The *real* Top-50 Biggest Movies of All Time

[jAZ]

I've always thought it was a self-serving stunt for the film industry to promote the "top grossing" movies of all time. Of course that favors newer movies over older ones because ticket prices are always going up.

Here is the list of Top 50 movies of all time by number of tickets sold.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm?adjust_yr=1&p=.htm


Rank Title (click to view) Studio Est. Tickets Unadjusted Gross Year^
1 Gone with the Wind MGM 202,044,600 $198,676,459 1939^
2 Star Wars Fox 178,119,600 $460,998,007 1977^
3 The Sound of Music Fox 142,415,400 $158,671,368 1965
4 E.T. Uni. 141,854,300 $435,110,554 1982^
5 The Ten Commandmts Par. 131,000,000 $65,500,000 1956
6 Titanic Par. 128,345,900 $600,788,188 1997
7 Jaws Uni. 128,078,800 $260,000,000 1975
8 Doctor Zhivago MGM 124,135,500 $111,721,910 1965
9 The Exorcist WB 110,568,700 $232,671,011 1973^
10 Snow White Dis. 109,000,000 $184,925,486 1937^
11 101 Dalmatians Dis. 99,917,300 $144,880,014 1961^
12 The Empire Strikes Bck Fox 98,180,600 $290,475,067 1980^
13 Ben-Hur MGM 98,000,000 $74,000,000 1959
14 Return of the Jedi Fox 94,059,400 $309,306,177 1983^
15 The Sting Uni. 89,142,900 $156,000,000 1973
16 Raiders of the Lost Ark Par. 88,141,900 $242,374,454 1981^
17 Jurassic Park Uni. 86,205,800 $357,067,947 1993
18 The Graduate AVCO 85,571,400 $104,901,839 1967^
19 The Phantom Menace Fox 84,825,800 $431,088,301 1999
20 Fantasia Dis. 83,043,500 $76,408,097 1941^
21 The Godfather Par. 78,922,600 $134,966,411 1972^
22 Forrest Gump Par. 78,545,600 $329,694,499 1994
23 Mary Poppins Dis. 78,181,800 $102,272,727 1964^
24 The Lion King BV 77,231,800 $328,541,776 1994^
25 Grease Par. 76,921,800 $188,389,888 1978^
26 Avatar Fox 76,421,400 $554,981,691 2009
27 Thunderball UA 74,800,000 $63,595,658 1965
28 The Dark Knight WB 74,282,100 $533,345,358 2008
29 The Jungle Book Dis. 73,679,900 $141,843,612 1967^
30 Sleeping Beauty Dis. 72,676,100 $51,600,000 1959^
31 Shrek 2 DW 71,050,900 $441,226,247 2004
32 Ghostbusters Col. 70,730,600 $238,632,124 1984^
33 Butch Cassidy Fox 70,557,900 $102,308,889 1969
34 Love Story Par. 69,998,100 $106,397,186 1970
35 Spider-Man Sony 69,484,700 $403,706,375 2002
36 Independence Day Fox 69,268,900 $306,169,268 1996
37 Home Alone Fox 67,734,200 $285,761,243 1990
38 Pinocchio Dis. 67,403,300 $84,254,167 1940^
39 Cleopatra (1963) Fox 67,183,500 $57,777,778 1963
40 Beverly Hills Cop Par. 67,150,000 $234,760,478 1984
41 Goldfinger UA 66,300,000 $51,081,062 1964
42 Airport Uni. 66,111,300 $100,489,151 1970
43 American Graffiti Uni. 65,714,300 $115,000,000 1973
44 The Robe Fox 65,454,500 $36,000,000 1953
45 Pirates/Caribbean 2 BV 64,628,400 $423,315,812 2006
46 Around World 80 Days UA 64,615,400 $42,000,000 1956
47 Bambi RKO 63,712,400 $102,247,150 1942^
48 Blazing Saddles WB 63,227,500 $119,500,000 1974
49 Batman WB 62,954,600 $251,188,924 1989
50 The Bells of St. Mary's RKO 62,745,100 $21,333,333 1945

[LiL stumppy]

cool post. always was curious about that too

[Mastashake]

Four Star Wars movies in the top twenty... :)

Plus, a LOT of Avatars money is coming from the IMAX/3-D stuff.

[Rain Man]

Interesting stuff. I would propose that it could even be improved by calculating ticket sales as a proportion to the U.S. population.

You probably couldn't do the same thing with worldwide ticket sales, though, since I bet distribution channels have improved a lot over the past 80 years.

[Jenson71]

The population in 1939 was about 132,164,569. That's like everyone in the country seeing Gone With the Wind 1.5 times, then. If The Avatar had that same thing going for it as GWTW did, that would be 450 million tickets, about six times more than it has now, which would be a $3.3 billion gross.

[Mastashake]

The population in 1939 was about 132,164,569. That's like everyone in the country seeing Gone With the Wind 1.5 times, then. If The Avatar had that same thing going for it as GWTW did, that would be 450 million tickets, about six times more than it has now, which would be a $3.3 billion gross.

But, GWtW also has 70 years worth of ticket sales and re-releases. I've heard it would stay in movie theatres for years back then, as long as people came to see it. And there was no home video, so you had to go get a ticket if you wanted to watch it.

I'm not saying that's a huge factor, but there's no real solid formula for determining the winner.

[BWillie]

I don't understand Star Wars. Just about all of those movies are the worst movies I've ever seen, even worse than Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings, and even Gigli. Just ridiculously stupid.

[Mastashake]

I don't understand Star Wars. Just about all of those movies are the worst movies I've ever seen, even worse than Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings, and even Gigli. Just ridiculously stupid.

That's some hurtful sh*t right there. :( I don't even have it in me to get angry. Just hurt.

Its a fantasy realm. I'm guessing that doesn't mean anything to you, though. If you don't understand why someone would like Lord of the Rings, or (I'm guessing) Star Trek, then you won't understand why someone will like Star Wars either. Its a completely childish form of escapism, and wonderful in almost every way.

[okcchief]

I can't believe the Exorcist is number 9. I was a babe when it came out and didn't realize it was that big.

[SPATCH]

ERRONEOUS

[DaneMcCloud]

These "lists" are irrelevant.

