Jump to content


Free Account+
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation


Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

2,083 profile views
  1. Very true! Aside from Cameron's involvement, which is obviously important. The fact that this film clearly has heart in it, and the fact Alita is such a charming character, might be the reasons that the film is avoiding a GITS, Valerian, Jupiter Ascending type of end result!
  2. TS4 is probably not going to reach 1B WW, TS3's Japan and UK haul can't be replicated at today's ER. It can look forward to increase in China, and probably a few other market, I think it'll be roughly flat domestically compared to TS3, would that be enough for 1B? Probably not.
  3. Frozen 2 has a better chance than Toy Story 4 though.
  4. You are making a fair point, and this is what I think: I embrace LOTR and HP and HG as near originals because they are adapted from another medium, and as epic film franchises they really shined and brought in new audiences. I think at this point, I'd gladly take book adaptations than more mindless remakes and reboots, pointless spin-offs and completely undeserved sequels, definitely! And like I said, MCU is really the lesser of the evils compare to the rest of the slate on the release calendar, and I agree, things like GOG, Captain Marvel, and Black Panther can kind of be considered half-originals, however, here's why I'm not completely hot on them: 1. They may be semi-originals, but they still belong to a genre that is completely dominating, and nearly wiping out historical epics, sci-fi, War films, and epic fantasy. So for the sake of diversity, I'm not completely warmed up to more superheroes films. Also, they themselves don't bring much innovation in film-making techniques (visuals of storytelling) the way Avatar, Dunkirk, Inception, or to a lesser extent even Alita does. 2. They may be semi-originals, but they belong to a mega-franchise that they owe their entire existence to. Black Panther, for example, appeared in Civil War, where we see Iron Man, SpiderMan and Cap himself. The "success" of these semi-originals are completely propelled by the fact that MCU is the biggest dog in the game right now, and their popularity risen by other heroes that we've seen countless times. Did they earn their own success? That's arguable. And while you can consider Cap Marvel or Black Panther originals, since they appear in the same Universe as a franchise that has been on screen for some years, I would say that they are 40% originals. Here is my ranking of preference, just for fun! 1. Complete original film (Avatar, Star Wars etc...) 2. 80% original film: Adaptation from non-film source material with limited/lost awareness or small existing fanbase (Blade runner, Alita) 3. 60% original film: Adaptations from non-film source material with large fanbase and high awareness (Harry Potter, LOTR, Hunger Games) 4. 40% original film: adaptations of non-film source materials and introduce to an existing film franchise, where the success of these "semi-original" films are propelled by well-known characters and heroes and film. (Captain Marvel, Black Panther, Guardians of the Galaxy) 5. 20% original film: adaptations of non-film source material that has been previously adapted to film or TV with very limited exposure or success, or the original adaptation was ancient, new attempt to adapt and update the source material has been made. (Dune 2020, IT, The Jungle book). And really, regardless of their % of originality, just have more of these, that's the key.
  5. Oh, when that eventually happens to Avatar in 2056, the 66 year old me would say the same thing: Move over tired Avatar soft reboots, you've have your time, these new movies are mediocre and entirely nostalgia driven, brings barely anything new to the table, let's that new kid on the block shine! I try to be consistent, the point is that we are at the the ESB stage of Avatar, it's new and exciting still. I don't disagree about Terminator btw
  6. So let's start another Star Wars, where's this generation's Star Wars? Star Wars fully deserved its two sequels and the three prequels, if not for those sequels, Star Wars wouldn't be where it is today, would it? Even with soft rebooting the franchise after 40 years, I'd give it a chance, it's just that I along with many others started to lose patience after TLJ. I even said specifically, a few threads ago, that a revival of a nostalgia driven franchise from 40 years ago is fine to have, once in a while, we loved MMFR, and BR 2049, didn't we? but if that's all there is in the market, that's sad. It's time to give some spotlight to a new exciting franchise (Avatar), nothing's wrong with that.
  7. I don't even dislike the MCU all that much, it's the lesser of many evils, I mean, sure, the characters are established and familiar, and plot lines are more or less already in the source materials, and superhero films are entirely dominating, leading to less varieties in blockbusters in general. but at least shared cinematic universe is a fun thing that it brought to the table, I don't personally like shared universes all that much, I think that it diminishes the enjoyment of single films, but it's quite something, I'll give it that. When it comes to the rest of the slate on a typical Hollywood release calendar, there is much more to complain about...
  8. Oh, I'm not objected to ambitious stand alone original films at all, not that we get many these days. That is about the discussion of sequels and franchises going on in this thread, and how Cameron's Avatar sequels is different from everything else that's currently on display, and whether Avatar earned its right to make sequels. If Cameron decided to not make Avatar sequels and only focusing on groundbreaking original films that will have no sequels, I'd be overjoyed, ecstatic.
  9. I really want Alita to get that 40M 5-day, a better than expected Saturday jump perhaps??😉
  10. The other thing with Avatar is that there is no source material, we don't know where the next films are going! Sequels are not a sin, franchises need sequels! Completely unoriginal recycled material, endless reboots, endless live-action remakes of animations, and nostalgia driven disingenuous revival of 70s and 80s franchise, spin-offs that are going absolutely nowhere, efforts of establishing failed cinematic universe without establishing good movies first, that is what's annoying. The whole point of the importance of ambitious original movies is so that they can potentially lead to quality sequels and establish new franchises that could live on.
  11. He's created enough non sequels/new IPs to the point that he's earned his right to create his own legacy franchise, clearly that's what he wanted. It also helps that Avatar is not a tired old franchise from the 70's, 80's or 90's, plus each film can potentially push the boundary film audio visual technology. Avatar also does not come from established source material or known superheroes that existed for half a century. This generation deserves a new mega franchise, and if anyone, Avatar (the highest grossing film of all time) earned its right to move on (unlike many many other tired reboots, spin-offs, and nostalgia driven sequels).
  12. Yeah, I would give Avatar sequels a pass because it's actually a film that deserves to be expanded and explored, it came out of this era (well 2009 is still roughly this era I guess), and was massive successful, so its earned its right for sequels. Unlike most other movies, it manages to push forward technological innovations. It has the potential to become a era defining epic film series from this generation (and possibly the only one). So if Cameron wants to do that, then that's what it is.
  13. True, partly because: 1. Market is not good for new IP to establish anymore, filmmakers who try to do so often do it fairly desperately by cramming too much in or focus too much on the visual elements to bring people in. When the market is not healthy, the mindset of filmmakers can't be. 2. Audiences are slowly developing a fixed mindset of what is "enjoyable" and what defines a good "theater experience", it's starting to affect their judgement of what they can actually enjoy. Anything deviating too much from the formula will be perceived as negative. Same thing happened to the critics when they try to review Alita. It's easy to pretend you're objective, but bias is so hard to avoid.

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.