I find it ludicrous to mention McLuhan (whom I studied at OSU and read "Understanding Media" in which he mentions the phrase "the media is the message" should have any bearing on this case. I mean, what is it about the success of this film that bothers you? Clearly, the mere mention of money in the same breath means something else. Take "Psycho" for example. This film had the lowest budget of any Hitchcock movie and yet had the highest return of all his films. Does success diminish its content? Then take a film like "Blair Witch Project" or even "I am curious, Yellow," where the budgets don't add up to the price of a Lamborghini. They were highly successful outtings, but in their case the content was crap. Your criteria for judging or misjudging a film based on its BO, or your argument that "Avatar" should be judged so, baffles me. But to mention any connection to McLuhan is so far removed... you either haven't read "Understanding Media" or you've watched too many Woody Allen movies.

If this discussion is going by the way of McLuhan, then I suggest all of you about to participate brush up on your literature, because if I have to post on Marshall McLuhan, I will be dusting off my college paper notes... and you don't want to go there.