82nd ACADEMY AWARD Nominations

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
No, it's a BOX OFFICE phenomenon, which is not the same thing. It's just been topical/current... but you can already see signs of that going away. I want to see this evidence of cultural impact.

That would be my contention as well, for the most part (awards aside) it was the year of Avatar at the movies; like it or not it reigned supreme. I happen to think that the ripple effect will be a negative overall, just because of the abundance of meaningless 3D; but time will tell.

Culturally however, the global economy and other concerns great outshadow any evidence of a lasting fingerprint from Avatar. The biggest example of this would be environmentally. Cameron's film could not help screaming from the rooftops about ecological responsibility and human corruption and greed within corporations. I have yet to see any large-scale environmental group cite Avatar as a leading motivation, or better yet any form of Avatar organization begin.

If one is to suggest cultural impact, it would have to be seen ecologically, that is absent to present.
 
The point is that some want to compare AVATAR's impact to STAR WARS now... already, and that is silly. It's not even in the same stratosphere yet, aside from making a crap-ton of money.

Well, to compare what SW has done over the last 30+ years to a movie that has been out for a few months is silly. What would be fair is to compare the impact each film had at the same time out.
 
That one's pretty easy. STAR WARS permeated the mainstream and created iconic characters, names, situations, phrases, etc. that are used all over the place by many different types of people to this very day.

You won't find any phrases cited from Avatar, that would have required a script more robust than "shock and awe;" or a helicopter pilot remarking at people's reactions with the eyes in the back or her head.

:banghead

It's a great question though, what is the Avatar equivalent for "May the Force be With You?" :dunno

** EDIT ** "I see you" was patented by Sauron, before Neytiri! :wacky
 
No, it's a BOX OFFICE phenomenon, which is not the same thing. It's just been topical/current... but you can already see signs of that going away. I want to see this evidence of cultural impact.


That one's pretty easy. STAR WARS permeated the mainstream and created iconic characters, names, situations, phrases, etc. that are used all over the place by many different types of people to this very day. It also inspired a large amount of the people in our generation who work in the film/entertainment industry today (and other fields) and established lifelong relationships and hobbies for people. Dare I say that had SW not come out in 1977 many of us would likely not even be here having this discussion on this board. And that is a cultural impact.

Sure. If it's in the mainstream consciousness 20 years from now then certainly it would have earned that label. But seeing that it's barely there now aside from being the latest box office phenomenon...

So the impact is a bunch of things unmeasurable right now. So in 1977, 3 months after Star Wars came out, did it have an impact? Or did you have to wait 30+ years before finally saying it did.
 
There will be no Cultural Impact from Avatar! The Marketing machine is the only reason it did so well.
 
The point is that some want to compare AVATAR's impact to STAR WARS now... already, and that is silly. It's not even in the same stratosphere yet, aside from making a crap-ton of money.
Taking inflation into account, Star Wars made almost twice as much as Avatar in the theaters.

Well, to compare what SW has done over the last 30+ years to a movie that has been out for a few months is silly. What would be fair is to compare the impact each film had at the same time out.
I agree, but by doing this you aren't evaluating cultural impact (which I think we both agree is impossible to know from Avatar at the moment), but something else. And I'm not sure how many things can be compared along this line, but if merchandise sales are any indication, then I'm not sure how Avatar stacks up.
 
Well, to compare what SW has done over the last 30+ years to a movie that has been out for a few months is silly. What would be fair is to compare the impact each film had at the same time out.

My thoughts exactly. I never argued longevity...it was never part of my argument. If people say "SW sold more toys after it's release" then that is a valid point, albeit a minor one. 1977 was a different time for toys.
 
Taking inflation into account, Star Wars made almost twice as much as Avatar in the theaters.


I agree, but by doing this you aren't evaluating cultural impact (which I think we both agree is impossible to know from Avatar at the moment), but something else. And I'm not sure how many things can be compared along this line, but if merchandise sales are any indication, then I'm not sure how Avatar stacks up.

