A2 WEEKEND THREAD | 134.1M DOM OW | Thurs 17m / Fri 36m / Sat 45m / Sun 36m

[ThomasNicole]

1 minute ago, Mulder said:

People are bringing up the VFX because that's what a lot of the defenders are bringing up as a counterpoint to why its OW wasn't high.

They are? 

 

When people talk about the theatrical experience of wonder i'm sure they're not talking about a pure technical aspect that have no emotional hook at all.

 

Again, this doesn't sustain any movie, especially a 3-hour plus movies.

[LinksterAC]

2 minutes ago, Mulder said:

While I do think the experience is a big part of seeing a movie, I think with sports a lot of it is being able to see your favorite players up close and being a part of history. I don't think a lot of movies have that same appeal in terms of being a part of history/seeing history unfold before your eyes and there is no appeal like seeing your favorite players play.

That's fair, & while I agree that those specific things aren't really replicable in a movie theater (at least not that I've seen), would be it wrong to say that there are certain other things about this particular film's in-theater experience that are not replicable at home?

[Mulder]

Just now, LinksterAC said:

That's fair, & while I agree that those specific things aren't really replicable in a movie theater (at least not that I've seen), would be it wrong to say that there are certain other things about this particular film's in-theater experience that are not replicable at home?

I have thoughts on this but I don't want to be swarmed by a certain portion of people on here (Not you though, I appreciate the settled debate) so I'll leave it at that.

[Cap]

5 minutes ago, M37 said:

At 173 pages, I'm signing off of this crazy weekend thread

 

But I wish all of you well on your upcoming journey (no matter how far down the path each of you may be)

 

Pls don't ban me @XXR 5x OW or Bust

M37 just took the lead for Funniest User and MVP at the BOFFYs 2023

[LinksterAC]

3 minutes ago, ThomasNicole said:

They are? 

 

When people talk about the theatrical experience of wonder i'm sure they're not talking about a pure technical aspect that have no emotional hook at all.

 

Again, this doesn't sustain any movie, especially a 3-hour plus movies.

Agree. I think that while the technical accomplishment is a necessary condition for these films' resonance with audiences, it's by no means sufficient. They have another je ne sais quoi that depends on the visuals but surpasses them. Hard to put a finger on.

Edited December 19, 2022 by LinksterAC

[LinksterAC]

1 minute ago, Mulder said:

I have thoughts on this but I don't want to be swarmed by a certain portion of people on here (Not you though, I appreciate the settled debate) so I'll leave it at that.

All good. Thanks for your perspectives!

[Ozymandias]

16m today

 

[MovieMan89]

7 minutes ago, Deep Wang said:

 

I think you misunderstand what I was trying to say. 

 

You only get one shot at being shocked and surprised and wowed at something you've never seen before.  That happened when everyone went to the first one.  I remember telling everyone and even taking different friends with me on my other trips.  

 

By default, you are going to Avatar 2 with the express purpose to be blown away by the experience.  It's a lot easier to surpass your expectations if you have none.  

 

I know Jimbo and plenty of others will argue that is has more than enough wow factor, but well, we will never agree on anything regarding this movie lol.  

 

I get it, but you also misunderstand I am predicting “great legs” for the movie. Not something that is out of the realm of what we know is possible today (ala Titanic and A1). Huge huge difference. 
 

if this was another case of having so much going for it like those, I would be saying at least 7x multi, if not higher.

[ThomasNicole]

Just now, LinksterAC said:

Agree. I think that while the technical accomplishment is a necessary condition for these film's resonance with audiences, it's by no means sufficient. They have another je ne sais quoi that depends on the visuals but surpasses them. Hard to put a finger on.

Exactly, the VFX don't need to have a technical huge upgrade for every movie, people don't care about that for more than 10 minutes because movies are all about emotional connection.

 

They just have to be great enough to help the movie to deliver the rare type of massive immersive worldbuilding that makes people care about Pandora and feels like they're there for 3 hours, this is something that no other movie can offer. 

 

Great VFX a lot of movies offer every year, Transformers have some phenomenal VFX, it doesn't stop them of losing relevancy.

 

 

[Porthos]

4 minutes ago, ZattMurdock said:

 The technology evolved so much that today a videogame looks as good as full blown films. Looking ‘good’ isn’t good enough anymore.

 

This is something I don't think is brought up nearly enough, especially in context of theatrical decline.

 

No one, well probably no one, is saying that A2 isn't better visually than A1.

 

The question is:

 

IS A2 >>>>>> Better than EVERYTHING ELSE OUT THERE IN 2022 like A1 >>>>>> EVERYTHING ELSE OUT IN 2009?

