Predicting the Movie Hits & Bombs of 2022

I saw Avatar 3 times in the theatre, including twice in Imax (real Imax). And then I bought it on DVD. So I'm a fan of the movie, and a believer in James Cameron.

But was Avatar a leap forward in 3D? Well, it was great -- that opening scene in the transport ship, with its incredible layered deep focus, is a landmark moment for 3D cinema that has only been occasionally surpassed since (e.g. in Gravity).

But did I think it was the most impressive 3D I had seen at that point? No, I didn't. I was much more impressed by the 3D presentation in Beowulf. Beowulf seemed revolutionary to me in 2007. Avatar was just a great movie that happened to have some fine 3D, in a time when many movies were starting to be shown in 3D.

Perhaps it was a novelty that it had live actors and most of the other 3D movies of the time were CGI animated. But Avatar itself is something like 80% animated.

So this is my point. The grosses of Avatar were helped by its impressive 3D presentation. But the 3D novelty business was not the reason why Avatar became the generational hit it was. Avatar was a hit because people loved it.

 

I really think you're imagining most of these "hot takes." The idea that the academy didn't like Avatar when it was the most-nominated film of its year, including for Best Picture and Director, is nuts. The idea that James Cameron is somehow persona non grata with critics is similarly loopy, when even the entirely mediocre Terminator: Dark Fate got indulgent reviews largely on the back of his "story by" credit and Linda Hamilton's return. If Avatar 2 is any good, and there's no reason to think it won't be, the reviews will reflect that.

Will internet incels moan about Avatar 2 for having women in it? Most likely. They moaned about Fury Road too, and a lot of good it did them. The truth is, internet incels were already disposed to bellyache about Avatar because of its environmental message and especially because of its central tender love story. In other words, the exact things that made it a "four quadrant" smash.

As for your prediction of $300 million or less...in a world where even John Carter made $285 million, only a shutdown of movie theatres on the level of summer 2020 would cause a disaster on that level. Even Eternals made over $400 million!

 

3D is nothing new. Quality 3D in your neighborhood theater realistically began with Avatar.

It's very true that you can create excellent 3D in an animated movie. But you still need special projection equipment to show it, which almost no neighborhood movie theaters possessed prior to Avatar.

The native 3D movies were produced for 3D equipped IMAX theaters, and had to be viewed with glasses that had active electronic shutters. Polar Express was one of those animated 3D IMAX movies..

Avatar was THE 3D movie that kicked off the RealD 3D process that used circular polarization. That, along with equipping neighborhood theaters with Sony 4k projectors made this all possible.

Avatar was an over $200M movie that was planned and executed in 3D, it didn't "happen" to have some fine 3D.

Pre Avatar, local cinemas were not showing 3D movies because they lacked the equipment to show them.

Avatar is not 80% animated. The movie used advance performance capture technology that was specifically developed for Avatar. The "animation" you speak of are performances by real actors that were captured in 3D in real time.

Actually, those who were not fans of Avatar did not blame the 3D process or the technical achievements of the film, they blamed a bland non-original story line. People mainly went to Avatar because of the wonderful and immersive 3D visuals. 3D viewing without active shutter glasses was not a novelty, it was new and exciting technology.

Since Avatar, 3D has become a novelty and not a very good one at that. Lots of movies were made (and remade) in 3D that were not done well at all. If anything, this has done more to drive the public away from 3D.

For certain, though Avatar viewers are looking for excellent 3D again. It can never be the draw that seeing it for the first time was. Avatar 2, will have to depend on a compelling storyline, if it is to achieve any level of success.

 

I don't know where you live, but here in Toronto, my "neighborhood" theatres were definitely all set up for RealD 3D with disposable glasses at least 2 years before Avatar. Some notable 3D presentations that came out before Avatar in "neighborhood" multiplexes include Beowulf, Coraline, and Up.

In fact, Imax 3D here (in the 21st century) has never used the active shutter system -- it has always used a variant on the RealD polarization process, which was already in use in major theatrical films in 2003 or so.

If you think Avatar started the 21st-century 3D fad, or the RealD format, you are mistaken. Its massive popularity merely supported a trend that was already happening.

As for the characterization of the story as "non-original," surely any intelligent observer would be able to recognize that criticism as asinine. Or do they think the world began in 1977?

 

I haven't been to an Imax movie for many years. In Fort Lauderdale, with thanks to our resident billionaire, Wayne Huizenga, our Imax theater was one of the early theaters to have 3D projection and at the time, it was the only one that could project both 2D and 3D movies.

The last Imax movie I went to was the 3D movie about the International Space Station and we wore active 3D glasses. I don't know how the problem had been addressed or if it had but the curved screen on Imax theaters precluded using passive polarized lenses.

RealD only started in 2003 and there were no major RealD movies at that point in time.

"Between 2005 and 2007, the company purchased StereoGraphics Inc. and optical components technology company ColorLink, a provider of rear-projection television (RPTV) equipment, polarizing film and optical technologies including technologies for the US Military. RealD developed its acquired technology to create its 3D cinema systems."

