Avatar 2 & 3 (& 4?)

[Neil]

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/05/james-cameron-on-chinese-filmmakers-censorship-and-potential-co-productions/


We’ve spent the last year and a half on software development and pipeline development. The virtual production methodology was extremely prototypical on the first film. As then, no one had ever done it before and we didn’t even know for two and half years into it and $100 million into it if it was going to work. So we just wanted to make our lives a whole lot easier so that we can spend a little more of our brainpower on creativity. It was a very, very uphill battle on the first film. So we’ve been mostly working on the tool set, the production pipeline, setting up the new stages in Los Angeles, setting up the new visual effects pipeline in New Zealand, that sort of thing. And, by the way, writing. We haven’t gotten to the design stage yet. That’ll be the next.



Same story here too - http://www.cinemablend.com/new/James-Cameron-Making-Avatar-Movies-From-Now-30790.html


James Cameron is one of the most gifted filmmakers alive today. Yes, I mean it, and yes, I stand by even his worst lines of dialogue and hokiest messages. Nobody films action scenes like Cameron, nobody combines mythic-simple narratives with stunning special effects and locations, and nobody understands like he does how movies are the modern-day fables that audiences everywhere, of every age, can latch on to and enjoy.

Unfortunately, James Cameron is also involved with a lot of other things that don't require his services as a filmmaker, from executing the deepest solo deep-sea dive in history to traveling to China to encourage that country to open up to more co-productions with the United States and give more American films a shot at screening in that enormous moviegoing market. While in China, Cameron spoke with The New York Times and admitted what we fans of his movies often fear: with so much else on his plate, he's committing even less to making films that aren't called Avatar:

[Danny]

I think of all the indie filmmakers who create works of art with blood sweat and tears and a few thousand dollars. How many pieces of cinematic fresh air will never happen because money is aborted on these wastes of space instead.

[EvilNed]

I can hear the conversation:

"Well now what? We spent all this money on developing new technology for Avatar but now that films released and forgotten."

"Uhm... Avatar 2?"

"Still not worth the millions we poured into this project."

"... And 3 and 4?"

"That's so crazy it just might work!"

I literally slapped my own face when I read this.

[Andy]

It makes me really happy to read your comments guys, really.. id come and hug you both if i could, everyone around me seemed to rave on about how great avatar was when really.. i thought it was one of the most boring things id ever seen.

[Neil]

It makes me really happy to read your comments guys, really.. id come and hug you both if i could, everyone around me seemed to rave on about how great avatar was when really.. i thought it was one of the most boring things id ever seen.

I quite enjoyed Avatar. The plot felt a bit paint by numbers and needed some more depth to it, but none-the-less it was a pretty well made film using ground breaking tech which undoubtably caused problems during it's life-cycle.

You can see from Cameron's comments he/they've invested into the tech to make it less painful in future, and undoubtably this will be used not just on any future Avatar films, but other titles too.

-- -------- Post added at 08:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:58 PM ----------


I can hear the conversation:

"Well now what? We spent all this money on developing new technology for Avatar but now that films released and forgotten."

"Uhm... Avatar 2?"

"Still not worth the millions we poured into this project."

"... And 3 and 4?"

"That's so crazy it just might work!"

I literally slapped my own face when I read this.
Huh? Avatar made ten digits? They've invested a tiny fraction of that in tech/software if anything just to save money on future productions, and no doubt reap income from other productions too!?

Think Weta in NZ for example? They spent a huge amount from the LOTR budget setting up their own tech facilities. Would you deem that investment a loss too?

-- -------- Post added at 08:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:00 PM ----------


I think of all the indie filmmakers who create works of art with blood sweat and tears and a few thousand dollars. How many pieces of cinematic fresh air will never happen because money is aborted on these wastes of space instead.

Ummm... Another way of looking at it... If Avatar hadn't happened, how much less money would the film companies have to invest (risk) on projects!?


Do I detect negative-ninnies?! I don't get it? If you didn't enjoy the first one, and don't like the look of the next one when it comes out, fine, skip it. But maybe, the improvements mentioned above will aid the overall process and the second will be more to your liking!? What's to lose? Why all the boo-hoo-ing?

[LouCipherr]

Do I detect negative-ninnies?!

YES! :lol: :lol:

...and now, in parts 2, 3 (and maybe 4) we're going to be looking for "almostunobtainum"!