 

Here "EVERYTHING ELSE" = 4k TV shows AND video games as I sometimes think this forum sometimes cares too much about streaming and not enough about gaming.

 

The difference between AAA gaming in 2009 and AAA gaming in 2022 is... not insignificant.

 

I and others have brought up the difference between HD and SD, as back in 2009 the SD->HD transition was underway.  Many folks were still used to SD entertainment, both on TV and games.  So along comes Avatar and blows it out of the water.  People were willing to pay for something that was several levels better than what they were used to.  But are those people now willing to pay for something that, while better than what they're used to, is perhaps only a few levels better?

 

Say.. If A2 >>> Better than EVERYTHING ELSE is that enough ">>>"'s?

 

I literally don't know.  But I don't think it's something to be blithely blown off/

[Nikostar]

11 minutes ago, Ozymandias said:

16m today

 

I know this is a joke but the meltdowns would be epic if true.

[MikeQ]

36 minutes ago, Mulder said:

Massive amounts of CGI is now the norm to the audience. While those more in the know will know the leaps and bounds Avatar 2 has in it, to the average person I don't think they'll really see much of a difference between Avatar 2 or say Aquaman as much as that's factually wrong.

Regardless of how The Way of Water ultimately performs at the box office, I have to disagree with this assessment wholeheartedly.

 

I think the recently released Wakanda Forever actually puts it in stark contrast. I quite enjoyed the movie, but the water/underwater CGI in it compared to The Way of Water is night and day. And that’s by no means a slight to Wakanda Forever, as this has always been historically difficult for CGI - but rather a testament to the incredible work and technology put into it for the purposes of The Way of Water. The difference is significant.

 

Peace,

Mike

[Porthos]

7 minutes ago, Porthos said:

 

This is something I don't think is brought up nearly enough, especially in context of theatrical decline.

 

No one, well probably no one, is saying that A2 isn't better visually than A1.

 

The question is:

 

IS A2 >>>>>> Better than EVERYTHING ELSE OUT THERE IN 2022 like A1 >>>>>> EVERYTHING ELSE OUT IN 2009?

 

Here "EVERYTHING ELSE" = 4k TV shows AND video games as I sometimes think this forum sometimes cares too much about streaming and not enough about gaming.

 

The difference between AAA gaming in 2009 and AAA gaming in 2022 is... not insignificant.

 

I and others have brought up the difference between HD and SD, as back in 2009 the SD->HD transition was underway.  Many folks were still used to SD entertainment, both on TV and games.  So along comes Avatar and blows it out of the water.  People were willing to pay for something that was several levels better than what they were used to.  But are those people now willing to pay for something that, while better than what they're used to, is perhaps only a few levels better?

 

Say.. If A2 >>> Better than EVERYTHING ELSE is that enough ">>>"'s?

 

I literally don't know.  But I don't think it's something to be blithely blown off.

 

Which brings me up to a side point.  It's been 13 years since 2009.  That's 13 more years of demographics shifting to gamers.

Might not seem like a lot, but the 35 to 55 demo now is nearly exclusively part of the gamer generations as people who were born in 1968 would have been in their teens and twenties when the home video game revolution first hit.  But back in 2009 the comparable demo would have been 22 to 42 years old meaning much more of the population wasn't regularly consuming video game entertainment.

Maybe more to the point... More people are gamers than you might think.  Take our HBIC, @Cap.  She's a gamer just as much as I am (her drug of choice is Sims).  Many other posters casually mention their video game habits, even if the Gaming section isn't trafficked all that much.  Off this board, gaming discussions get as much (if not more) as discussions about TV and movies even among 'the olds'.

 

Just something else to consider when we think about just what counts in the "EVERYTHING ELSE" for "is A2 >>> Better than EVERYTHING ELSE" or "is A2 >>>>>> Better than EVERYTHING ELSE".

Edited December 19, 2022 by Porthos

[Mulder]

Just now, MikeQ said:

Regardless of how The Way of Water ultimately performs at the box office, I have to disagree with this assessment wholeheartedly.

 

I think the recently released Wakanda Forever actually puts it in stark contrast. I quite enjoyed the movie, but the water/underwater CGI in it compared to The Way of Water is night and day. And that’s by no means a slight to Wakanda Forever, as this has always been historically difficult for CGI - but rather a testament to the incredible work and technology put into it for the purposes of The Way of Water. The difference is significant.

 

Peace,

Mike

I specified average person for a reason, I and you and other people more invested in film and VFX will see the difference. The average lay-person? I don't know if they will.

[LinksterAC]

5 minutes ago, Porthos said:

 

This is something I don't think is brought up nearly enough, especially in context of theatrical decline.