So movies like Beowulf, and Coraline, came later in 2007 and 2009 respectively. Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl in 3-D, came out in 2005.

The problem was a lack of expensive digital projection systems in theaters. I think the basic Sony 4k system was about $117k back when Avatar came out. Movie theaters mostly had to be upgraded to this new technology. The only options at that time were Sony and Texas Instruments.

I have no idea what the situation was like on Canada. Perhaps @Vidiot could help us out on the subject of RealD 3D movies and theaters equipped to show these movies back prior to Avatar.

I happen to like Avatar and didn't as specially have any trouble with the storyline. Original, it was not. Dances With Wolves and Fort Apache, back in 1948 beat Avatar to it.

Plot: White people come to our land, steal or resources, rape our buffalo... Not much new here.

Can we say "bad corporations" here? Do you remember Paul Reiser's character in Aliens? Perhaps a bit similar to a certain other character in Avatar (both with Sourgney Weaver).

If you have issues with the films critics, and there were many, simply read the reviews, I didn't write them. Though I do understand where they are coming from.

 

I couldn't believe JLo got money to make another movie stinker. This should sink like a dead whale

 

RealD uses circular polarized glasses, XpanD uses LCD "active shutter" glasses, and Dolby 3D uses dichroic color glasses. I think Dolby claims to be brighter, RealD is cheaper, and XpanD claims to have more accurate 3D reproduction. They're all complex and take a lot of time and trouble to get right.

I've used all of them, and to me, I'm happier with an IMAX image that's just very big and very bright. For best results, I have to sit dead-center, about 2/3 back in the seats (towards the rear of the theater). With the big Chinese IMAX theater in Hollywood, that requires sitting in the balcony in the first couple of rows. There, you're dead-on center with a perfect field of vision.

There's almost always some distortion or some loss of light with 3D, plus issues with turning your head a little this way or that with the glasses, so it's not an ideal experience.

 

Don't think I have ever seen the Dolby XpanD. Just RealD and active at the Imax theater. The last movie I saw at our Imax was the space station 3D movie. That was some time ago now. At the time, we wore active glasses. Do they still use active or have they gone to the Dolby or some other system? Are they still use active glasses?

Before Avatar, I think the last 3D movie I saw was the Jaws 3-D movie. That was back in '83. It rated 11% on the Tomatometer and the audience gave it 17%. I loved it. What better than to have Jaws eating people in 3D? Back then they were just using regular polarization with a metallic screen, but it worked OK.

There was also a 3D movie at the Kodak Pavillion in EPCOT.

Prior to Avatar, there were a few movies that were made in RealD but I was not aware of any theaters installing digital projectors before Avatar? How were they showing these movies?

 

RealD is an encoding/decoding technique that started with digital. Digital projection pretty much began to get popular around 2005-2006, so before that it was all polarized from film, or they used the anaglyphic red/blue system. The history of 3D Cinema is a fairly complex subject; @Bob Furmanek's 3D Film Archive website tells a lot of that story:

3dfilmarchive

 

See 3-D Myth #1. Polarized 3-D goes back to the mid-30s.

3-D Myths - 3dfilmarchive

 

Her last starring role was in Hustlers, which earned $157 million on a $20 million budget, almost entirely on her star power. It was profitable practically the day it was released. She is one of the biggest movie stars in the world.

We've been over this already, but I think it would be profitable for a lot of posters to recognize the difference between their own experience and the reality of the world around them. The fact that you hadn't seen a 3D movie since the '80s doesn't mean that there weren't piles of 3D movies being shown in digital in neighborhood theatres for several years prior to Avatar.

Except for a couple of isolated occasions of going to special 70mm or repertory screenings, I haven't heard the "rat-a-tat" of a film projector in a theatre in Toronto in almost 20 years. In the neighborhood where I grew up, the first big all-digital multiplex was built in 1998. And it was ready for 3D when Beowulf came out in 2007.

 

And of course 3D stayed popular elsewhere in other countries for a bit longer. You can find a few years of post-Avatar-era films you never heard of (and probably can't see on your modern TV anyway).

 

wow, thought it tanked. I guess she's still the sexiest woman in the world

 

I have acknowledged that there were 3D movies, though there were not "piles" of them.

Have also pointed out and acknowledged that 2007's Beowulf, was in RealD. While newer cinemas were going digital from their newly constructed theaters. The majority of already existing theaters had yet to convert until later years.

I doubt that Beowulf was enough of a financial incentive for the average theater to spend in excess of a hundred grand in order to present the limited amount of non-major motion pictures that were being released prior to Avatar.

Avatar was the financial incentive for movie theaters across the US to make the move to mass conversations.

The RealD process with circular polarization and the lack of having to wear active glasses was the big draw. That and everyone being enthralled by the wonderfully artistic 3D renderings of Avatar.