:D

[Neil]

YES! :lol: :lol:

...and now, in parts 2, 3 (and maybe 4) we're going to be looking for "almostunobtainum"!

:DThe only thing that concerns me about future Avatar films is this green ( 'save the planet') theme Cameron seems to be implying they will have?! I'm scared it will come across poorly :( ie: Might feel like propaganda rather than an escapism!

Guess we'll find out in about 2-3 years...

[Christopher Jon]

Do I detect negative-ninnies?!
Yeah. It's a broken record.

Create something that makes over 2 billion dollars and you can blow the money on whatever you want.

[rongravy]

I saw the first in 3D, which was fine because I was thoroughly baked and it looked really great in 3D, no doubt. I saw it on tv later and it didn't look so hot. I'd see the others for the vision alone at a theater, but it definitely threw alot of preachy crap in there, not so thinly veiled either.
Wah wah, bad America. Raping and pillaging, blah blah...
Anyhoo, ehhhhh. I'll check them out on a sequel by sequel basis.
I like giant blue cat people. But only in 3D.

[Danny]

i think thinly veiled is putting it mildly when it literally has rednecks in american flag trucker hats talking about shock and aweing the natives...

[rongravy]

i think thinly veiled is putting it mildly when it literally has rednecks in american flag trucker hats talking about shock and aweing the natives...
Well, I did say not so thinly veiled. I was just putting it nicely. I've pretty much learned by now to just scoff and move on when I hear and see that crap. Anyone's mind who can be turned that easily isn't worth saving anyway.

[Danny]

Well, I did say not so thinly veiled. I was just putting it nicely. I've pretty much learned by now to just scoff and move on when I hear and see that crap. Anyone's mind who can be turned that easily isn't worth saving anyway.

The fact that it was there at all is what pissed me off. Its intellectually insulting to the audience. That or Cameron actually thinks thats an example of subtlety and nuance. Then hes got bigger problems than thinking we are all morons.

[EvilNed]

It makes me really happy to read your comments guys, really.. id come and hug you both if i could, everyone around me seemed to rave on about how great avatar was when really.. i thought it was one of the most boring things id ever seen.

Boring is a nice way of putting it. I guess that's what you call a film with no original value whatsoever. It's up there with that damn Green Lantern...

[Neil]

The fact that it was there at all is what pissed me off. Its intellectually insulting to the audience. That or Cameron actually thinks thats an example of subtlety and nuance. Then hes got bigger problems than thinking we are all morons.

I think that's a little unfair... The main story line is simple, but there certain aspects that were fairly original/clever IMHO.

So I would definately agree that any sequels definately need their story line improved, but I hardly see Avatar as "insulting," and I once again simply get the feeling people bounce off the films success and feel they need to strangely over play their problems with the film to counter balance that popularity/success!? ie: Choose a less successful film, with as (if not more) questionable story, and story telling, and see the same individuals not bring the same negativity to the table...

[shootemindehead]

I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with opinions running contrary to the popular consensus, if those opinions are arrived at in an honest way. It's up to the individual to be honest with their own judgment.

It's also hardly surprising that when a film, such as 'Avatar', is trumpeted so loudly and expectations are managed to such a high degree, that it would draw criticism on its content, when that content is found to be so superficial. The film's talking point opportunities will also be far more numerous due to the fact that a great many people will have seen it and discussion on its merit and failure will inevitably be front and centre.

And while there will, undoubtedly, be people who'll just jump on the bandwagon of either direction, I don't think it's correct to dismiss every negative opinion on films, such as 'Avatar', as people "bounc(ing) off the films success".

[bassman]

Avatar was fantastic as a theatrical technical achievement(3D), but lost any appeal it had on home video. I don't think it's necessarily an awful film, but it's just so plain and not worth anymore viewings outside of the theatrical environment.

I still have faith in Cameron, so I will ignore the poor reception of the original and give the sequels a chance. After all, he has made two of the greatest sequels of all time(T2 and Aliens).

[Neil]

Avatar was fantastic as a theatrical technical achievement(3D), but lost any appeal it had on home video. I don't think it's necessarily an awful film, but it's just so plain and not worth anymore viewings outside of the theatrical environment.

