daftcat

Guessing they're referring to the abstract Tree of Life-esque visuals that are being used to depict nuclear fission. There was a bunch of it in the first teaser as well.

First teaser was great with its slow build, ethereal music and flowy, dream-like editing. Subsequent two trailers just weren't that impactful - I enjoyed them as someone already invested, but I doubt they would've grabbed me emotionally had I not been. They were clearly going for the tone-poem vibe, but for my money the art of the trailer just isn't what it used to be. As someone that's seen the film, I think they could've shown a bit more of the story without sacrificing the goose bumps. Not that it really matters for this IP.

Saw the trailer with Avatar and have read the book they're using as a foundation for Oppenheimer's story. I strongly feel this is going to be a return to form for Nolan after the heat he took for Tenet. As a big Nolan fan, I didn't think Tenet was bad per say, but I do feel it was his first genuine misstep. Dunkirk demonstrated a growing maturity - both in subject matter and style - as well as a willingness to listen to some of his most ardent critics (particularly in the runtime and exposition department). Tenet was a big step back in just about every way. It felt like an attempt to recapture the glory days of Inception rather than a genuine effort to break new ground. Not that I think Nolan has grown beyond blockbuster/genre filmmaking - but for the first time (apart from perhaps TDKR) it felt like he was treading water. And while his dedication to theaters during the pandemic was admirable, he clearly took a reputational hit by forcing the film's release. All the more reason why it's important for Oppenheimer to win him back some goodwill. I'm admittedly a bit puzzled by the summer release date. It worked for Dunkirk, but that was a more immediately visceral experience. As a July release, this has the potential to under-perform (though I suppose it's more modestly budgeted). Releasing in December would have strongly positioned it for best picture (the book is that good - and a great fit for Nolan's style of cold, clinical filmmaking told on the biggest scale possible). Not to mention the timing considering Putin's war in Ukraine, which has put nuclear weapons on the front page for the first time since the Cold War.

https://www.reelviews.net/reelviews/avatar-the-way-of-water For what it's worth, James Berardinelli gave the new film 4/4. Same score as the original. I don't follow him as closely as I used to (he used to be the only "Top Critic" on RT with a solely online presence), but he's notoriously stingy with his 4 star reviews. It's been years, unless I'm mistaken (I think his last perfect score was for Three Billboards back in 2017).

I'm not sure what there would be to even nominate, to be honest. Not to be completely reductive, but a lot of it really is just the first film re-arranged. A good analogue is Chamber of Secrets - it's technically a John Williams score, but due to scheduling conflicts, a bunch of the heavy lifting was handled by William Ross (who receives a conducting credit). The result is an admirable effort that is very similar to the first film, apart from a new cue here and there. Compare this to Prisoner of Azkaban, which had Williams back in full force. He built on his motif's for the first film and created something distinct yet equally great. The result was the franchise's second (and last) Oscar nom for original score. In Avatar's case, they obviously can't bring Horner back, so Franglen does his best to maintain the musical continuity. Moving forward, I do wonder if Cameron would be better off going with a somewhat more distinctive talent (James Newton Howard would be a good fit), even if it meant relying less on some of Horner's original themes.

Horner's material is used liberally and elevates the material accordingly whereas the "new" cues are not particularly memorable (typical generic action movie stuff). Overall, the score is very similar to the original, which works for the film. It's not like the latter Potter films or The Matrix 4 that re-used one or two themes but were otherwise their own thing (for better or worse). It's very deliberately Horner-esque - though I can't help but wonder how Horner himself would've built on the foundation he laid. To be honest, I expected more from Franglen after hearing the ethereal music for the teaser trailer, which apparently was his. Obviously the expectation was that he would reprise the original's various themes, but I was hoping he'd take it a step further and deliver something a bit more interesting. Then again, it's a lot to take in on a first viewing. Maybe the score will hold up better on its own or on repeat viewings.

The suggestion that the final hour lacks scale is absurd. Unless you have a ridiculously high baseline, or felt the same way about the original, or Titanic, etc. It's what you've come to expect from Cameron, and then some.