In the 1930's, movies were cost next to nothing. The country was in a completely different economic state than ever before or after and there were no entertainment options. No NBA, NFL, MLB or NHL on TV. No cable. No satellite. Also, the Civil War was only a few generations removed and left a HUGE imprint on the US that is still felt today.

"Star Wars", "Titanic" and now "Avatar" have left HUGE legacies that have more to do with film making and story than "Gone With the Wind".

If ""Gone With the Wind" were made today, no one would care.

[Jenson71]

These "lists" are irrelevant.

In the 1930's, movies were cost next to nothing. The country was in a completely different economic state than ever before or after and there were no entertainment options. No NBA, NFL, MLB or NHL on TV. No cable. No satellite. Also, the Civil War was only a few generations removed and left a HUGE imprint on the US that is still felt today.

"Star Wars", "Titanic" and now "Avatar" have left HUGE legacies that have more to do with film making and story than "Gone With the Wind".

If ""Gone With the Wind" were made today, no one would care.

There are a couple things that seem wrong with this post, but first . . .

How much was a movie ticket in 1939?

[Hammock Parties]

Fuck Scarlet O'Hara.

And the mustachioed one.

[Hammock Parties]

These "lists" are irrelevant.

In the 1930's, movies were cost next to nothing. The country was in a completely different economic state than ever before or after and there were no entertainment options. No NBA, NFL, MLB or NHL on TV. No cable. No satellite. Also, the Civil War was only a few generations removed and left a HUGE imprint on the US that is still felt today.

"Star Wars", "Titanic" and now "Avatar" have left HUGE legacies that have more to do with film making and story than "Gone With the Wind".

If ""Gone With the Wind" were made today, no one would care.

I have never loved you more than I love you right now.

[Hammock Parties]

Ben-Hur

I downloaded the soundtrack to this the other day.

They don't make 'em like that anymore. Wonderful.

[teedubya]

Where did JAZ get this information? Why didn't he credit WHERE he got this data from?

I hate it when people dont accredit information.

[Hammock Parties]

You wanna know who is a titan of the last century?

http://peet.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/john_williams.jpg

He scored EIGHT of the top 20 highest-selling movies of ALL FREAKING TIME.

Bow down to John Williams.

[DaneMcCloud]

There are a couple things that seem wrong with this post, but first . . .

How much was a movie ticket in 1939?

It's up to YOU to disprove my statement.

Not me.

[DaneMcCloud]

Where did JAZ get this information? Why didn't he credit WHERE he got this data from?

I hate it when people dont accredit information.

There are several sites out there that list this info, so it's not necessarily incorrect.

It is, however, US figures only.

Not worldwide.

[Jenson71]

You wanna know who is a titan of the last century?

He scored EIGHT of the top 20 highest-selling movies of ALL FREAKING TIME.

Bow down to John Williams.

He's been nominated for something like 40-50 Academy Awards.

[Jenson71]

It's up to YOU to disprove my statement.

Not me.

You made a claim that "movies cost next to nothing." I'm asking you to be more specific.

[DaneMcCloud]

You made a claim that "movies cost next to nothing." I'm asking you to be more specific.

Uh, no.

You asked much more than that and ALSO said there were "several things wrong".

The burden of proof is yours.

Not mine.

[Jenson71]

Uh, no.

You asked much more than that and ALSO said there were "several things wrong".

The burden of proof is yours.

Not mine.

Right, I'm getting to those.

But first . . . how much was a movie ticket in 1939?

[Hammock Parties]

He's been nominated for something like 40-50 Academy Awards.

That's more than Bach and Beethoven combined.

[DaneMcCloud]

Right, I'm getting to those.

But first . . . how much was a movie ticket in 1939?

It's irrelevant.

If "all things are equal", how many tickets do you think that a "Gone With the Wind" would sell in 2010?

Then, compare that to "Star Wars", "Titanic" or "Avatar".

The cinematic experience with those three films is overwhelming when compared to "GWTW".

Especially, "Avatar" in 3D.

[Hammock Parties]

Gone with the Wind didn't even have any lightsabers.

[Jenson71]

It's irrelevant.

If "all things are equal", how many tickets do you think that a "Gone With the Wind" would sell in 2010?

Then, compare that to "Star Wars", "Titanic" or "Avatar".

The cinematic experience with those three films is overwhelming when compared to "GWTW".

Especially, "Avatar" in 3D.

Well, obviously. You can't take the films out of their historical context and compare them. It's like saying Alexander wasn't as good a general as Napoleon because he didn't have gunpowder.

How many tickets would Gone With the Wind sell today? Probably not much. How many tickets will Avatar sell in 2070?

It's hard to look at this list and say it's irrelevant. These numbers can tell us a lot.

[Hammock Parties]

Well, obviously. You can't take the films out of their historical context and compare them. It's like saying Alexander wasn't as good a general as Napoleon because he didn't have gunpowder.

How many tickets would Gone With the Wind sell today? Probably not much. How many tickets will Avatar sell in 2070?

I think it would sell plenty. People will line up to see old movies with new technology.

I'm hoping they release the original Star Wars movies in 3D in a few years. They'd clean up...not that George needs the money. ROFL

Hell, even seeing them in DLP would be a treat. DLP wasn't widespread when the special editions came out. If it was even in use at all....

[DaneMcCloud]

Well, obviously. You can't take the films out of their historical context and compare them. It's like saying Alexander wasn't as good a general as Napoleon because he didn't have gunpowder.

How many tickets would Gone With the Wind sell today? Probably not much. How many tickets will Avatar sell in 2070?

It's hard to look at this list and say it's irrelevant. These numbers can tell us a lot.

I didn't say the list was irrelevant.

I said the cost of a ticket in the 1930s was irrelevant to the discussion.

Life as we all know it has changed drastically in the past 80 years.

[Jenson71]

I think it would sell plenty. People will line up to see old movies with new technology.

I'm hoping they release the original Star Wars movies in 3D in a few years. They'd clean up...not that George needs the money. ROFL

Hell, even seeing them in DLP would be a treat. DLP wasn't widespread when the special editions came out. If it was even in use at all....