I still have faith in Cameron, so I will ignore the poor reception of the original and give the sequels a chance. After all, he has made two of the greatest sequels of all time(T2 and Aliens).
Absolutely! And of course it was hot an aweful film, no matter what axes people have to grind :)

I hope Cameron sees the failings of the first one, and raises the bar with the sequels!

[Danny]

I think that's a little unfair... The main story line is simple, but there certain aspects that were fairly original/clever IMHO.

Neil i can never understand why you always point out criticism of movies you like as 'unfair'. More power to you for liking a movie, but it is neither 'fair' nor 'unfair' to point out a movies flaws. They are just there. Avatar was a mediocre bare bones plot that had literally been done before- by the same director no less- and the most unimaginative of fantasy video games put its 'magical breathtaking world' to shame. It is a film devoid of originality and character, you cannot sincerely judge that appraisal as unfair. It is overly critical at best. Otherwise that defines criticism as a varying series of degrees of 'allowed' or 'not allowed' on grounds of being a meanie to the film in case you hurt its feelings?
The rest of my opinion however is just that, opinion. Avatar had less depth to its 'message' than a childrens saturday morning cartoon show. There are literally deeper, more nuanced allegories to real world events in my little pony or the transformers. Be it the scarred drill sergeant taking sheer gargamel level glee in his military pogrom as he loves the smell of napalm in the morning, the rednecks and their shock and awe yuk yuks, or the overwhelming message of white guilt and more besides. It is obnoxious, shallow and obscenely insulting to you the audience. This is what the creators think you are at the level of. That this is the capabilities of your simple infantile mind as you graze on popcorn and stare in rows like so much mindless cattle. It is at best a morality tale for children ages 3 to 7. Such a level of poorly constructed tripe is usually only defended with such gems as 'not everything has to try to be amazing" or "b-but its an experience!"- though of what they cant quite say, or "you cant switch your mind off for 2 hours?!" or my favourite "how dare you dislike james cameron, you must be saying terminator and alien are bad as well then!".

The kicker of course is the idea of 'defending' a film to -or from- people who disliked it is crazy. A film is a piece of media, it is not a frail maiden requiring the staunch defence of the people- many of which are not defending the film at all, they are defending something from the guy who made the terminator and that is a very notable distinction. It is a self contained thing, Its made and it is out their to be consumed, broken down and reflected on. Nothing will change what it is and an individuals reaction to said media is, naturally, individual.

Avatar treats you like a child, a stupid child at that. It IS incredibly insulting and the worst part is how it beats you over the head with this notion. It is not 'unfair' to say so. I am not making the film feel bad. The film will not cry itself to sleep tonight. If you like a film you say why you did. If you didnt like it you say why you did not. thats a critical take on enjoyment or lack of enjoyment in a film.
Telling people they are 'wrong' or 'unfair' for liking or disliking a film is a frankly horrible way to talk about film as a medium.

and lets be honest its far more 'you arent allowed to be negative' nowadays what with all the viral marketing instilling the brand loyalty witchunts on forums today in which such vile heretics as myself can only be one of the dreaded 'haters' who are the fucking Nazgul of the internet right now...

[Neil]

Neil i can never understand why you always point out criticism of movies you like as 'unfair'.

I would point out irrational opinions of films/directors I like/dislike the same.... When people level the kinds of opinions ("$hit" and "rubbish") at individuals/productions clearly not meriting it, what else am I suppose to say.

Was Avatar one of the best, most glorious epic scifi flicks ever? No... What it a perfectly watchable scifi flick? Of course...


Let me use Mission Impossible 2 as an example. For me it was a truly clunky film, which actually had me groaning at times. I really didn't enjoy it, and find it painful to watch. I know other people enjoy it though. And for all its faults, it's a reasonably well made bit of action, so there's no way on earth I'd level the kind of descriptions people are using for some of the other films being discussed here, because I know it simply would not be fair or rational to do so... To me it seems some people feel they need to up their negativity in relation to something's success... Didn't enjoy it? Fine... Worse piece of fetid film ever made? Course not... Average or forgettable at worse surely?

[Danny]

I would point out irrational opinions of films/directors I like/dislike the same.... When people level the kinds of opinions ("$hit" and "rubbish") at individuals/productions clearly not meriting it, what else am I suppose to say.