Even if he did deliver a "masterpiece" (and I personally think the new film is fantastic), I don't think you'd see a much better reception than what we're seeing now. Avatar will forever be graded on a curve. The "backlash" from high brow types borne out of the first film's success (which paradoxically seems to have been co-opted by younger fans that prefer the more serialized blockbuster storytelling of the last 10-15 years) will forever taint this IP. The proof is in the pudding - critics seem to agree that this is a step up from the original, yet the numerical consensus is a notch lower. It's as if the first scored in the low sixties on MC, rather than the mid-80s. Avatar is no more full of clichés than any four quadrant blockbuster - particularly in recent memory. Its story is no more archetypical compared to the deluge of comic book movies that have been released over the last decade or so (as much as I enjoy them). Yet that's the reductive narrative that has emerged from the ashes of the first film, and it's only fermented in the interim. And the more cash and awards this one rakes in, the worse it will get - just as it did with the original. It may even intensify for future sequels now that the novelty of a new Avatar movie has worn off - I wouldn't be surprised to see the fourth or fifth film scoring outright negative reviews, despite no obvious drop in quality. For whatever reason, everyone seems to love Avatar - except for a very vocal, persistent, and perhaps growing minority of the online discourse that seems hellbent on applying a much higher standard to this than to other blockbusters. Perhaps that's earned, given the Cameron name. And I do see similarly high standards applied to other prestige directors (e.g. Nolan - though I think he earned the flak he got for Tenet)… but it can be a bit frustrating. And it's weird that it comes from both high-brow cinephiles that see the film as a vapid technical exercise and an affront to cinema, and the more mainstream fans that get triggered by the notion that Cameron's filmography harkens back to the golden age of blockbuster filmmaking.

Increasingly likely unless there's a change in trajectory around Taiwan - particularly now that Xi Jinping has secured a third term. And the risk only intensifies the further into the decade we get. If I were a betting man, I'd say there's no time like the present for Way of Water as far as China is concerned.

Yeah, can confirm. There's a description of the ending floating around. By the time I realized what I was reading I had already read it. Who knows if it was authentic, but it felt real. Be careful folks.

While it's not great that Weta pays minimum wage (I assume this individual is earlier in their career), working on the second Avatar film will almost certainly unlock an entirely new tier of work for your typical concept artist. Weta knows this and the unfortunate reality is that capitalism is rarely altruistic unless it benefits the bottom line. Unionizing presents an obvious solution, but then many early-career artists fear that they would be gate-kept from participating in higher profile projects. In the meantime, the ugly truth is that for artists just starting out, the NPV of being underpaid on an incredibly high profile project is probably significant down the road. Personally, I'd be hesitant to air my grievances this openly for fear of being blacklisted in an already ultra-competitive industry. That's why websites like Glassdoor exist.

Another tell with social reactions specifically for sequels (based on nothing but my own half-baked impressions): if they don't outright say it tops its predecessor, then they probably didn't think it did. Though this may be more true for fan-media types that tread on eggshells to protect their relationships with the studios.

Agreed. I think the reactions will be fairly representative and indicative of the ultimate reception. The fact that Disney is rolling them out a week+ before release is a good sign. They wouldn't risk poisoning the well unnecessarily (although, like I said, sometimes studios miscalculate).

Great point. It's often a "tone" thing. Good example is Black Widow. Perfectly serviceable movie. Early reactions were technically positive but pretty muted - stuff like "cool action!". Contrast with the early reactions to something like Knives Out or Blade Runner 2049 - lavish, effusive, etc.

Most MCU movies go on to receive good reviews though. I think this notion that social media reactions are "always positive" is overstated. Eternals was mixed. Matrix 4 was mixed. House of Gucci was mixed. Black Adam seemed pretty muted. Amsterdam was negative. Babylon has been pretty divisive. In some ways, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Studios are keen to let early social media reactions out the door if they're confident in the film, and the results are often predictably positive. Sometimes they miscalculate. Other times, they'll try to control who's seeing the movie to "tailor" the response. In general, if you're getting reactions from a range of critics and not just "fans" and "influencers", it's probably a pretty fair indication of how the film will go on to review.

Very true. And solid vaccination numbers combined with a downward trend in cases should ensure theatres are still open next month (Canada’s federal and provincial governments are definitely more trigger-friendly when it comes to lockdowns, so this is an important consideration). It would’ve been a good move to let Dune open earlier in Canada along with Europe (similar to what they did with Tenet last summer). Part of the problem with opening parallel to the US, even without Max, is the availability of a pristine 4K rip day and date. I know there’s some disagreement as to how much of an impact piracy has on numbers, but it certainly doesn’t help.

Agreed. Would you say the new film improves in this area?

