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

[TServo2049]

I thought Cameron is a partner in space ventures too?

[AniNate]

How do we know there's nothing to be gained from it? There could very well be valuable resources down there. 

 

I value filmmaking as a human endeavor, but I don't buy that producing entertainment should trump scientific research. And I'd still think that even if he were literally studying mollusk buttholes.

Edited January 14, 2015 by tribefan695

[Mattrek]

Right, I would contend though that the trope was the base of any said character and both examples craft a solid character around that.

Avatar doesn't have characters that really grab you, they are simply the trope and it's transparent to the point of being embarrassing.

I, and others, do contend and rightfully so, that Avatar was marketed and sold on it's visual concept. It delivered on that, but that is why it made the money it did. I never spoke to anyone in the months during or after it's initial release that focused on the characters, it was always about what was happening around or to them in any given scene via the 3-D. So, yes, it can and did make it's $2B on being eye candy...and that's alright...for that film, cause it was marketed as such.

At present we are supposed to believe there is a wide enough interest in the poorly written characters that will alone cause people to show up for Avatar 2. I'm not seeing that.

Yup visuals are the only reason the film succeeded, guess that's why Pacific Rim did gangbusters, oh wait.

[AniNate]

Anyway, Cameron's no "Cousteau wannabe". Being the first guy to do any significant exploration of Challenger Deep already puts him in "immortal" territory in oceanography circles.

[Captain Craig]

Yup visuals are the only reason the film succeeded, guess that's why Pacific Rim did gangbusters, oh wait.

Really, that's your come back, really?

 

Pacific Rim and any other film w/heavy f/x since then wasn't marketed as this never before seen 3-D got to see it on IMAX experience.

[Avatree]

Really, that's your come back, really?

 

Pacific Rim and any other film w/heavy f/x since then wasn't marketed as this never before seen 3-D got to see it on IMAX experience.

Yeah, and the visuals in Avatar are a completely different style from Pacific Rim. The comparison is stupid.

[Dementeleus]

I look forward to another two years of this argument.

Edited January 14, 2015 by Telemachos

[Neo]

Horn:

No, we're not sure yet. We may revert -- the Star Wars dates have been May -- and we may revert to that at some point. But it depends on the readiness of the screenplays and where we are. But this first one will be December 18th of 2015. So we'll start with that and then we'll see.

 

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Star-Wars-Sequels-Could-Shift-Back-May-Release-Dates-42684.html

[DeeCee]

I look forward to another probably two years of this argument.

Fixed

[Mattrek]

Yeah, and the visuals in Avatar are a completely different style from Pacific Rim. The comparison is stupid.

Wow way to miss the bloody point. My point is visuals alone does not get butts in the seat. You have to have a story to go with it and like it or not, people enjoyed the story of Avatar, not just the visuals.

[AniNate]

I'd just like to remind everyone that the ultimate point here was that the sequel would not gross as much as the original. 

[Chewy]

This is by far the longest thread about a 2030 release

[Neo]

I'd just like to remind everyone that the ultimate point here was that the sequel would not gross as much as the original IMO.

[Nemeres]

2017... that's a lot of fucking confidence right there.

[dashrendar44]

Okay, now it's not only "Avatar sucks" but it's "James Cameron's deep-sea exploration endeavor sucks", despite being the only individual that up the ante and pushed the envelope in both respective fields...(Knowing Cameron's track record, he's taking his sweet time to push the envelope further than his peers like he did in 2009 crafting an overarching story around. Ask Spielberg, Fincher, Jackson and Nolan, you know those that actually know what they're talking about, they'll be the first to acknowledge that Cameron is a pionneering achiever in terms of tying effective storytelling and technical filmmaking prowess, it shows on-screen as general audience clearly responds massively when he delivers mind-blowing action on top of an universally appealing story. Thinking he'll just sit his ass for 8 years there to serve more of the same with no improvements and no kind of novelty is ludicrous). Yeah, that's pretty much "Point your finger at the moon and luddites will bitch about your finger" syndrome.

 

Avatar is all visuals no story? That's rich coming from people supporting fluffy disposable entertainment full of the same worn-out cardboard stereotypes posing as characters like CBM and toy selling corporate franchises being shoved down audience's throat which are the bane of Hollywood right now.

Edited January 15, 2015 by dashrendar44

[AniNate]

This thread's like if Mark and Erica's breakup scene were dragged on for five years.

[vc2002]

I got bored hearing about how a movie made 2.8BN with no one cared about the story. Come one Jim, make a new movie so we can shift the "making a shit ton of money with sucking-donkey-balls story" talk on the new target. At least there would be something new. 

Edited January 15, 2015 by vc2002

[RaidensSword]

Making a good movie - like he always does - will do the trick.

Marketing is still important. Avatar 1 was built around it being a must see in 3D.

[Neo]

Marketing is still important. Avatar 1 was built around it being a must see in 3D.

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.

[Darth Homer]

Right, I would contend though that the trope was the base of any said character and both examples craft a solid character around that.

Avatar doesn't have characters that really grab you, they are simply the trope and it's transparent to the point of being embarrassing.

 

You hit the nail on the head. Jake Sully isn't a character he's a walking archetype. Which would be fine if Cameron actually developed him into a recognizable human being instead of a humorless personality void (and I can't blame all of that on Worthington, bland as he is). It's the same problem most of the heroes in the SW prequels had. They had no inner life, no reason to root for them beyond them being the good guy. The characters in Terminator, Aliens and The Abyss had humor, rough edges, individual quirks, etc. but Cameron seems too lazy to develop characters that well anymore. Maybe his co-writers on the sequels will help, so we'll see I guess.

Edited October 19, 2015 by Darth Homer