You say why you think they are wrong. simple as that. You say 'well okay, heres my counterpoints why i personally loved it". Thats debating media. Its no bad thing, its a fantastic thing thats been pushed aside in favour of 'dont be mean to the film'.

If you love avatar you say why you do, thats you opinion, one just as valid of explanation as my own. Something far more engaging and expressive than 'i think your negative opinion is unfair'.

[Neil]

You say 'well okay, heres my counterpoints why i personally loved it".You clearly didn't read my point(s) then, as it has nothing to do with that...

The point is people who cry "crap", "$hit" and "rubbish" to material/individuals clearly not deserving it are simply crying out "wolf!" IMHO.

If we take Avatar, even if assume it's entirely aimed at children, and it's story is over simplistic and some of the dialogue is poor. That at worst makes it not suitable or entertaining for some of you. It does not in any way make it a turd!? Surely to qualify for some of the abuse being levelled at it, it should have been a poorly made, incomprehensible mess of a film, which clearly it was not. At the very least it was a technically well put togethor coherant film, even story/script aside. Yet some individuals are dragging it through the mud for reasons that absolutely bemuse me...

I suspect some of the individuals have levelled more harsh words at Avatar than any other film made... and could this be simply because it was the most successful ever made, which unfortunately they'd didn't like? How is that logical, fair or founded? "WOLF!"


I guess we're just dealing with different peoples way of making their opinion known/felt. If some of you feel Avatar is that dire, fair enough...

[EvilNed]

I would point out irrational opinions of films/directors I like/dislike the same.... When people level the kinds of opinions ("$hit" and "rubbish") at individuals/productions clearly not meriting it, what else am I suppose to say.

Was Avatar one of the best, most glorious epic scifi flicks ever? No... What it a perfectly watchable scifi flick? Of course...


Let me use Mission Impossible 2 as an example. For me it was a truly clunky film, which actually had me groaning at times. I really didn't enjoy it, and find it painful to watch. I know other people enjoy it though. And for all its faults, it's a reasonably well made bit of action, so there's no way on earth I'd level the kind of descriptions people are using for some of the other films being discussed here, because I know it simply would not be fair or rational to do so... To me it seems some people feel they need to up their negativity in relation to something's success... Didn't enjoy it? Fine... Worse piece of fetid film ever made? Course not... Average or forgettable at worse surely?

My problem with this attitude is that you seem to think there is a "right" and "wrong" here. There isn't. MI:2 is another film I turned off after 15 minutes because it was so bad I couldn't stand it. Avatar I didn't turn off, because I went to see it in the cinema. But still, it's a horrible film with flaws all over the place. How can you not see how anyone could find this less than "average"?

[AcesandEights]

MI:2 is another film I turned off after 15 minutes because it was so bad I couldn't stand it.

MI:2 was so bad it was great. It taught me a lot about mounted motorcycle combat that Knightriders left out, especially the spring jump from the saddle.

[LouCipherr]

I saw the first in 3D, which was fine because I was thoroughly baked and it looked really great in 3D, no doubt.

I have a whole new-found respect for you, Ron. :lol: I think baked is the only way this movie could be enjoyed. :D


The only thing that concerns me about future Avatar films is this green ( 'save the planet') theme Cameron seems to be implying they will have?! I'm scared it will come across poorly :( ie: Might feel like propaganda rather than an escapism!

Wait, so you don't feel like the first Avatar did this exact same thing?

I wouldn't be surprised if Al Gore became producer of the next Avatar films. :lol:

[AcesandEights]

Wait, so you don't feel like the first Avatar did this exact same thing?



That didn't bother me so much, as Avatar is essentially a kiddie film.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-pLk0Wi2jXG4/TX7P2Sn2u8I/AAAAAAAAFYI/Jg8-mC4xtFM/s400/bear%2Btrap%2Bheart.JPG

[LouCipherr]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-pLk0Wi2jXG4/TX7P2Sn2u8I/AAAAAAAAFYI/Jg8-mC4xtFM/s400/bear%2Btrap%2Bheart.JPG

http://cdn.instanttrap.com/trap.jpg

:D

[Neil]

MI:2 was so bad it was great. It taught me a lot about mounted motorcycle combat that Knightriders left out, especially the spring jump from the saddle.

Don't forget the important lessons in white smoke and doves!