Billboard sightings starting to pop up. Looks like the trailer will be dropping in 2 days. Presumably timed for Malignant. More details from Reddit

Got to wonder what WB takes away from The Suicide Squad's disappointing opening and what it means for Matrix 4 (if anything). Personally, I think a delay is looking increasingly imminent. Some food for thought: Brand perception: While nowhere near as maligned as the first Suicide Squad, The Matrix sequels weren't exactly critical darlings and Deadline speculates that brand perception might be playing a bigger role in the covid-era than it did before. In other words, audiences seem less willing to give a fallen IP a second chance when it comes to venturing out of the house. Only difference here is that the first film remains a landmark piece of cinema, so it may negate the effect somewhat. Delta: One hopes that Delta will have peaked and begun its journey back to lower case thresholds by December, but that's far from a guarantee. The UK had been falling after its first wave of delta, but it's since begun to trickle back up in the past week. Hopefully with vaccinations, theatre attendance manages to hold (or even improve), but it remains a question mark. The HBO Max factor (day-and-date, no PVOD fee, rampant piracy): like Black Widow, I expect we'll see huge piracy numbers on TSS, only here I'm not sure the HBO Max subscription bump will be enough to offset cannibalization (not sure it was enough for Disney either, even with added PVOD revenue). An R-rating? If M4 follows in the footsteps of the original trilogy with an R-rating (which I personally doubt), it will further hamper its chances with younger audiences who will have an easier time subscribing to HBO Max or simply pirating the film (and I'm sure brand recognition is already fairly low in this age group given the 2 decade gap between instalments). Critical reception: Unlike TSS, M4 is likely to be critically divisive. And despite the disappointing OW, I'm sure TSS benefitted at least somewhat from Gunn's involvement as well as the glowing reviews. I don't think we're likely to see that here (though there have been some positive rumblings on M4's quality, both on this site and across the web). All said, I could see WB kicking this to next spring. My only hesitation is the implications on the HBO Max deal. There'd probably be a subscriber backlash that could have legal implications - not to mention the revised back-end deals already in place for Lana et all. On the plus side, there's the Reeves factor. He's seemingly one of the few actors left with the ability to draw in a crowd. And it is a nostalgic IP when all is said and done, despite the sequels less than sterling rep. It's a tough call.

I'm curious as to how the economics work here. As I understand it, a company does not directly benefit from increases to it its stock price. The number of shares in a company multiplied by the stock price reflects the market cap of the company, which is an important component of a firm's enterprise value (combined with debt less cash). Put simply, though the fundamental value of a firm is increasing as the share price rises, this alone doesn't generate cash for the firm. Companies only directly profit from their share price when they issue equity (whether it's through an IPO, to a private investor, or in a subsequent public offering down the road). For example, for Netflix to raise funds in order to benefit from a higher stock price, they'd have to issue new equity in the form of additional shares. It's worth mentioning that this would dilute the total stock float (same inherent value stretched over more shares) and result in a drop in price to compensate. Unless you just mean indirect benefits... e.g. access to cheaper debt, secondary offerings, executive compensation (stock options, etc.), more chips at the table when it comes to M&A positioning, greater interest from big fish investors. Or just as a general positive signal of the company's financial performance/prospects. Tl;dr - a healthy stock price may help Netflix secure cheap financing or a fantastic partnership, but it doesn't directly put more money in their pockets in and of itself (at least this is how I've always conceptualized it).

Charitable read: perhaps Reeves has delivered a stripped-down neo-noir that's light on bombast (even compared to the "grounded" Nolan flicks), and WB is concerned it won't strike a chord with general audiences.

Agreed. At this point anything less than an ultra smooth production (which few great films are) runs the risk of being misconstrued as a potential disaster given WB’s recent track record.

ViewerAnon seems to be corroborating those rumours for what it’s worth. For reference, Sneider’s exact words (his comments start at 12:20) were that he’s “heard the movie’s maybe not coming together the way people thought it was”. Not sure what to make of it to be honest. Could be WB is concerned about how the film will land with general audiences versus actual quality issues.

Another positive signal from ViewerAnon. Can't wait!

All the "Dune will bomb" commentary has me wondering if the risk is actually to the upside. We'll see what happens with the combo of Delta and a simultaneous HBO Max release, but based on the last trailer, I wouldn't necessarily bet against it. To put a personal lens on it, I spent some time with some non-cinephile friends last week and the new Dune trailer actually came up without any provocation on my end (can't recall ever discussing a new release with this group outside of the occasional Netflix show). The response was actually pretty positive - reasons cited were caliber of the cast and the scope. I mentioned the box office fears and they were surprised. When I brought up Blade Runner 2049 and the Villeneuve connection, the sentiment was that it wasn't comparable because Blade Runner looked "weird", whereas Dune is more akin to Star Wars. Anyway, anecdotal evidence and all that, but food for thought.