 

No one, well probably no one, is saying that A2 isn't better visually than A1.

 

The question is:

 

IS A2 >>>>>> Better than EVERYTHING ELSE OUT THERE IN 2022 like A1 >>>>>> EVERYTHING ELSE OUT IN 2009?

 

Here "EVERYTHING ELSE" = 4k TV shows AND video games as I sometimes think this forum sometimes cares too much about streaming and not enough about gaming.

 

The difference between AAA gaming in 2009 and AAA gaming in 2022 is... not insignificant.

 

I and others have brought up the difference between HD and SD, as back in 2009 the SD->HD transition was underway.  Many folks were still used to SD entertainment, both on TV and games.  So along comes Avatar and blows it out of the water.  People were willing to pay for something that was several levels better than what they were used to.  But are those people now willing to pay for something that, while better than what they're used to, is perhaps only a few levels better?

 

Say.. If A2 >>> Better than EVERYTHING ELSE is that enough ">>>"'s?

 

I literally don't know.  But I don't think it's something to be blithely blown off/

I think the truth of this is in the eye of the consumer, and may be one of the determining factors on how successful this run is.

 

But for my part, yes, this is technically >>>>>>>>> everything else out there. Between the 3D, HFR, water & regular accoutrements (IMAX, Dolby, etc.), it's simply in a class of its own.

 

We'll see what audiences think.

[MikeQ]

3 minutes ago, Mulder said:

I specified average person for a reason, I and you and other people more invested in film and VFX will see the difference. The average lay-person? I don't know if they will.

Fair enough, but this was precisely my point: that the difference is significant enough as to be noticeable by general audiences, especially when Wakanda Forever opened about a month beforehand.

 

That said, I suspect you’re more in touch with general audience perception than I am.  

 

Peace,

Mike

[LinksterAC]

4 minutes ago, Porthos said:

 

Which brings me up to a side point.  It's been 13 years since 2009.  That's 13 more years of demographics shifting to gamers.

Might not seem like a lot, but the 35 to 55 demo now is nearly exclusively part of the gamer generations as people who were born in 1968 would have been in their teens and twenties when the home video game revolution first hit.  But back in 2009 the comparable demo would have been 22 to 42 years old meaning much more of the population wasn't regularly consuming video game entertainment.

Maybe more to the point... More people are gamers than you might think.  Take our HBIC, @Cap.  She's a gamer just as much as I am (her drug of choice is Sims).  Many other posters casually mention their video game habits, even if the Gaming section isn't trafficked all that much.  Off this board, gaming discussions get as much (if not more) as discussions about TV and movies even among 'the olds'.

 

Just something else to consider when we think about just what counts in the "EVERYTHING ELSE" for "is A2 >>> Better than EVERYTHING ELSE" or "is A2 >>>>>> Better than EVERYTHING ELSE".

Actually, I thought about this while watching A2, & figured it might lead to a more ready acceptance of HFR compared to The Hobbit a decade ago.

 

I wonder if a more gamer-heavy consumer base is more likely to appreciate the clarity in action that comes with HFR, since their eyes are more likely to be trained to it.

 

This seems like another "this is unique!" feature that could help Avatar. Or not. Who knows!

[IronJimbo]

14 minutes ago, Porthos said:

 

This is something I don't think is brought up nearly enough, especially in context of theatrical decline.

 

No one, well probably no one, is saying that A2 isn't better visually than A1.

 

The question is:

 

IS A2 >>>>>> Better than EVERYTHING ELSE OUT THERE IN 2022 like A1 >>>>>> EVERYTHING ELSE OUT IN 2009?

 

Here "EVERYTHING ELSE" = 4k TV shows AND video games as I sometimes think this forum sometimes cares too much about streaming and not enough about gaming.

 

The difference between AAA gaming in 2009 and AAA gaming in 2022 is... not insignificant.

 

I and others have brought up the difference between HD and SD, as back in 2009 the SD->HD transition was underway.  Many folks were still used to SD entertainment, both on TV and games.  So along comes Avatar and blows it out of the water.  People were willing to pay for something that was several levels better than what they were used to.  But are those people now willing to pay for something that, while better than what they're used to, is perhaps only a few levels better?

 

Say.. If A2 >>> Better than EVERYTHING ELSE is that enough ">>>"'s?

 

I literally don't know.  But I don't think it's something to be blithely blown off/

have you watched it in IMAX 3D?

[LinksterAC]

1 minute ago, IronJimbo said:

have you watched it in IMAX 3D?

Absolutely spellbinding.

 

And I say this as someone with numerous critiques of the film.

[Brainbug]

Is it just me or is it always impossible to disagree with anything that @Porthos says?