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

[Ozymandias]

Take out all Kal and BKB posts and generally the exact same posts over and over again as to why Avatar is good/terrible and how it made the money it did and this thread would probably be 50 pages at most.  I don't get why I keep opening this one up...

[Noctis]

I really like Avatar. The reason I don't love it is solely because of Jake's character. And Worthington is a charisma vacuum. Just...so bland.

[RaidensSword]

And much more. So much went right for Avatar not just 'must see in 3D.' For one it had great marketing, last minute push which was great.

I agree. But for me personally, if it was a 2D movie I would not have been as interested to watch it, or as excited afterwards. I remember leaving the cinema after watching it with some friends and almost immediately booking another showing to watch again with some other friends who werent interested and convincing them to go because I thought the 3D experience was so good.

[dashrendar44]

I agree. But for me personally, if it was a 2D movie I would not have been as interested to watch it, or as excited afterwards. I remember leaving the cinema after watching it with some friends and almost immediately booking another showing to watch again with some other friends who werent interested and convincing them to go because I thought the 3D experience was so good.

 

That's interesting because I re-watched Avatar's online trailers (teaser and final trailer) and there are no mention of 3D anywhere. Of course, one of the marketing assets was that it was "An experience to live in 3D" but compared to every other subsequent movie trailers surfing on the trend that put "SEE IT IN 3D, IMAX3D, REALD, SUCKMY3D!" in big bold letters everywhere (cough!), that was noteworthy that the 3D selling argument wasn't put anywhere in those online trailer material.

Edited January 15, 2015 by dashrendar44

[The Futurist]

This thread reminds me of Groundhog s Day and Edge of Tomorrow.

[The Panda]

Then why people keep on insisting the movie will go down a lot in the USA but will still make tons of money overseas.

What s the reasonning behind this, I am genuily interested.

Maybe I assumed wrong.

Maybe because sequels to big movies tend to increase overseas and decrease domestically? It's stats and trends, it doesn't mean anything except what to expect money wise.

[RaidensSword]

That's interesting because I re-watched Avatar's online trailers (

and

) and there are no mention of 3D anywhere. Of course, one of the marketing assets was that it was "An experience to live in 3D" but compared to every other subsequent movie trailers surfing on the trend that put "SEE IT IN 3D, IMAX3D, REALD, SUCKMY3D!" in big bold letters everywhere (cough!), that was noteworthy that the 3D selling argument wasn't put anywhere in those online trailer material.

Yeah it is interesting. I do remember a lot of the news stories were writing about the groundbreaking 3D and visuals that were going to be in the movie so that's where the association would have come from, if it wasn't featured heavily in trailers.

Some news stories at the time, pre release:

A movie revolution will take place at the end of the year - potentially offering as big a leap in our viewing experience as the change from black-and-white television to colour.

Avatar, when it is released in December, will be the most ambitious 3D film ever released, and the first trailer, unveiled on the Internet yesterday, gives us a glimpse of the future.

However the $237m budget of Avatar signals a leap in technology - indeed, Cameron waited 15 years before starting filming as technology had not advanced enough to portray his vision. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1208038/Avatar-How-James-Camerons-3D-film-change-face-cinema-forever.html

And this

There's a moment in the footage I saw this morning, just after Jake has been rescued from a pack of baying, canine types, by a radiant, dread-locked Na'vi lady (who appears to be the flick's romantic interest) when he looks around and takes in his surroundings for the first time. And it's here that Cameron is most successful - not in the action sequences, which are admittedly remarkable and make excellent use of 3D, nor in the superb scene onboard the spaceship in which Jake's brain is first fused with his alien body. I felt completely immersed in the sublime, bizarre beauty of the Pandorian rainforest, both comforted by its warmth, and unnerved by its inherent perversity. And that, certainly, is tribute to the 3D work - the dripping fronds almost seem to lick your face, the humidity makes you feel you should be perspiring. http://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2009/aug/21/avatar-footage-screening-review-3d-james-cameron

So the hype for 3D and new technology making it a must see was definitely there. And it was justified too, otherwise I wouldn't have been so determined to see it again in the cinema as opposed to waiting for home video.