GWTW has seen some re-releases over the years. The latest was 1998. Here are the numbers: http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=gonewiththewind98.htm

It was an above average average per theater. But nothing special. If it had been released widely, it would have made about 10,000,000 a week.

[DaneMcCloud]

But nothing special. If it had been released widely, it would have made about 10,000,000 a week.

Pure speculation.

The people that spent money on the tickets were die hard fans.

There's no way in the world you're going to convince me that those people were first time fans, walking into a movie theater, without knowing the history of the film, etc.

No way.

[Jenson71]

I didn't say the list was irrelevant.

I said the cost of a ticket in the 1930s was irrelevant to the discussion.

Life as we all know it has changed drastically in the past 80 years.

These "lists" are irrelevant.

But further, I don't think the cost of a ticket in the 1930s would be irrelevant to the discussion. If we could see that a ticket cost almost nothing for a family, then it would make sense that there were more tickets being sold. On the other hand, if we saw that tickets were fairly expensive for a family, it would make the number even more incredible.

[Jenson71]

Pure speculation.

The people that spent money on the tickets were die hard fans.

There's no way in the world you're going to convince me that those people were first time fans, walking into a movie theater, without knowing the history of the film, etc.

No way.

Dane, on this point, I'm in agreement with you. I was mostly countering gochiefs who said that "it would sell plenty."

[Mastashake]

Pure speculation.

The people that spent money on the tickets were die hard fans.

There's no way in the world you're going to convince me that those people were first time fans, walking into a movie theater, without knowing the history of the film, etc.

No way.

This is simply because our nation has completely lost any desire to see a film with quality acting and great storyline. People don't want to think.

There's a reason there is no Citizen Kane on there.

[DaneMcCloud]

But further, I don't think the cost of a ticket in the 1930s would be irrelevant to the discussion. If we could see that a ticket cost almost nothing for a family, then it would make sense that there were more tickets being sold. On the other hand, if we saw that tickets were fairly expensive for a family, it would make the number even more incredible.

No cable.

No television.

No satellite.

Very little radio.

Worst economy in history.

Relevant, historical film (the South didn't even celebrate the 4th of July until after the WWII victory) and so on.

If your only choice at the box office is GWTW or Freddy Got Fingered, I think I know where most people are spending their nickel

[DaneMcCloud]

This is simply because our nation has completely lost any desire to see a film with quality acting and great storyline. People don't want to think.

There's a reason there is no Citizen Kane on there.

Pure, unadulterated nonsense.

Are you claiming that films like "The Hurt Locker" or "Gran Torino" aren't quality?

[Mastashake]

Pure, unadulterated nonsense.

You seriously think so? I think our culture has completely lost its appreciation for the fine arts. You don't see a film, you go see a movie.

Is it a coincidence most of the Oscar-winning movies are NOT huge blockbuster hits?

I wouldn't take any sort of statistic as a measure of a movie's greatness.

BTW Torino and Hurt Locker are great. But Torino wasn't nearly as big as Transformers.

[Hammock Parties]

Dane, on this point, I'm in agreement with you. I was mostly countering gochiefs who said that "it would sell plenty."

From a technological standpoint Avatar is going to have AT LEAST as much impact as films like Terminator 2 and Jurassic Park did.

And I'm probably setting the bar low.

If they put Terminator 2 or JP in a theater today they would make oodles of money.

Actually, I'd love to know why studios don't re-release old hits more often. There's probably some financial reason but a lot of the films on this list would sell a buttload of tickets if they came back for a "rerun."

[Jenson71]

No cable.

No television.

No satellite.

Very little radio.

Worst economy in history.

Relevant, historical film (the South didn't even celebrate the 4th of July until after the WWII victory) and so on.

If your only choice at the box office is GWTW or Freddy Got Fingered, I think I know where most people are spending their nickel

So, just so we are straight, what exactly is your argument? That under "normal" circumstances (in other words - today's world), Gone With the Wind wouldn't be a big deal?

[Mastashake]

If your only choice at the box office is GWTW or Freddy Got Fingered, I think I know where most people are spending their nickel

This makes me wonder why the Wizard of Oz isn't on here.

[Jenson71]

You seriously think so? I think our culture has completely lost its appreciation for the fine arts. You don't see a film, you go see a movie.

Is it a coincidence most of the Oscar-winning movies are NOT huge blockbuster hits?

Don't romanticize the past too much. It's not like Citizen Kane and Casablanca were the biggest hits of the 1940s either.

[Mastashake]

Don't romanticize the past too much. It's not like Citizen Kane and Casablanca were the biggest hits of the 1940s either.

Exactly. But it seems like there was more appreciation for a great actor then than there is now.

Computers IMO were one of the worst things to happen to movies. One of the best things for Hollywood, but one of the worst for movies.

[Jenson71]

Exactly. But it seems like there was more appreciation for a great actor then than there is now.

Computers IMO were one of the worst things to happen to movies. One of the best things for Hollywood, but one of the worst for movies.

It probably does seem that way because we remember the good actors and good movies, because, after all, they are considered timeless, and they make the critics best ever lists and are in the Academy Awards record books. We forgot all those other ones. So it basically skews our memory. I'm not sure that there was more appreciation for a great actor then than there is now. Maybe so, but I would doubt it.

But I do agree with you that the current Hollywood trend of supposedly thrilling special effects made on a computer isn't the best thing for our culture at all. It pretty much tends to destructive escapism.

[Pioli Zombie]

Was wasn't "Who's Nailin Paylin?" On the list? Best movie of all time. And parts of it were Gross.
Posted via Mobile Device

[phisherman]

I don't understand Star Wars. Just about all of those movies are the worst movies I've ever seen, even worse than Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings, and even Gigli. Just ridiculously stupid.

yeah, these movies have nothing on The Fast and the Furious...

[Hammock Parties]

I think someone killed the kid inside BWillie a long time ago.

[RJ]

Just as I suspected. We like to take our children to the movies.

[Pushead2]

8 Doctor Zhivago MGM 124,135,500 $111,721,910
22 Forrest Gump Par. 78,545,600 $329,694,499
28 The Dark Knight WB 74,282,100 $533,345,358
48 Blazing Saddles WB 63,227,500 $119,500,000

I'm happy with these figures,...seems like the 60's & 70's were the happen time periods for movies.

