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

[Dementeleus]

Yes, that I added earlier, see already mentioned (partly not finished...)

 

For me, who watches movies mostly for the stories told.... those are rather interesting, as they do give - IMHO -  a lot of insight to the complet(er) story in Cameron's mind / imagination

 

Especially the Trudy scene I mentioned earlier was - as it was missing - a heatedly (term?) discussed detail then in e.g. IMDb's Avater sub-forum, as some argued there how unbeliefable it was that the natives would know how to get a heli or... down.

 

I do understand why they did cut it and the other scenes, why they didn't split the first movie to a two-parter... (way too big a financial risk...), but I'd perfer the movie with them, as I prefer such details given to flesh out the ~ beliefability of the charaters reactions / developments... over pace...

 

I think the slightly longer cut is better than the theatrical edition, but I'm not a huge fan of keeping all that stuff in there (for Cameron or anyone else). Pacing is a huge deal and just tossing everything in makes for a weaker movie. Best to keep that stuff as supplemental info for the encyclopedic-minded.

[terrestrial]

People were stupid when they bought this on Blu-Ray/DVD thinking it was automatically going to be like the theatre going experience and THAT is the truth... If you still can't grasp this, then you're hopeless as well as everyone else here... This is a fucking absolute NO BRAINER

 

 

Yep, for the story told in the movie, to revisit the world, get even some additional material.... you are absolute right.

 

So happy for you to finally being able to let go of stating the 3D detail as only possible reason

 

 

 

I think the slightly longer cut is better than the theatrical edition, but I'm not a huge fan of keeping all that stuff in there (for Cameron or anyone else). Pacing is a huge deal and just tossing everything in makes for a weaker movie. Best to keep that stuff as supplemental info for the encyclopedic-minded.

 

 

I guess that its the editor in you...

 

I am aware about not each 'second'/scene / scene version... being good for a movie in general.

 

But for at least some of the bigger scale movies I am seemingly an encyclopedic-minded person.

Especially counting if longer action scenes,... take IMHO away too much time from character moments.

Depends to me also on how many characters are even being included, if its about only one or more cultures, how much change one or more characters have to go through,...

I do love action too

 

Funny interpretation/definition.

For me it is about giving e.g. also supporting characters room to breath / flesh too... something more like showing a living culture / world, not only one lead getting shown a bit more in-depth and the rest not really,... then an encyclopaedia (collection of datas and details = as I understand the term)

I disagree to call them generally weak,

I think I would call it:

the pacing part was weakly done... or so.

But how often is a movie good with pacing... and still called 'dumb' (see actual at the AoU thread) or whatever for being 'only' an (mostly) action movie with only some superficial characters...?

(I love also book series with sub-series, like 20 or more long books of the same world, if written interestingly, but also read shorts.)

[Dementeleus]

Yep, for the story told in the movie, to revisit the world, get even some additional material.... you are absolute right.

 

But that's not so much a story and more an extended exploration of a universe. As a separate entity, on home video, there's value for those who're interested in such things. Not so much for a movie, which needs to tell a fixed story at a fixed pace without let-up.

 

 

For me it is about giving e.g. also supporting characters room to breath / flesh too... something more like showing a living culture / world, not only one lead getting shown a bit more in-depth and the rest not really,... then an encyclopaedia (collection of datas and details = as I understand the term)

I disagree to call them generally weak,

I think I would call it:

the pacing part was weakly done... or so.

But how often is a movie good with pacing... and still called 'dumb' (see actual at the AoU thread) or whatever for being 'only' an (mostly) action movie with only some superficial characters...?

 

A good movie is a good movie, it doesn't matter what anyone calls it (honestly, using any sort of heavily fan-driven media isn't a good example for any sort of objective discussion.) Movies tell a story: a story is driven by taking a key character (or, at most, a few key characters) through a emotional and/or physical journey. The more you begin to stray from that the less of a story you tell and the more it just becomes an unfocused travelogue. Supporting characters are supporting for a reason: this is not their story. To say that you can't really tell a taut, focused story with precision and economy without having flatter or less-interesting characters is a false dichotomy. The very best movies -- of any sort -- can fill in needed character detail and beats without sacrificing that imperative forward thrust. A movie isn't a novel (and vice versa, of course).

[terrestrial]

But that's not so much a story and more an extended exploration of a universe. As a separate entity, on home video, there's value for those who're interested in such things. Not so much for a movie, which needs to tell a fixed story at a fixed pace without let-up.

 

 

That part of the 'discussion' with BKB is solely about the DVDs / Blu-Rays = examples for the possible reasons to have bought them.

