmmm, 1995 would have been a good year to "come up" with this amazing Avatar story.

Bojangels · Post by **Bojangels** » January 17, 2010, 5:56 pm

If the movie came out in 1991 or 1996, I'd be right there with you. I think 15-20 years between movies with similar plots is a long enough cool down.

I know I know, Last Samurai, 2003 omg only 7 years.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » May 10, 2010, 8:07 am

We went and saw Avatar in the theater a while back instead of waiting for the DVD on a couple peoples' recommendation. It was an entertaining movie, I enjoyed it thoroughly, but far from a "good" movie.

The wife borrowed the DVD from someone and I watched bits and pieces of it yesterday afternoon but absolutely couldn't get into it. It was just dumb. Without the big screen, 3D and booming sound system it's a very lame\forgettable movie.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » June 29, 2010, 9:29 pm

This just came up in my mom's netflix queue. Great movie, and while the plot might not have been the most intricate and subtle, it really needed to be simple if it was going to reach the audience it needed to turn a decent profit. I realized this when my mom turned to me and said "Wow, the navi are like the indians." Well played, Mr. Cameron.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » July 11, 2010, 12:31 am

Still Want To Be A Doctor? James Cameron Pockets $350 Million For ‘Avatar’

This news is so very incomprehensible, you might just find yourself staring at the numbers for an hour or two before snapping out a shock-induced coma.

It’s no secret that Avatar was the biggest movie that this or any other world has ever seen (maybe…I hear Omicron Persei 8 is remaking Bikini Party Summer). With a budget somewhere in the $250 million to $300 million budget, the risk was unheard of and failure would have been of cataclysmic proportions. But we should all know by now that James Cameron knows best, and he’s about to have a very good day because of it.

Avatar went on to destroy the box office and all records in its path. Before we knew it, the only significant record left was Cameron’s other dominant force, Titanic, and its untouchable $600 million domestic gross bar-setter. Avatar not only touched that record but assaulted it, now sitting $150 million past previous record…and with a special theatrical re-release still to come in August, no less.

So how much does a director make for this? It all comes down to percentages. Big name talents usually sign a sizable contract consisting of a salary percentage that will be paid based on how the movie performs at the box office. Cameron, acting as not only the director but also as writer and producer, had a nice, fat percentage coming his way, as you might imagine. With Avatar pulling in $2.7 BILLION to date, the payday for the man at the wheel is beyond anything anyone could have imagined.

According to a report by Deadline, James Cameron will be taking home a $350 million paycheck for his work on Avatar. Yes, you read that correctly — Cameron will be making more than even the biggest movies cost to make, and more than the majority of films ever come close to scoring in their own respective box office runs.

What could be even more surprising than this, you ask? The reason this payoff is so big is not due to this unheard of box office run, but the success that Avatar has since found on DVD and Blu-ray. There’s a reason movies go from theaters to the disc in only a few short months these days, and this is just further proof of the dollars to be had on screens big and small.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » July 11, 2010, 11:42 am

Isn't Mrs. Tiger Woods rumored to be getting almost twice that for doing absolutely nothing but sitting on her ass and watching her husband do all the work?

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » July 12, 2010, 12:17 am

No, she's getting almost half that amount for fucking a man who had unprotected sex with dozens of porn actresses, stripers, and waitresses.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » July 12, 2010, 1:57 am

Lynks wrote:No, she's getting almost half that amount for fucking a man who had unprotected sex with dozens of porn actresses, stripers, and waitresses.

Either way he was doing all the work!