[Nzoner]

Computers IMO were one of the worst things to happen to movies. One of the best things for Hollywood, but one of the worst for movies.

Just my .02 but it's one reason I don't watch award shows,I wish if anything they would add a new best picture category,one with CGI and one without.

[DMAC]

Pretty telling when The Phantom Menace is the only new Star Wars to be on that list...

[blaise]

Pretty telling when The Phantom Menace is the only new Star Wars to be on that list...

I watched episode 2 again about a month ago. That movie is a complete and total abortion. Worse than I even remembered.

[JD10367]

That list has a lot of great films on it.

I think debating about ticket prices, a film's impact on society, how much it cost to make, etc.,. is interesting, but it doesn't really make a difference to the original point. The original point is that "biggest" means "most popular", "most viewed". So ticket sales is good indicator to start with. However, what would be more interesting is to compare that number to a.) the total population at the time, and b.) the population of adults at the time. As was pointed out, a lot of average "kiddie movies" are on the list because people took their kids. IMO, "biggest" would mean the movie with the highest number of ticket sales when compared to the general population of adults.

[jAZ]

Where did JAZ get this information? Why didn't he credit WHERE he got this data from?

I hate it when people dont accredit information.

You are correct sir. I hate that too. My error has been corrected.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm?adjust_yr=1&p=.htm

linked from

http://digg.com/d31Gs5x

[Mile High Mania]

"Hi, I'm a box office badass..."

http://www.courier-journal.com/blogs/vel05/uploaded_images/ford-768853.jpg

[FishingRod]

To say that the movies in the past cost nothing is not really anymore accurate than saying they don't cost anything now. The technology we have cuts both ways. You have movies like the Blaire Witch project that could have easily been put together by people participating in this discussion with video cameras they already own. It cost about $30K to make in 1999. Then Take Ben Hurr made in 40 years earlier and it cost 15 million... in 1959 dollars. They supposedly had 15,000 extras for the chariot race alone. If a person were to reproduce that movie today using actual people instead of CGI the cost would be horrendous.

[BWillie]

That's some hurtful sh*t right there. :( I don't even have it in me to get angry. Just hurt.

Its a fantasy realm. I'm guessing that doesn't mean anything to you, though. If you don't understand why someone would like Lord of the Rings, or (I'm guessing) Star Trek, then you won't understand why someone will like Star Wars either. Its a completely childish form of escapism, and wonderful in almost every way.

Yeah, I don't know. I'm sure I have just a weird preference because obviously alot of people like those movies, but I don't. I liked Avatar though and that is somewhat fantasy, but it's not over the top.

[Hammock Parties]

I liked Avatar though and that is somewhat fantasy, but it's not over the top.

It's more over the top than Star Wars.

Star Wars and Avatar are basically the same thing from a storyline standpoint.

Except Star Wars was more original.

And had better music.

[WildTurkey]

It's more over the top than Star Wars.

Star Wars and Avatar are basically the same thing from a storyline standpoint.

Except Star Wars was more original.

And had better music.

:clap:

[CosmicPal]

Computers IMO were one of the worst things to happen to movies. One of the best things for Hollywood, but one of the worst for movies.

Depends upon the format. For instance, modern horror flicks suck big time because they are all void of any suspense. I'll take any Alfred Hitchcock film over most of the sh*t done today because none of the directors/writers/producers want to build any suspense.

Sci-Fi won big time though.

Forrest Gump wouldn't be as entertaining without the use of CGI. It would still be a good story, but the ability to put the protagonist in various historical events made it so much more entertaining.

CGI is great when used effectively. But overdone, as with most of the horror films, then it is a waste.

[irishjayhawk]

These "lists" are irrelevant.

In the 1930's, movies were cost next to nothing. The country was in a completely different economic state than ever before or after and there were no entertainment options. No NBA, NFL, MLB or NHL on TV. No cable. No satellite. Also, the Civil War was only a few generations removed and left a HUGE imprint on the US that is still felt today.

"Star Wars", "Titanic" and now "Avatar" have left HUGE legacies that have more to do with film making and story than "Gone With the Wind".

If ""Gone With the Wind" were made today, no one would care.

I have to agree.

From ticket prices to formats (IMAX, 3D, etc - each with different price points, as well) to competition (home theatres, piracy, video games, etc), it's much, much harder now to eclipse records.

[DaneMcCloud]

But I do agree with you that the current Hollywood trend of supposedly thrilling special effects made on a computer isn't the best thing for our culture at all. It pretty much tends to destructive escapism.

If those are the only movies you think are available, you need to dig a little deeper.

[kysirsoze]

These "lists" are irrelevant.

In the 1930's, movies were cost next to nothing. The country was in a completely different economic state than ever before or after and there were no entertainment options. No NBA, NFL, MLB or NHL on TV. No cable. No satellite. Also, the Civil War was only a few generations removed and left a HUGE imprint on the US that is still felt today.

"Star Wars", "Titanic" and now "Avatar" have left HUGE legacies that have more to do with film making and story than "Gone With the Wind".

If ""Gone With the Wind" were made today, no one would care.

Really? Story?? You really think Avatar will leave a legacy that goes beyond pretty visuals? I mean I liked the movie as a little popcorn flick escapism, but that's as far as she goes.

[kysirsoze]

If those are the only movies you think are available, you need to dig a little deeper.

Agreed. There are some fantastic films being made. Avatar gets the headlines cause of the money, but that doesn't mean that's all there is.

[Hammock Parties]

Really? Story?? You really think Avatar will leave a legacy that goes beyond pretty visuals? I mean I liked the movie as a little popcorn flick escapism, but that's as far as she goes.

Cameron just changed the game as far as special effects goes.

Just like George did in 1977. Maybe not to the same degree, but he's not far off the mark.

Throw in the 3D and Avatar is going to have long-lasting effects.

It's not the highest-grossing film of ALL TIME for no reason.

[CosmicPal]

Cameron just changed the game as far as special effects goes.


The effects were sweet. But the story was unbearably awful. I know I'm in the minority on this, but Avatar to me is the most over-hyped piece of crap since Titanic. Cameron builds these massive projects claiming to wow society, but they all fail miserably- they are all dull and listless stories with super fluid animation and effects.