For better or for worse, it was Avatar that opened the floodgates again for 3D.

Even though I might not have seen a neighborhood movie since Jaws 3-D, I have been aware of movies that have visited my neighborhood, 3D or not.

I might suggest that you are no more familiar with movies in the United States than I am with movies in Canada?

 

It's true, "piles" is a judgment call. Here is a non-exhaustive list of wide-release RealD movies in the US before Avatar:

The Polar Express (2004)
Chicken Little (2005)
Monster House (2006)
Meet the Robinsons (2007)
Beowulf (2007)*
Scar (2008)
Journey to the Center of the Earth (2008)
Fly Me to the Moon (2008)
Bolt* (2008 -- the ones below are all from 2009)
My Bloody Valentine 3D
Coraline*
Jonas Brothers: the 3D Concert Experience
Monsters vs. Aliens
Battle for Terra
Up*
Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs
G-Force
The Final Destination*
Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs
Toy Story 1 & 2 (reissues)
Michael Jackson's This Is It
A Christmas Carol*

I've starred the ones I myself saw in a "neighborhood" movie theatre.

You seem determined to characterize my moviegoing experience as parochial because I live in Canada, but I'm guessing you don't realize that Toronto is the fourth most populous city on the continent? Among US cities, only NYC and LA are bigger.

It's entirely possible that many of these movies never came out in 3D in the less developed parts of the US. I don't expect many people turned up for Battle for Terra in Kamloops or Medicine Hat either. But in the cities, the theatres of significant size were set up for digital 3D almost from day one. I myself saw Up in Boston (a relatively small "big city") in spring 2009, more than 6 months before Avatar came out.

 

I'm sure that Canada is a charming country. Do keep in mind that while Toronto may be a large city. Canada as a whole has less than 40M in total population. The, U.S. in contrast has almost 300,000,000 more.

While I imagine that major cities in the world have the latest technologies, I have merely pointed out that in the US, existing theaters far outnumber the newer more modern theaters. Prior to Avatar, most of these theaters did not have digital technology. Not sure what point you are attempting to make?

Again, I must profess my profound ignorance as to any matter with regard to Canada.

 

Bob, I believe you are the correct person to provide the answer to a personal mystery of mine. At least I'm hoping so.

My father took me to a 3-D movie in what had to be the mid 50s, or slightly earlier. I believe the movie must have been a Western, but there's only one thing I recall about it. No clue of the name, the actors, or the plot. But one particular, very brief, element of it has stayed in my mind, and it's probably what has made me a true 3-D fan throughout my life. (I currently have well over 100 3-D Blu-rays--and of course most, if not all, of your restorations--and I made sure to purchase a Sony 4K screen in the final year they were still 3-D enabled. I'm still working through my 3-D queue, however.)

Anyway, we were perhaps sitting about half-way back in the theater, and close enough to left/right mid, and what I recall is that in what must have been a saloon scene, one of the characters spit out into the audience. It was somewhere left of center, and maybe landed in the theater's second row (!), from my perspective. What was that film??? Possibly the movie's something still working its way through my queue. I certainly hope so, I'd love to complete the circle.


As a further comment, what I truly love about the films you've been restoring is that the 3-D is so physical and visceral. Modern 3-D films are truly technically adept, if done well, but they tend to much less feel like real people moving through real physical locations. (Well, those older films certainly had to be "two-camera" 3-D, and pretty much everything had to be "practical".)

Even if you can't resolve my mystery, I deeply appreciate everything you have done for the craft. Thank you for your passion!

 

And she was robbed from being nominated for an Academy Award. I actually think she was hurt by her co-star in film, and the backlash she was receiving. And like Maggie pointed out, the movie was a huge moneymaker , because of J-Lo

 

My apologies I meant US/Canada , and still think I am spot-on with this prediction. That is what makes BO Predicting fun , we all have our own thoughts.

 

Thanks very much for your kind words, darkmass!

We call most modern "three-dimensional" films 2.5-D. Many of the post-conversions of the last decade are rather anemic.

That was Frank Lovejoy dealing with a rattlesnake in THE CHARGE AT FEATHER RIVER. It's owned by Warner Bros. and has not been been released on 3-D Blu-ray.

 

we'll see how another romantic comedy works, agree to disagree

 

I was born in Medicine Hat.

 

Thank you very, very much, Bob! 3-D would be best, but I'll see that any way I can.

 

I am not stating she is automatic Box Office (who is any more??) . But if she is in a well-reviewed film (like , Hustlers) , genre does not matter. Rotten Tomatoes has kind of ended the Review-Proof Box Office Star

 

I think rom coms are not guarantees any more, Aniston ran them into the ground. I remember Jlo tried rom com years ago with Fiennes and I heard it was beyond awful. I have doubts Owen Wilson can carry a film that isn't Wes or Woody. Judging from what I've read, it seems Jlo is one of those 'actresses' who is serious always, and just can't do comedy, like Nicole Kidman or Demi Moore.