Avatar: The Way of Water | 16 DEC 2022 | Don't worry guys, critics like it

[Alexdube]

13 minutes ago, cdsacken said:

So because he delays and holds movies hostage for 12 years it's not corporate? There is a theme park for Avatar. It will again partner with McDonald's and everywhere else. 7/11 and all over the place.

 

Again I'm all for the sequel and I'm all got it breaking 3B. Hell let's see 4 billion.

Who the f*** cares about the theme park? That's the Disney side of things, THEY came to Cameron to borrow his IP. Why would he say no to that? Of course there's a corporate element to Avatar. But it seems like some of you have hard time understanding the difference between a purely corporate product like Aladdin for instance, where the vision of a director is completely buried by the studio (I doubt Aladdin has much in common with other Guy Ritchie movies) and a director driven movie where the studio takes a back seat and is more about just financing than interfering with the creative process.

Edited July 21, 2019 by Alexdube

[cdsacken]

Just now, Alexdube said:

Who the f*** cares about the theme park? That's the Disney side of things, THEY came to Cameron to borrow his IP. Why would he say no to that? Of course there's a corporate element to Avatar. But it seems like some of you have hard time understanding the difference between a purely corporate product like Aladdin for instance, where the vision of a director is completely buried by the studio (I doubt Aladdin has much in common with other Guy Ritchie movies) and a director driven movie where the studio takes a back seat and is more about just financing and interfering less with the creative process.

It's a corporate film. Just accept it. 500 million movies are always corporate

[Deep Wang]

10 minutes ago, NCsoft said:

Well, surprise surprise, It's not a Indie spirit award contender, that's for sure...

But you do see that the semantics surrounding "corporate" is not the true point of the dispute, right?

 

Someone called Endgame 'corporate trash,' and I'm fairly certain that doesn't mean that Avatar is 'corporate treasure.' 

 

Just because Cameron put so much of himself into the project doesn't mean that he didn't have significant corporate help making it happen.

 

The other side is true also, just because Disney/Marvel is behind Avengers, that doesn't mean that the Russo's/Whedon/everyone else didn't put their heart and soul into the movies they were making.

 

Edited July 21, 2019 by Deep Wang

[NCsoft]

Eh, a friendly reminder:

We are on a box office forum, we are in a thread of a film directed by the king of box office, we are living in capitalistic societies and the film industry exist with making money as one primary goal. Why are there people running around reminding us that Avatar is a corporate product, as if that is news?

 

the point of discussion is not the word "corporate", but the groundbreaking nature of the original Avatar and the value it held by holding on to that crown, as well as how Avatar sequels are more in the veins of Star Wars OT and LOTR films, compared to what's dominating the market right now. 

[Permanent Magnet]

1 minute ago, Deep Wang said:

 

Someone called Endgame 'corporate trash,' and I'm fairly certain that doesn't mean that Avatar is 'corporate treasure.' 

 

Just because Cameron put so much of himself into the project doesn't mean that he didn't have significant corporate help making it happen.

 

Deep want, going deep with Cameron fans is meaningless, they are sticking to their arrogance and will always be.

 

 

But hey JCS congratulated MCU fans for the record so that is nice from him and maybe against some "Jim gang" values here.

[infamous5445]

How the hell isn't this thread locked yet?

[Alexdube]

4 minutes ago, cdsacken said:

It's a corporate film. Just accept it. 500 million movies are always corporate

Yes and I said so in my comment, what part did you not understand? The difference is who calls the shots. The studio or the director? I prefer when it's the director to the corporate executives. Maybe you don't see the distinction, but I do

[cdsacken]

2 minutes ago, Alexdube said:

Yes and I said so in my comment, what part did you not understand? The difference is who calls the shots. The studio or the director? I prefer when it's the director to the corporate executives. Maybe you don't see the distinction, but I do

That's because there isn't one. Have a nice day.

[cdsacken]

19 minutes ago, VenomXXR said:

As someone who's looking forward to Avatar 2, I always come in here hoping to find a better discussion going on.

I'm always disappointed.

That's what happens when it's delayed for 6 years and takes 12+ for a sequel...