[kysirsoze]

Cameron just changed the game as far as special effects goes.

Just like George did in 1977. Maybe not to the same degree, but he's not far off the mark.

Throw in the 3D and Avatar is going to have long-lasting effects.

It's not the highest-grossing film of ALL TIME for no reason.

Oh no, there's a reason. But that reason is NOT Avatar's storyline, characters, or ham-handed message.

[Hammock Parties]

The effects were sweet. But the story was unbearably awful. I know I'm in the minority on this, but Avatar to me is the most over-hyped piece of crap since Titanic. Cameron builds these massive projects claiming to wow society, but they all fail miserably- they are all dull and listless stories with super fluid animation and effects.

There was nothing dull and listless about the story.

It was a perfect retelling of an old tale in a new way. Just like Star Wars was. Google Joseph Campbell and the Hero's Journey.

Saying Avatar failed miserably is a complete joke.

Really, the story is what kept me entranced. You couldn't help but feel moved when Jake Sully proved himself to the Na'vi by taming the Toruk. I was emotionally invested in the character.

This analysis of Neytiri's character is a pretty good example of why Avatar goes beyond a popcorn flick:

I have been a great fan of many heroines. But Neytiri tops them all. Sorry this is long, but I am a fanboy and have lots to say.

Neytiri shows all the best traits associated with humanity such as courage, compassion, strength, empathy, love, modesty, confidence and self sacrifice to name but a few.

She also has other positive traits that are essentuial for a good female hero; femininity, grace and sensuality. The one thing that is missing is sexuality. There are no tits and bumbs and tight costumes. She is sexy, but only because of her personality and pretty looks. We are made to fall in love with Neytiri, not fall in lust.

One important thing to note is that there is no indication that Neytiri has super powers compared to any other Na'vi. She does not do anything that we assume another Na'vi cannot do. In fact, during the scene in the tree of voices, she suggests two other Na'vi females as possible mates for Jake, one who is a good hunter and the other a good singer. This may suggest that these two individuals may be better than Neytiri at these specific activities.

Neytiri is a Princess, but there is no reason to assume that she is better than the other Na'vi. Unlike many other female heroines, she has no supernatural or special abilities. She is effectively a normal woman from a Na'vi pov. This allows the audience to identify with her as "normal". It makes her attractive to men, who see her as attainable (at least in the abstract sense), while also being appealing to women who feel they are just like her.

The fact that Neytiri is a normal Na'vi is important for two reasons. Firstly, it means that her courage is shown to be even greater by the fact that she puts herself in danger, knowing that she is not super human (or should we say Super-Na'vi). It also indicates that any emotions she feels are the same that any other person may feel.

Secondly, Neytiri is a representation of the Na'vi as a whole. Nearly all Jakes positive interaction with the Na'vi is done through Neytiri. In consequence, she has to be representative of them as a whole (even though we want to believe that she is more special). So when Neytiri rejects or accepts Jake, it basically reflects rejection or acceptance by all the na'vi. Likewise, when Jake falls in love with Neytiri, it reflects his love for the Na'vi as a whole.

Another trait defining her as a truly great female icon is her fragility. Unlike other female heroines, fragility is often used as a way to counter balance the character's super-powers. But Neytiri is fragile despite not being super-Na'vi, making her even more impressive and loveable.

Whatsmore, Neytiri's fragility or perceived weaknesses are actually virtues.

When she cries over the wounded viperwolf, she shows compassion for a potential predator.

When she cries for Hometree and the tree of voices she shows how much she cares about her people and her world. Here she also represents Pandora itself. She represents the pain of the planet in losing something that is cherished.

When she rejects Jake, it is because she is willing to sacrifice the man she loves for her people. A poster previously said that Neytiri acted out of character here. On the contrary, she acted completely in character, showing how truly unselfish she was.

Finally, she is dangerous and ruthless. But her ruthlessness is a positive trait. She knows she has to kill to survive and does so. She trains Jake ruthlessly knowing that he may die, because she knows that he must learn quick to survive on Pandora, or not at all. Also, she is ruthless when she abandons Jake, but again because she believes it is the right thing to do.

In conclusion, Neytiri may be one of the most complicated, beautiful and iconic female characters ever created. She represents not only one person, but a whole people, a whole way of life and a whole world. She effectively represents the beauty, danger and fragility of Pandora itself.

[DaneMcCloud]

Oh no, there's a reason. But that reason is NOT Avatar's storyline, characters, or ham-handed message.

Well, maybe to you, and that's fine.

But I've spoken to many people that really like the story.

It's not going to be the highest grossing film in movie history just because of the effects.

People need an emotional connection.

[CosmicPal]

There was nothing dull and listless about the story.

Yes, it was dull and listless to me.

It was a perfect retelling of an old tale in a new way. Just like Star Wars was. Google Joseph Campbell and the Hero's Journey.



I've read it. I've also read Joseph Campbell's The Power of Myth and Vogler's The Writer's Journey: Mythic Structure for Writers - both of which are excellent sources for storytelling.

Avatar's script is nowhere near as compelling as Star Wars or any of the classic story structures. The only thing riveting about Avatar was the special effects.

[Hammock Parties]

Avatar's script is nowhere near as compelling as Star Wars or any of the classic story structures.

It follows the same basic outline.

It's not rocket science.

Avatar could have been an cartoon animated film and it would have been just as thrilling.

[CosmicPal]

It follows the same basic outline.


I'm glad you and so many others liked it and I'm being sincere when I say that. As I said earlier, I'm in the minority who didn't like it. I thought it was nothing more than imitation with a big glob of glowing special effects.

When I have 4 hours of nothing to do sometime in the distant galaxy future, I might sit down and watch it again. But I doubt it.

People raved about Titanic when it came out in the theaters. And now, most people agree it was a boring three hour ride in the dark, icy waters.

[Hammock Parties]

I'm glad you and so many others liked it and I'm being sincere when I say that. As I said earlier, I'm in the minority who didn't like it. I thought it was nothing more than imitation with a big glob of glowing special effects.

When I have 4 hours of nothing to do sometime in the distant galaxy future, I might sit down and watch it again. But I doubt it.