 

I'll spoiler the rest to shorten the post for the not intereted

 

 

A good movie is a good movie, it doesn't matter what anyone calls it (honestly, using any sort of heavily fan-driven media isn't a good example for any sort of objective discussion.) Movies tell a story: a story is driven by taking a key character (or, at most, a few key characters) through a emotional and/or physical journey. The more you begin to stray from that the less of a story you tell and the more it just becomes an unfocused travelogue. Supporting characters are supporting for a reason: this is not their story.

 

To say that you can't really tell a taut, focused story with precision and economy without having flatter or less-interesting characters is a false dichotomy.

 

The very best movies -- of any sort -- can fill in needed character detail and beats without sacrificing that imperative forward thrust. A movie isn't a novel (and vice versa, of course).

 

It depends IMHO.

A supporting character is usually part of the richness story, especially if they too have to change sides, develop,... being 'key-characters'

Sometimes it's an ensemble...

IMHO too often their reasons for certain actions are either not shown at all or too simply only stated ('bcs it says so') with e.g. only one short sentence 'told' or ... = are ofthen badly done - at least for my taste.

 

If a supporting or lead character does something 'out of character' for no shown.... reason, that is for me bad story telling

 

If a character reacts out of being part of a foreign to us culture, but the culture isn't introduced in relation to that in a way, it usually seems (again) to act for no reason... that's what I do not see as good story telling (exceptions always possible too)

 

It doesn't have to be a big introducing, shouldn't be forced, but has to be logical within the shown world.

 

As bigger the introduced world, as much more characters are ~ key, as much more difference to familiar/normal to us reasonings ~ they have, as much more development / extremer the journey... as much more I like to see usually more indepth.

Not always, not generally.

 

If lots of battles, action,... takes lots of time, I see those as - at least partly - additional time needed for the story, hence my wish for longer movies (or probably clearer: not too shortened character parts) then.

 

If it's only about one / two key characters and/or only a snapshot / e.g. a few days journey.... a movie with only e.g. under 90 minutes will be usually good enough even for my 'thirst' for stories too.

 

But you are right IMHO about the rest, I am guessing you interpret my posts as far more generally counting as I try to explain.

 

The sentence I quoted like this looks like I did not word(ing?) it correctly, that is not what I think I've written..

 

I tried to show examples for how to differ, not generalizing,... when additional material / longer run times might be better (again, not generally counting, as there are stories not needing those details) and when not (implied...)

 

= I do not think each longer than average movie is automatically bad paced, I think also not every blockbuster of the last decade was 'bloated' as some here seem to argue, but also do not disagree that some of the 'actualer' block-busters had such problems.

 

I'll try an example:

do you happen to know 13th Warrior?

If yes:

why the duell with the kings relative as the ~ reason, when he doesn't seem to be important or even exisiting later on anyway, has nothing to contribute to the world-building = that ~ story-part I think is not needed, ended 'empty'

= so it is IMHO either 'bloated' or missing some scenes, to explain / show why it was included in the first place.

 

If that story-part would add something interesting, I prefer the complete scenes, but only if it adds to the main characters learned knowledge, changes of descissions,.. has some impact (like Trudy's scene in Avatar explaining the natives how to get the helis... down teached them to be more efficient or even able, make as such their fights more beleifable, and might have even added on the impact of her death....)

 

The end of the story, why e.g. he ('Arab') does not stay,... a ~ scene here got cut out.

I happen to know a few scene pictures that look - to me - like to have been adding something without IMHO bloating the story.

A queen moment, ~ girlfriend,... something is missing IMHO.

That the director was seemingly aware/planing about the 'Arab' staying there for quite some time after the last battle is also to recognise e.g. about the healing wounds appearance.... but as the director got closed out of the editing room....

 

Some complained about him having learned their language too fast, as they didn't have understand the (distance, time, no roads nor compass...) length and speed possibility of their journey.

To me that detail was more then clear, but I am rather familiar with the 'map' of their journey.

So for those to add e.g. a very high birdseye view... as something short or even a ~ minute of extra monologue or detail... to support this detail might have been nice, not for all needed, but IMHO also not taking away from the quality if included.

 

I really like 13th Warrior, but not definitivly not for their cut descisions ...

[Jessie]

3D was the only reason... For some reason or another, AVATAR fans take offense to this, but whatever..

[Jessie]

If you say so dude.. It's true and you know it and AVATAR 2 won't be any different except for the lower domestic total..

 

Going by your theory, if Avatar 2 wasn't in 3d, it would make $0

[RaidensSword]

What's peoples thoughts on stephan lang returning? Will he still be human?

Great topic. Personally I think he's going to come back as a weird human/alien hybrid after being left in the jungle presumed dead and hell bent on revenge, blaming sully for turning him into the thing he hates.