Star Wars also had numerous sequels and re-releases. Cultural impact means impact on culture...it is simple as that. In no way, shape, or form does longevity play apart unless you wish to include it yourself in your own definition. For this reason, films that are no longer relevant like Titanic, and also films that are new phenomenon, like Twilight, both had a cultural impact.
 
LChinoz said:
So the impact is a bunch of things unmeasurable right now. So in 1977, 3 months after Star Wars came out, did it have an impact? Or did you have to wait 30+ years before finally saying it did.
Why are you asking me? I'm not the one who was so quick to make the comparison or give AVATAR a label it has not yet earned.
 
To brush these stories off as events that "come and go" with the likes of paparazzi stories of Hugh Grant's prostitute is troubling.

I think they're the same thing, really. It's just the political culture war porn version of celebrity paparazzi. People get worked up over it for a few days, bleat their opinions at the water cooler and move on. Who thinks about any of those three people now? Nobody.

I think you're confusing a temporary fad for cultural impact. The "names" issue is a pretty good indicator we're looking at a fad (as if we needed one). People aren't connecting with the movie as something more than a blockbuster experience.
 
I agree, but by doing this you aren't evaluating cultural impact (which I think we both agree is impossible to know from Avatar at the moment), but something else. And I'm not sure how many things can be compared along this line, but if merchandise sales are any indication, then I'm not sure how Avatar stacks up.

I totally agree its impossible to know with Avatar. I think in the end if it has anything impact it will be with pushing maybe paying attention to our planet and taking care of it. If not that then I don't see much coming from it.
 
No it doesn't. I know like, lots and lots and lots of people who can name a character from Avatar, so nanny nanny boo boo. :duh My information is just as valid as yours.

I'm sure you do. I don't really hang out with nerds though. :monkey3

And to say few people talk about Avatar reveals you are teetering on delusion.

Not really. It's hardly watercooler conversation anymore. You still get conversations like this one, talking about the film as a product, but I honestly haven't heard anyone in real life talk about the film as a film since last year.
 
Cultural impact means impact on culture...it is simple as that.
You will concede that Tom Cruise jumping on Oprah's couch had a cultural impact, then? I mean, people were talking about it. They made funny youtube videos. People dressed up like the guy for Halloween. It will be completely forgotten in a few months, but for awhile it was the bees knees.
 
I think they're the same thing, really. It's just the political culture war porn version of celebrity paparazzi. People get worked up over it for a few days, bleat their opinions at the water cooler and move on. Who thinks about any of those three people now? Nobody.

I think you're confusing a temporary fad for cultural impact. The "names" issue is a pretty good indicator we're looking at a fad (as if we needed one). People aren't connecting with the movie as something more than a blockbuster experience.

I think your confusing cultural impact for longevity and/or relevance. And we already went over the "names" issue. All those stories did impact culture. The fact that no one is talking about them now is irrelevant to that.
 
Why do you keep arguing against a point that no one is actually making? Since when is naming characters from movies the lone litmus test for determining its lasting effect? Not a single person has ever argued that Jake Sully is the next Darth Vader or Mickey Mouse.

Not many people outside of film buffs can give specific names of characters from The Godfather, Jaws, or Jurassic Park either.

I think it has a lot to do with the topic at hand, because it shows how deeply audiences are connecting with a film. I don't really think Jurassic Park is a cultural touchstone (great example of a fad film fading, for a little alliteration). You'd have a point about Jaws, except that the characters are more or less irrelevant to its legacy, which is about, well, Jaws. Everyone knows Jaws the animal.

Whereas say Na'vi or Neyteri in mixed company and most people will just stare blankly. Your mom knows who Jaws is. She knows who Don Corleone is. I'm putting pretty good money on her furrowing her brow when you say Quaritch. :)
 
Back
Top