People raved about Titanic when it came out in the theaters. And now, most people agree it was a boring three hour ride in the dark, icy waters.

I hated Titanic and my sisters had to drag me to it. In the middle I walked out to play video games.

[kysirsoze]

It follows the same basic outline.

It's not rocket science.

Avatar could have been an cartoon animated film and it would have been just as thrilling.

It was....

http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/6352/epicfailavatarplotfail.jpg
(Yes, I posted this in another thread.)

[JD10367]

Everyone says "Avatar" is a game-changer. I disagree. "Avatar" was ridiculously expensive and complicated to make. It now has a unique spot in movie history, for sure. But it's not like every sci-fi film is suddenly going to use intricately-computerized landscapes and computerized aliens or people. It's still a lot cheaper to hire a human or use a combination of current technologies (e.g. "Where The Wild Things Are").

"Avatar" came along at the perfect time in history for it. Just like "Star Wars", just like "Snow White", just like "The Jazz Singer". But I don't think it's a game-changer.

[Lonewolf Ed]

I don't understand Star Wars. Just about all of those movies are the worst movies I've ever seen, even worse than Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings, and even Gigli. Just ridiculously stupid.

There's nothing like a good documentary, huh?

[DaneMcCloud]

But it's not like every sci-fi film is suddenly going to use intricately-computerized landscapes and computerized aliens or people.

Um, this has been going on for a decade. Green screens, duplication people in shots and so on have been happening for decades.

Look at movies like Beowulf or Polar Express. There are dozens of instances of what you describe.

And for the record, Avatar IS a game changer. Now that the technology has been developed and has been used in a practical application, there will be at least two sequels (at less than half the cost of the original) AND that same technology will be used in future films.

It's just the beginning.

[JD10367]

And for the record, Avatar IS a game changer. Now that the technology has been developed and has been used in a practical application, there will be at least two sequels (at less than half the cost of the original) AND that same technology will be used in future films.

Yes but IIRC the reason it'll be half the cost is because they're using the same models and computing info. So, yeah, your sequels can be cheaper, but it'll still cost you lots of money and time to make the first film.

Technology has rarely been a game-changer, save for those times I mentioned (first sound movie, first animated movie, first color movie). Special effects have always been used, we're just hiding the wires better, if you know what I mean. Matte painted backgrounds on glass gave way to blue and green screens. Stop-motion animation gave way to computer animation. The only reason "Avatar" is a big deal is because so much time is spent in that "other" world with aliens and no humans, but that plot line won't work for every film made from this point on. Places like New Zealand and the desert will still be used for a lot of sci-fi stuff. There might be a little burst of "Avatar"-inspired filmmaking, much like when "Star Wars" came out (it seemed like everything from "Battlestar Galactica" to "Buck Rogers in the 25th Century" was trying to capitalize on Lucas's newfangled laser effects and sounds).

[jjjayb]

These "lists" are irrelevant.

In the 1930's, movies were cost next to nothing. The country was in a completely different economic state than ever before or after and there were no entertainment options. No NBA, NFL, MLB or NHL on TV. No cable. No satellite. Also, the Civil War was only a few generations removed and left a HUGE imprint on the US that is still felt today.

"Star Wars", "Titanic" and now "Avatar" have left HUGE legacies that have more to do with film making and story than "Gone With the Wind".

If ""Gone With the Wind" were made today, no one would care.

Avatar has left huge legacies? WTF?!? It's a few weeks old and it has left legacies? :spock:

[irishjayhawk]

Avatar has left huge legacies? WTF?!? It's a few weeks old and it has left legacies? :spock:

The underlying technologies are what he's really getting at.

Go listen to Creative Screen Writing's podcast with Cameron and Peter Jackson. It completely changed my view of 3D as a gimmick. It's pretty fascinating.

[Frankie]

cool post. always was curious about that too

It IS cool. but what's not factored in is the fact that the earlier epics did not have television, DVDs, and other distractions to compete with. Movies and possibly sports were pretty much the only public entertainment. I wonder if "Gone With The Wind" would still be number one if the audience of the day had access to some of the distractions they do now.

[L.A. Chieffan]

I dont care how much money a movie makes.

Unless Im an investor.

[Hammock Parties]

Technology has rarely been a game-changer,

What the fuck.

[DaneMcCloud]

Avatar has left huge legacies? WTF?!? It's a few weeks old and it has left legacies? :spock:

Child, please

[Hammock Parties]

Here's how technology changes the game, JD:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dykstraflex


The Dykstraflex is a motion picture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_picture) camera (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera) system named after its developer John Dykstra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dykstra). Dykstra developed the camera specifically for complex special effects shots in Star Wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars). Using old VistaVision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VistaVision) cameras (for their high image resolution) and cheap integrated circuit RAMs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAM), Dykstra developed an all-digitally controlled system that allowed for 7 axes of motion: roll, pan, tilt, swing, boom, traverse, track, lens focus, motor drive, shutter control, and their duplication in multiple takes.
Dykstra's development of this camera control system earned him a 1978 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50th_Academy_Awards) Academy Award (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Awards).


Industrial Light and Magic started with Star Wars. They soon thereafter became the hottest fucking thing in Hollywood. EVERYONE wanted them working on their film.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Light_&_Magic


Here's how you CHANGE THE GAME:






1975: Resurrected the use of VistaVision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VistaVision); first use of a motion control camera (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_control_photography) (Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_Episode_IV:_A_New_Hope))
1982: First completely computer-generated sequence (the "Genesis sequence" in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_II:_The_Wrath_of_Khan))
1985: First completely computer-generated character, the "stained glass man" in Young Sherlock Holmes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Sherlock_Holmes)
1988: First morphing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphing) sequence, in Willow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willow_%28film%29)
1989: First computer-generated 3-D (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_computer_graphics) character, the pseudopod (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudopod) in The Abyss (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Abyss)
1991: First partially computer-generated main character, the T-1000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-1000) in Terminator 2: Judgment Day (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminator_2:_Judgment_Day)
1992: First time the texture of human skin was computer generated, in Death Becomes Her (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Becomes_Her)
1993: First time digital technology used to create a complete and detailed living creature, the dinosaurs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur) in Jurassic Park (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurassic_Park_%28film%29), which earned ILM its thirteenth Oscar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Awards)
1995: The first fully synthetic speaking computer-generated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer-generated) character, with a distinct personality and emotion, to take a leading role in Casper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casper_%28film%29)
1995: First computer-generated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer-generated) photo-realistic hair and fur (used for the digital lion and monkeys) in Jumanji (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumanji_%28film%29)
1995: First to put visual effects for live-action (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live-action) sequence into a 2D cartoon in Balto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balto_%28film%29)
1996: First completely computer-generated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer-generated) main character, Draco in Dragonheart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragonheart)