[Neo]

BKB -

So I guess everyone who bought the 2D version of the movie expected it to magically play the 3D version on there 2D televisions. Can't beleive you think all theater tickets were in 3D.

[SchumacherFTW]

God damn is Mr Garrison awesome!

[kayumanggi]

This thread.

 

[kayumanggi]

[Neo]

Look, 95% of the general audience who saw this overrated piece of shit saw it in 3 Goddamn D Neo.. Got it??? That's what the entire fucking movie was sold on: 3 FUCKING D Neo... That's it and that damn well goes for the rest of you.., Don't want to believe it??? Watch BKB give 0 fucks whether you do or don't... The fan base takes such offense to this, it's laughable... Holy fuck, who cares either way??? Why does this bother folks so much here?? Why??? Why would it offend you if this movie made the $$$$ it did off a novelty like 3D where the 3D Visuals SOLD IT??? Why????

Again no evidence. So going from 100% to 95%. You are hard headed like I said look at OW 3D/2D ratio and that proves it wasn't 95%.

Showing on 3,129 3D screens at 2,038 sites, the format accounted for an estimated $55 million of the gross.

 

70/30 ratio not 95% like you claim.

So I have proved my points with actual evidence and as usual you are just spitting out facts thinking they are true. Well you are the one who brings it up so I guess you care. Because you are wrong look at the facts.

[Neo]

http://screenrant.com/3d-movies-green-lantern-sucker-punch-alien-prequel-pauly-48813/

 

 

 

 

Further fucking proving once again that 3D enabled AVATAR to make the $$$$ it did... Because of AVATAR and it's Spectacular 3D, Every studio after that had to have 3D in their movies and all of you damn well know this so blow off..

So what that if every movie post-Avatar went to 3D doesn't prove Avatar made 95% of its money in 3D sales. The last sentence btw refers the only way to make 3D work is to shoot in native which Cameron did.

Edited March 20, 2015 by Neo

[kayumanggi]

That's right.. I'm right and you have no other way of accepting it except for posting a gif of a little kitty..

 

[Neo]

Face it: I proved you and everyone else here WRONG.. WRONG Neo.. WRONG.. That seals the deal that 3D was the sole purpose, the sole reason for this movie making the $$$$ it did and so much, every studio wanted to copy it's success in the hopes they'd make the amount of $$$$ AVATAR did and in the end, it just wasn't as good as what Mr. Cameron gave us..

How? I just showed you OW sales figures hard data, while you have random numbers you are picking from nowhere. Also me and others gave you reasons as why it made it what it did. What about cities that didn't have 3D screens did those sales magically become 3D. Here is the evidence and you are to stubborn to see it. How did you prove me wrong? You haven't.

Edited March 20, 2015 by Neo

[Neo]

 

 

 

 

 

You are pretty dense. Can't believe you don't understand context and you think Avatar made 95% of its gross in 3D.

[kayumanggi]

Oh Gee Look: I get the cutsie little kitten again when one can't prove me wrong any other way...  

 

LOL You have the guts to ask people to prove you wrong even if you don't know how to accept your mistakes? So what's the point?

 

You deserve all the facepalms.

 

[Neo]

People who live in Glass houses shouldn't cast stones.. You and just about everyone else on the subject are as dense as they come.. Once again, I posted proof Neo the movie made what it did off 3D and that's it.. You can spin this and go on and on and on but it doesn't take away from the fact that this was the sole reason and all the characterization and story to a backseat to the Visuals..

You posted quotes that didn't help you at all. I posted actual evidence from box office sales. You say it made all it did from 3D but the fact that it had 2D sales proves you wrong, if all sales were in 3D you would be right but it didn't. Well again visuals =/= 3D, there is more to visuals.

[kayumanggi]

I proved you wrong [mod edit] I already posted proof from SCREENRANT.. Don't like it, don't know what to tell you.. The truth of this hurts and so much, I get the cutsie kitty gif..

 

You want to get banned grandpa? THE AVENGERS: AOU's release is near. You will miss a lot.

 

Edited March 20, 2015 by Neo

[Neo]

I already posted proof from SCREENRANT.. Don't like it, don't know what to tell you.. The truth of this hurts and so much, I get the cutsie kitty gif..We have no one to blame but ourselves, really. Maybe if audiences hadn’t made Avatar the highest grossing film of all time, then Hollywood studios wouldn’t be mortgaging their mother’s heirloom jewelry to convert their films into 3D. Avatar on the other hand, which Cameron planned for and shot using 3D cameras, was beautiful to look at. That’s really the only way to make this technology work properly in the final product.

Okay Avatar forced studios to make more 3D movies, still not proof Avatar made 95% of its money in 3D. Beautiful to look at, okay so more than just 3D and visuals is the whole package just not one aspect. Still no 3D made all the sales.