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

[IronJimbo]

4 hours ago, marveldcfox said:

Too much focus on relationship and emotions with his brand of dialogues could backfire. Everyone is going into this expecting amazing CGI and visuals with loads of awesome action set pieces. I hope there will be enough action sequences or else movie will be in trouble. 

The trailers so far have also focused too much on visual and emotion with not much action. Would be a huge mistake if movie lacks action scenes. No one wants to watch boring family drama of blue humanoids.

 

See you at the thursday night previews!

[Elessar]

8 hours ago, marveldcfox said:

Titanic had real human beings with good looking leads and great score. That and the last 1-1.5 hr was brilliant. It was set in real world.

 

 

 

I beg to differ, all 3 hours of Titanic were brilliant.

 

Whether it's set in the real world or an alien planet shouldn't matter, as long as people buy into the drama. And they did with Avatar.

 

As for action, it's a James Cameron film, i'm sure it's gonna have its fair share of it.

 

Btw, Avatar had a pretty great score as well. Of course, with Horner's passing, we'll see how his replacement will do.

Edited November 9, 2022 by Elessar

[IronJimbo]

17 minutes ago, Elessar said:

 

I beg to differ, all 3 hours of Titanic were brilliant.

 

Whether it's set in the real world or an alien planet shouldn't matter, as long as people buy into the drama. And they did with Avatar.

 

As for action, it's a James Cameron film, i'm sure it's gonna have its fair share of it.

 

Btw, Avatar had a pretty great score as well. Of course, with Horner's passing, we'll see how his replacement will do.

 

Simon Franglen is going 2 for 2 on so far, listening to the teaser & trailer.

Edited November 9, 2022 by IronJimbo

[YSLDC]

A lot is said recently about VFX driving people to the theaters not being a factor anymore like in 2009 because you can't push it further, and oh boy....

 

The scene that was shown at the end of the re-release involving water... I've never seen anything like that and I'm a movie buff. General audiences are going to lose their minds. It'll have the exact same impact. 

Edited November 9, 2022 by YSLDC

[CaptNathanBrittles]

The big difference between TITANIC and AVATAR is DiCaprio and Winslet are better actors and had way more chemistry and charisma than Worthington and Saldana.

[Reddroast]

23 minutes ago, CaptNathanBrittles said:

The big difference between TITANIC and AVATAR is DiCaprio and Winslet are better actors and have way more chemistry and charisma than Worthington and Saldana.

Saldana is a good actress... But Worthington has no charisma whatsoever. 

[hw64]

18 minutes ago, YSLDC said:

A lot is said recently about VFX driving people to the theaters not being a factor anymore like in 2009 because you can't push it further, and oh boy....

 

The scene that was shown at the end of the re-release involving water... I've never seen anything like that and I'm a movie buff. General audiences are going to lose their minds. It'll have the exact same impact. 

 

I was reading the comments of I think an old Deadline article from prior to Avatar's release in 2009, and I saw a few comments saying the exact same things that are being said today: "good CGI isn't a draw anymore," "it's all been done before," etc., citing movies like King Kong and Pirates of the Caribbean.

 

These takes aren't grounded in any reality, especially when some of the biggest franchises today consistently release movies with rushed, inconsistent, and often outright bad visual effects. And in any case, it wasn't merely the CGI that was a big component of Avatar's success, it was the use of CGI to create a fully-realized, believable alien world to transport the audience to — how often has that been done since 2009?

[IronJimbo]

49 minutes ago, hw64 said:

 

I was reading the comments of I think an old Deadline article from prior to Avatar's release in 2009, and I saw a few comments saying the exact same things that are being said today: "good CGI isn't a draw anymore," "it's all been done before," etc., citing movies like King Kong and Pirates of the Caribbean.

 

These takes aren't grounded in any reality, especially when some of the biggest franchises today consistently release movies with rushed, inconsistent, and often outright bad visual effects. And in any case, it wasn't merely the CGI that was a big component of Avatar's success, it was the use of CGI to create a fully-realized, believable alien world to transport the audience to — how often has that been done since 2009?

 

from market research from yours truly, it seems the actual public opinion is that "it probably wont be a story, but i have to go see it for the visuals"

[SchumacherFTW]

12 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

 

from market research from yours truly, it seems the actual public opinion is that "it probably wont be a story, but i have to go see it for the visuals"

I can't see a movie being as big as you expect purely because of the visual component. The first was a visual treat for sure, but it has a complete, simple, satisfying story to go along with that. If Way of Water doesn't deliver on that front it'll just be a normal sequel performance if that. 