[blaise]

Here's how technology changes the game, JD:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dykstraflex




Industrial Light and Magic started with Star Wars. They soon thereafter became the hottest ****ing thing in Hollywood. EVERYONE wanted them working on their film.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Light_&_Magic


Here's how you CHANGE THE GAME:


[/URL][/I]
[/LIST]

I know Death Becomes Her and Casper the Friendly Ghost and Jumanji changed my life forever.

[Hammock Parties]

I know Death Becomes Her and Casper the Friendly Ghost and Jumanji changed my life forever.

You completely missed the point.

Those films were all made because Star Wars CHANGED THE FUCKING GAME.

[JD10367]

Here's how technology changes the game, JD:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dykstraflex


Industrial Light and Magic started with Star Wars. They soon thereafter became the hottest ****ing thing in Hollywood. EVERYONE wanted them working on their film.

O RLY? So every film since then has used that camera? You just made my point. Everyone's acting like suddenly actors will be replaced with computer imagery, and sets and soundstages will vanish. The immense computerization of "Avatar" will not work on any other film, unless that film happens to be about aliens on an alien planet. Why is everyone making such a big deal over it? Same goes for the 3D. 3D has been around in IMAX for decades, not to mention theme parks. Everyone isn't going to suddenly start making their films in 3D just 'cause "Avatar" made a shitload of money.

Technology rarely changes the entire way things happen. "Talkies" were one. Color was another. This is not like either of those.

[Hammock Parties]

O RLY? So every film since then has used that camera?

You really DON'T get it.

Dozens of films used Dykstraflex and dozens of films since have used technology developed by ILM, which has been built upon and built upon and built upon by other companies.

James Cameron just gave us something WE HAVE NEVER SEEN BEFORE.

George Lucas did the same thing in 1977 and it REVOLUTIONIZED the motion picture industry.

The immense computerization of "Avatar" will not work on any other film, unless that film happens to be about aliens on an alien planet.

This is so short-sighed I don't even know where to begin. Someone already pointed out the Forrest Gump example in this thread.

Guess who did the effects for that film? Industrial Light and Fucking Magic.

DID YOU SEE ANY FUCKING LIGHTSABERS?

[Lzen]

I don't understand Star Wars. Just about all of those movies are the worst movies I've ever seen, even worse than Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings, and even Gigli. Just ridiculously stupid.

Oh no. You didn't just compare Star Wars, Harry Potter, and The Lord of the Rings with Gigli. :eek::cuss::spock::rolleyes:ROFL Dumb ass!

[Lzen]

Pretty telling when The Phantom Menace is the only new Star Wars to be on that list...

And it isn't even the best of the 3 newer ones. Revenge of the Sith was my fav. of those 3.

[DaneMcCloud]

O RLY? So every film since then has used that camera? You just made my point. Everyone's acting like suddenly actors will be replaced with computer imagery, and sets and soundstages will vanish. The immense computerization of "Avatar" will not work on any other film, unless that film happens to be about aliens on an alien planet. Why is everyone making such a big deal over it? Same goes for the 3D. 3D has been around in IMAX for decades, not to mention theme parks. Everyone isn't going to suddenly start making their films in 3D just 'cause "Avatar" made a shitload of money.
Huh?

What about movies like Sin City, 300 and Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow?

Those were all done completely with actors in front of green screens. They're ALL computerized backgrounds.

Technology rarely changes the entire way things happen. "Talkies" were one. Color was another. This is not like either of those.

Are you kidding? George Lucas plans to re-release Star Wars in 3D due to this technology. "Clash of the Titans", which will be released this spring will also be released in 3D. Furthermore, 3D television will be coming your way very soon, due to the progress made with Avatar.

You're really out of your element in this discussion.

[Red Brooklyn]

A lot of interesting arguments and valid points in this thread...

Going back to this idea, though, that no one would care about Gone With The Wind if it came out today...

While I completely agree it probably wouldn't be the "big deal" that it is if it came out today, I do think it's an amazing movie and would have it's share of success. I mean, Titanic proves that there's still a huge market for a movie like GWTW.

If Titanic can be a huge success, so could GWTW. It's the same thing, essentially. Boy, girl, disaster. That movie ressonates. Even today there is something spectacular about the film, IMO.

[Red Brooklyn]

Are you kidding? George Lucas plans to re-release Star Wars in 3D due to this technology. "Clash of the Titans", which will be released this spring will also be released in 3D. Furthermore, 3D television will be coming your way very soon, due to the progress made with Avatar.

You're really out of your element in this discussion.
I'm not saying whether or not you're out of your element in this discussion... but I'm totally with Dane otherwise on this argument.

I think anytime you have new technology being invented (like 3D TV) just because of one movie... yeah, I think we can officially say that Avatar is a game changer.

[L.A. Chieffan]

3D technology and SFX are cool and all but if the story is lame then so what.

[DaneMcCloud]

3D technology and SFX are cool and all but if the story is lame then so what.

Then you only make $250 million dollars as opposed to $600 million dollars.

:D

[Red Brooklyn]

Then you only make $250 million dollars as opposed to $600 million dollars.

:D
ROFL

... but it's a valid point.

Story, character, dramatic tension... these are the things that ultimately matter to me. Avatar was fun, but is by no means my favorite movie of the year. I'll take something like Up In The Air, or (500) Days Of Summer any day.

[DaneMcCloud]

ROFL

... but it's a valid point.



Of course it's a valid point - I was just having a little fun.

:D

[Red Brooklyn]

Of course it's a valid point - I was just having a little fun.

:D

:D

[jjjayb]

I'm not saying whether or not you're out of your element in this discussion... but I'm totally with Dane otherwise on this argument.