-- -------- Post added at 09:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:50 PM ----------


My problem with this attitude is that you seem to think there is a "right" and "wrong" here. There isn't. MI:2 is another film I turned off after 15 minutes because it was so bad I couldn't stand it. Avatar I didn't turn off, because I went to see it in the cinema. But still, it's a horrible film with flaws all over the place. How can you not see how anyone could find this less than "average"?

Because it's not even "less than average" we're talking about, it's people suggesting it's not even around the middle of all films ever made, but infact at the bottom. Don't you know, it's a "$hit" film... It's "rubbish"... Oh... and now "horrible"...

Rediculous!

[Danny]

Because it's not even "less than average" we're talking about, it's people suggesting it's not even around the middle of all films ever made, but infact at the bottom. Don't you know, it's a "$hit" film... It's "rubbish"... Oh... and now "horrible"...

Rediculous!


i know people who feel exactly the same way about pink flamingos, doesnt mean its anything more than personal taste though.

[rongravy]

I have a whole new-found respect for you, Ron. :lol: I think baked is the only way this movie could be enjoyed. :D
Ehhhh, I'm sure I'll find a way to foul up that before we're through.
Also, as I'm the Enhancement Smoker type, I try to see all movies baked. Then I try to see how long I can stay out of everyone's nachos and popcorn. As many movies as I see, I should get paid for this kind of grunt work. Heck, pay me in weed and free passes. I won't complain.

[Sammich]

i know people who feel exactly the same way about pink flamingos, doesnt mean its anything more than personal taste though.

Pink Flamingos is a masterpiece. John Waters talent for capturing disturbing strangeness on film is pure genius.

[Tricky]

i think thinly veiled is putting it mildly when it literally has rednecks in american flag trucker hats talking about shock and aweing the natives...

That was the general attitude in the build up to invading Iraq though, lots of Amercian chest beating and whooping and cheering when bombing the shit out of Iraq/Afghanistan while stomping all over the locals, I guess Cameron just wanted to show that in his film.
Personally I really enjoyed Avatar when I saw it at the cinema, it was the best cinema experience I'd had in years and visually it felt really groundbreaking to me. Yeah the plot was thin, but no thinner than any of the recent Marvel films (which I also really enjoyed) or films like Independence Day etc. Cant understand why there seems to be so much hate directed towards it myself.

[Danny]

Cant understand why there seems to be so much hate directed towards it myself.

a lot of it is to do with its fanatical fanbase, a large number of which genuinely use terms like 'the citizen cane of this century' or 'the film that changed cinema forever' when describing this film as they LARP roleplay a blue cat wedding in the woods with their friends from their community college 'learn to speak navvi' class. :rolleyes:

[Tricky]

a lot of it is to do with its fanatical fanbase, a large number of which genuinely use terms like 'the citizen cane of this century' or 'the film that changed cinema forever' when describing this film as they LARP roleplay a blue cat wedding in the woods with their friends from their community college 'learn to speak navvi' class. :rolleyes:

A lot of films & TV shows have that same kind of sad act fanbase though, theres a good reason I've never been to a convention of any kind! Star Wars & Star Trek spring to mind, or even our revered zombie films!

[mista_mo]

i honestly thought that you were referring to the lawn ornaments when you mentioned pink flamingos. The person that I'm living with has one, and I met it one day while cleaning the garage. I honestly had never met one before, and i was disgusted...it was so tacky. I packed my shit up and left.

[EvilNed]

Because it's not even "less than average" we're talking about, it's people suggesting it's not even around the middle of all films ever made, but infact at the bottom. Don't you know, it's a "$hit" film... It's "rubbish"... Oh... and now "horrible"...

Rediculous!

And your point being what..? There's a "threshold" of how much one can dislike any one movie, and that threshold is set by you?

If I thought Zombie 4: After Death was a better film than Avatar, am I wrong?

[AcesandEights]

I think Neil is saying it's a question of motive, Ned. Just as a lot of people don't have time for others who feel they love something just because it's popular or they're told to by enough soundbites; others don't have time for people who come off as overly critical due to a reactionary mindset, or need to differentiate themselves through (supposedly invalid or picayune) criticism.