[Alexdube]

1 minute ago, cdsacken said:

That's because there isn't one. Have a nice day.

great arguments, nice talking to you buddy 👍

[NCsoft]

18 minutes ago, Deep Wang said:

 

Someone called Endgame 'corporate trash,' and I'm fairly certain that doesn't mean that Avatar is 'corporate treasure.' 

 

Just because Cameron put so much of himself into the project doesn't mean that he didn't have significant corporate help making it happen.

 

The other side is true also, just because Disney/Marvel is behind Avengers, that doesn't mean that the Russo's/Whedon/everyone else didn't put their heart and soul into the movies they were making.

 

My point in replying to your post has been about Avatar being a groundbreaking original, and there's justifiable reason to lament it losing the WW record, signifying end of an era, and that bringing up Avatar has sequels coming serves no purpose to that specific discussion. In extension to that, I have also make many points suggesting that Avatar sequels are completely different beasts from what's dominating the market right now, it's a new legacy franchise in the making, which I think we desperately need.

The point of whether there is a corporate element to Avatar is irrelevant to what I said, it's constructing an empty "debating" point that no one is disputing.

 

Regarding MCU, personally, I see them as adequate entertainment, with main contribution to film industry being in the form of cinematic universe, which is a development that I strongly dislike, but that's more MCU as a whole than any individual films. I wouldn't personally call MCU films corporate trash, I don't actually have an inherent problem with them, if they exist alongside contemporary new franchises and not dominate the entire Hollywood blockbuster industry, however, the reality is they dominate the scene with mostly pre-existing characters and modifications of pre-existing stories dating back to the 50s, while the area that they don't dominate in, sadly, is occupied by what I consider much much worse: soulless live action animation remakes, endless spin-offs and sequels that refuse to go away, and continuous revival and reboot of 70s, 80s and 90s franchises. I would put up with an occasional MMFR and BR2049, if it means they are made with heart as with those two films, and if it means they're not killing all creativity and new ideas in the industry, but look at where we are at right now.

 

 

Edited July 21, 2019 by NCsoft

[NCsoft]

27 minutes ago, Permanent Magnet said:

But hey JCS congratulated MCU fans for the record so that is nice from him and maybe against some "Jim gang" values here.

Ha, JCS's congratulation post was actually quite brilliant, you can read little into it or too much into it. 

 

[IronJimbo]

1 hour ago, Deep Wang said:

 

Well, I'd say that there isn't anything inherently wrong with it.  Remember, it took TWO corporations to make Titanic happen!  

it took 3 to make Avengers:FG possible

Edited July 21, 2019 by IronJimbo

[Deuce66]

I find it funny how some people seem offended by the word "corporate". Business 101 classes for everyone except for those who already understand how business' operate especially one (Disney) with a market cap of almost $252 Billion.

 

 

[JB33]

1 hour ago, VenomXXR said:

As someone who's looking forward to Avatar 2, I always come in here hoping to find a better discussion going on.

I'm always disappointed.

In fairness, it's to be expected when the film is like 2 and a half years away. Not much to discuss and everything to bicker about. This thread really should be on the lot.

[JB33]

Cameron fans are super-glued to their pedestals and it makes reasonable discourse impossible. Just let them talk in circles with each other in this thread.

[Tag 2]

1 minute ago, JB33 said:

Cameron fans are super-glued to their pedestals and it makes reasonable discourse impossible. Just let them talk in circles with each other in this thread.

Please care them.I am a fan of Cameron.But I guess James Cameron don't even care about"Highest grossing film of all time" He just want to creat the great movie,and make people laugh.

[Deuce66]

In my opinion this is a good thing for Avatar, it will remove the box office bullseye off Cameron's back and stick it somewhere else. Disney could not be happier. 

 

Curious to see if Jim releases a public statement like he did when EG passed Titanic. 

 

 

[IronJimbo]

13 minutes ago, Deuce66 said:

In my opinion this is a good thing for Avatar, it will remove the box office bullseye off Cameron's back and stick it somewhere else. Disney could not be happier. 

 

Curious to see if Jim releases a public statement like he did when EG passed Titanic. 

 

 

His Titanic was glorious, hope he does another like that.

[Deep Wang]

1 hour ago, IronJimbo said:

it took 3 to make Avengers:FG possible

 

Yes, your point is?