I think anytime you have new technology being invented (like 3D TV) just because of one movie... yeah, I think we can officially say that Avatar is a game changer.

Great point, except 3d tv's weren't invented because of Avatar. My last tv was 3d ready. I bought it 3 years ago. It never came to be used, but you get the point. The 3d gaming market has been gaining ground for years, ie Nvidia's 3dvision. 3d monitors having been growing in popularity. They showed the superbowl in 3d last year in limited markets to test the waters for sports in 3d. How many dozens of movies have come out in 3d in the last few years? And you somehow think this is all because of Avatar? Cameron sure does know his marketing doesn't he?

[JD10367]

Huh?

What about movies like Sin City, 300 and Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow?

Those were all done completely with actors in front of green screens. They're ALL computerized backgrounds.

And that's 3 movies, out of the, what, hundreds?

Again, all I'm saying is, everyone's spooging all over themselves about this cutting-edge computer-graphic technology, and I just don't think you're going to be seeing it all over the place. It has a specific use for specific films, and it's expensive and laborious.

Are you kidding? George Lucas plans to re-release Star Wars in 3D due to this technology. "Clash of the Titans", which will be released this spring will also be released in 3D. Furthermore, 3D television will be coming your way very soon, due to the progress made with Avatar.

You're really out of your element in this discussion.

Actually, I think I'm pretty in my element, considering I work with Imax Corporation (who are going in as partners on the 3D TV stuff). The "this technology" you refer to (turning 2D into 3D) has been around for a while now, as Imax has already done it with some of their nature documentaries and it was used for parts of "Superman Returns" as well as the last couple of "Harry Potter" movies. But not every movie will be made in 3D because a.) it's more expensive, b.) many people, believe it or not, don't like 3D (makes them puke) and/or don't like wearing the glasses, and c.) it doesn't really work for all genres. Not to mention you really have to know how to film in it: Cameron put more medium- and long-range shots in this film, which work much better for 3D (giving you that "you are there" feeling) but a chick-flick with lots of talking heads wouldn't work. You'll definitely see more 3D simply because more theaters are putting in more digital-3D projectors, but neither 3D nor computer-graphic-heavy worlds are going to be proliferate just because of this film. And even if they are, I think theaters will continue to run a 2D option as well (just as they did with "Avatar"... even though I've told people repeatedly that seeing it in 2D is pointless).

Don't get me wrong. I love 3D, and I wish every movie was made in it, even the chick flicks. (I won't even talk about porn!) "Iron Man 2" probably (at last I heard) won't be in 3D, which sucks.

[DaneMcCloud]

And that's 3 movies, out of the, what, hundreds?

Again, all I'm saying is, everyone's spooging all over themselves about this cutting-edge computer-graphic technology, and I just don't think you're going to be seeing it all over the place. It has a specific use for specific films, and it's expensive and laborious.


Dude! VFX are in EVERY movie and nearly every TV show.

[JD10367]

Dude! VFX are in EVERY movie and nearly every TV show.

That's not the argument. But, actually, you make the point perfectly. The argument was:

Cameron just changed the game as far as special effects goes.

Just like George did in 1977. Maybe not to the same degree, but he's not far off the mark.

Throw in the 3D and Avatar is going to have long-lasting effects.

And I assert that Cameron didn't "change the game", because it's not like every sci-fi/fantasy film is going to start making computerized worlds in such detail. And, as you point out, they already are special-effect heavy. That's sort of the whole point to them (although, frankly, there's nothing wrong with some crappy old-school stuff like "Krull" or "Hawk The Slayer" IMO). Cameron didn't invent the wheel here, he just came out with the latest shiny model. (Which was benefitted by 3D and by coming out right before Christmas, where it had the playing field to itself for a month).

Now, I do think that this technology will allow worlds to be created that were probably off-limits due to the technicalities (much like Lucas claimed he couldn't make the first three "Star Wars" films until the technology caught up to his vision... although they still turned out to be pieces of shit regardless, showing that just special effects won't make a film). One world I hope they make a film of is Anne McCaffrey's "Pern" novels. I love those books, but unless you can make realistic-looking dragons they just can't make the films.

[BWillie]

Oh no. You didn't just compare Star Wars, Harry Potter, and The Lord of the Rings with Gigli. :eek::cuss::spock::rolleyes:ROFL Dumb ass!

I just compared them because Gigli is made fun of because it was so bad, I never even saw that movie. Saw the other ones though.

[Hammock Parties]

And I assert that Cameron didn't "change the game", because it's not like every sci-fi/fantasy film is going to start making computerized worlds in such detail. And, as you point out, they already are special-effect heavy. That's sort of the whole point to them (although, frankly, there's nothing wrong with some crappy old-school stuff like "Krull" or "Hawk The Slayer" IMO). Cameron didn't invent the wheel here, he just came out with the latest shiny model. (Which was benefitted by 3D and by coming out right before Christmas, where it had the playing field to itself for a month).

Now, I do think that this technology will allow worlds to be created that were probably off-limits due to the technicalities (much like Lucas claimed he couldn't make the first three "Star Wars" films until the technology caught up to his vision... although they still turned out to be pieces of shit regardless, showing that just special effects won't make a film). One world I hope they make a film of is Anne McCaffrey's "Pern" novels. I love those books, but unless you can make realistic-looking dragons they just can't make the films.

I'm not even talking about 3D to be honest. I'm talking about crap like the INCREDIBLE motion-capture technology which allowed Zoe Saldana to put in an amazing performance through a digital, blue, 10-foot version of herself.

[jjjayb]

Yeah yeah, I know, I already posted this in the media center. It does fit in here though so here's a pre-emptive FU to the cries of repost:

Yep, groundbreaking movie. ROFL

<iframe src="http://video.theweek.com/embed/player/?content=CTVK0W085TN5254L&widget_type_cid=svp&title_height=31" width="420" height="331" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" allowtransparency="true"></iframe>


And another one:

<iframe src="http://video.theweek.com/embed/player/?content=CP793P1V54BK3KST&widget_type_cid=svp&title_height=31" width="420" height="331" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" allowtransparency="true"></iframe>

[cardken]

"Frankly my Dear, I don't give a damn."