[Joel M]

But it was much more than the 3D. My hometown's only theatre didn't have 3D in 2009 and Avatar played there for 6 or 7 weeks anyway. Every other huge hit like Dark Knight and Avengers got three weeks at most.

[RaidensSword]

But it was much more than the 3D. My hometown's only theatre didn't have 3D in 2009 and Avatar played there for 6 or 7 weeks anyway. Every other huge hit like Dark Knight and Avengers got three weeks at most.

I'm not arguing that it was about 3D for everyone, right now I'm just going from my own personal experience and my anticipation for Avatar 1 and now 2.

For me it's all about visuals and 3D since no other movie before or after that I saw compared to it. The story and more importantly the message was something that I took away with me, but it's not what drew me in.

[Asyulus]

I hope the 120fps would push the film past the 3B mark.

[Neo]

That's interesting because I re-watched Avatar's online trailers (teaser and final trailer) and there are no mention of 3D anywhere. Of course, one of the marketing assets was that it was "An experience to live in 3D" but compared to every other subsequent movie trailers surfing on the trend that put "SEE IT IN 3D, IMAX3D, REALD, SUCKMY3D!" in big bold letters everywhere (cough!), that was noteworthy that the 3D selling argument wasn't put anywhere in those online trailer material.

Haters gonna hate.

[Neo]

Yeah it is interesting. I do remember a lot of the news stories were writing about the groundbreaking 3D and visuals that were going to be in the movie so that's where the association would have come from, if it wasn't featured heavily in trailers.

Some news stories at the time, pre release:

And this

So the hype for 3D and new technology making it a must see was definitely there. And it was justified too, otherwise I wouldn't have been so determined to see it again in the cinema as opposed to waiting for home video.

Dailymail is huge right? Especially in the US and other countries besides the U.K. Can't argue with Dash he is so right, yes Avatar had 3D push but nowhere as big as today with trailers and other marketing ploys for 3D, Avatar had much less than this 3D push. Can't deny it Avatar did 2.7B on good WOM and a must see experience that happened to be in 3D. Its not all other movies have 3D and could be said of them must be seen in 3D its not like marketing doesn't lie. Why is it no other movie has gotten within in 1.1B of Avatar or anywhere near 2B OS?

Edited January 15, 2015 by Neo

[Elessar]

But it was much more than the 3D. My hometown's only theatre didn't have 3D in 2009 and Avatar played there for 6 or 7 weeks anyway. Every other huge hit like Dark Knight and Avengers got three weeks at most.

 

Thank you for this post.

[RaidensSword]

Dailymail is huge right? Especially in the US and other countries besides the U.K. Can't argue with Dash he is so right, yes Avatar had 3D push but nowhere as big as today with trailers and other marketing ploys for 3D, Avatar had much less than this 3D push. Can't deny it Avatar won on good WOM and a must see experience that happened to be in 3D.

I know daily mail is popular as well as the guardian which is more reliable. I think other 3D movies are marketed more heavily on the 3D aspect because of Avatar, so I think it was instrumental to its success.

For me, part of the must see experience was based on it being 3D.

[Dementeleus]

I hope the 120fps would push the film past the 3B mark.

It's not going to be in 120fps. Cameron already said he's going with 48.

[Asyulus]

Ok and I got it

[Jandrew]

Lets be real here: is this really going to ever come out? My guess would be yes...but in 2032.

[acetabulum7]

Lets be real here: is this really going to ever come out? My guess would be yes...but in 2032.

 

True.  Why retire at 60 when you can retire at 77?

[vc2002]

Lets be real here: is this really going to ever come out? My guess would be yes...but in 2032.

 

Which will happen first, real Navi found in a distant planet, or Avatar 2 coming out?

Edited January 16, 2015 by vc2002

[Neo]

I know daily mail is popular as well as the guardian which is more reliable. I think other 3D movies are marketed more heavily on the 3D aspect because of Avatar, so I think it was instrumental to its success.

For me, part of the must see experience was based on it being 3D.

One person it must be true lol talk to me when you polled the nearly 350M people that saw it. I guessed you missed Monsters vs Aliens because that was marketed pretty heavily. So don't tell me it was solely the 3D which sold the movie, it helped but there were other reasons.

Edited January 16, 2015 by Neo