[IronJimbo]

28 minutes ago, SchumacherFTW said:

I can't see a movie being as big as you expect purely because of the visual component. The first was a visual treat for sure, but it has a complete, simple, satisfying story to go along with that. If Way of Water doesn't deliver on that front it'll just be a normal sequel performance if that. 

 

For the movie to perform as well as I'm predicting it has to blow the minds of everyone watching, putting them into a lucid dream on a pandora where they can't look away. An experience like nothing else.

And yes, to do the above EVERYTHING needs to be on point.

I could run a 2 hour render of a ball bouncing on a table that's photoreal, and no one is gonna sit and watch that.

[SchumacherFTW]

24 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

 

For the movie to perform as well as I'm predicting it has to blow the minds of everyone watching, putting them into a lucid dream on a pandora where they can't look away. An experience like nothing else.

And yes, to do the above EVERYTHING needs to be on point.

I could run a 2 hour render of a ball bouncing on a table that's photoreal, and no one is gonna sit and watch that.

I genuinely can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not 😅

[Verrows]

1 hour ago, IronJimbo said:

 

from market research from yours truly, it seems the actual public opinion is that "it probably wont be a story, but i have to go see it for the visuals"

Anecdotally, this is what I'm seeing. Myself and my friends and family are going more for the visual spectacle of it and not because they are particularly Avatar fans.

[IronJimbo]

13 minutes ago, SchumacherFTW said:

I genuinely can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not 😅

sorry I was rambling.

I agree it has to be more than just pretty to surpass the first movie. Avatar 2 will be everything Avatar was and more. Avatar 2's visuals being amazing is just one of many reasons this film will CLEAN UP this december

[IronJimbo]

The visuals will be a key selling point for gathering interest and word and mouth. They tell their friend "oh hey this movies visuals were AMAZING! you have to see it", but what they really mean is so much more, it's just an easy thing to articulate.

But it will be the film itself which makes people talk about the movie to their friends & fam in a postive light.

Edited November 9, 2022 by IronJimbo

[IronJimbo]

22 hours ago, SchumacherFTW said:

I can't see a movie being as big as you expect purely because of the visual component. The first was a visual treat for sure, but it has a complete, simple, satisfying story to go along with that. If Way of Water doesn't deliver on that front it'll just be a normal sequel performance if that. 

Big Jim himself summed up what I was saying better than I could in a new interview with TotalFilm

 

Quote

for Cameron immsersion is the baseline experience Avatar needs to offer. "That's sort of a given," he shrugs "So much has been made of the first Avatar being this visual experience, transportive, beautiful, and all that sort of thing. This film is all that, but is goals are higher

 

[Godzilla]

I think this should cross $2B WW. It has like no competition; it has the holiday season all to itself. No Way Home had more competition last year... 

[cdsacken]

On 11/9/2022 at 7:25 AM, YSLDC said:

A lot is said recently about VFX driving people to the theaters not being a factor anymore like in 2009 because you can't push it further, and oh boy....

 

The scene that was shown at the end of the re-release involving water... I've never seen anything like that and I'm a movie buff. General audiences are going to lose their minds. It'll have the exact same impact. 

no way same impact as 09. I saw the trailer on a massive imax and it looked great better than 09. Didn’t change my life like folks are predicting. Still will be lower box office than last time domestically and WW much lower. China will be way under what folks were predicting.

[XXRDJisDoctorDoom]

Wakanda Forever is in the past now. All eyes on The Way of Water! 

 

#4BilliesOrBust

[Moviedweeb]

The reactions to the 3D trailer playing before BP2 are beyond stellar.

 

https://twitter.com/search?q=avatar 3d trailer&src=typed_query&f=live

[IronJimbo]

34 minutes ago, K'uk'ulkan XXR said:

Wakanda Forever is in the past now. All eyes on The Way of Water! 

 

#4BilliesOrBust

this is a hashtag i can get behind

 

9 minutes ago, Moviedweeb said:

The reactions to the 3D trailer playing before BP2 are beyond stellar.

 

https://twitter.com/search?q=avatar 3d trailer&src=typed_query&f=live

lol, poor black panther 2 having to follow the Avatar 2 trailer.
I want to watch the trailer in 3d