[EvilNed]

That's not how I percieve it. To me, what Neil is saying is that Avatar is a perfectly fine film, and objectively, nobody can dislike it. That's absurd. There's no such concept in my way of thinking. I can't get my grip around such a mindset. To me, Avatar was a horrible experience. I've already explained that it might have been a horrible experience because I saw it in the cinema (where good films become great films, maybe bad films become terrible films?). But even so, I'm never gonna watch it again to find out. Why would I? Life's too short to waste on things you don't like.

[Sammich]

I waited to see Avatar on one of the satelite channels and was glad that I didn't shell out $15 to see it in the theater. It was one of those movies that kept telling me: "hmm, haven't I seen this story somewhere before?" Dancing with Wolves with giant blue aliens maybe?

I really wonder about people who declare it "Citizen Kane of this century" have even seen Citizen Kane, much less realize that there still are 88 more years left until 2100. Another fact is that CK was released in 1941, long before viral marketing, social media, widespread instant communication and other bombardments of hype.

[Rumsfeld]

There were different forms of media back then that were just as powerful as the forms of media we have now-a-days. They were just a tad slower. Word of mouth is one that comes to mind.

[Neil]

To me, what Neil is saying is that Avatar is a perfectly fine film, and objectively, nobody can dislike it.
You can dislike it all you like. My point is suggesting that this qualifies the film as "rubbish" or "$hit", when clearly its a perfectly adequate film in at least some ways.

There's some films I detest, and would never watch (again). But I realise that, a) they're at least directed/produced/written/scored well or adequately, and/or b) the subject matter is just not my cup of tea, so I wouldn't cast such unfair descriptions at them solely on it not being my thang!


I guess we just approach these things in different ways. For me "$hit" is a film that's so bad there's no merit in any aspect of it at all. It's lazy, messy, poorly directed and incoherant. I don't see Avatar fitting this profile... I guess other's benchmark differently.


And I would repeat that I suspect there's some people here, who have levelled more critical words at Avatar and Titanic than any other films... And these two films just happen to be the two most successful ($) ever. Coincidence? ie: Do these two films deserve this huge barrage of strong insults? Or is there another reason for the strong negativity?

[Danny]

And I would repeat that I suspect there's some people here, who have levelled more critical words at Avatar and Titanic than any other films... And these two films just happen to be the two most successful ($) ever. Coincidence? ie: Do these two films deserve this huge barrage of strong insults? Or is there another reason for the strong negativity?

translation: you are haters hating it because its popular and successful. your tastes and opinion dont matter.

next up neil will say we are being unfair to uwe boll because its 'cool to hate' him as well...

OR you are a sucker for marketing spin and advertising hype and bought into the mystique of 'the biggest grossing film that changed everything forever'. that 'argument' works both ways dude and its a pretty lame argument at that.

I dislike a movie because of the film, box office has nothing to do with it. i am not so petty as to hate something because others like it, nor am i ...jealous i suppose would be the only logical reason, of it making a lot of money.

There is nothing redeeming about avatar. is the plot good? no. is the acting good? not at all. is the soundtrack good? no its generic and bland. is the art direction and world design original or believable? neither in the slightest.

The ONLY thing you can tout about avatar as anything of note is its pioneering of 3D filming technology. which is not something i actually consider a good deed for the world of cinema... interesting technological development but it does not make a good film. at best it makes a good carnival ride.


So, come on then. Tell us what redeems this film. What shred of originality it has. What performances were good. What memorable scenes stood out as something special. Anything at all. You have yet to say why its even a acceptable film yet for any reason other than 'it made a lot of money'. But so does mcdonalds and that doesnt mean its deserving of praise as an example of what it does though.

[shootemindehead]

ummm...why is it so difficult to buy into the fact that there are some people (on here at least) that just don't find 'Avatar' that good a film, or even that they think it's a bad film, purely based on their viewing of the material?

Sometimes the "popularity" of a film doesn't enter into it.

[Danny]

ummm...why is it so difficult to buy into the fact that there are some people (on here at least) that just don't find 'Avatar' that good a film, or even that they think it's a bad film, purely based on their viewing of the material?

Sometimes the "popularity" of a film doesn't enter into it.

because the current social paradigms of the internet, namely, 'haters gonna hate, instills the us or them mindset that dislike is only ever malicious and with an agenda. Critical analysis of a film based on taste, quality and comparison are no longer factors allowed.

[Sammich]

There were different forms of media back then that were just as powerful as the forms of media we have now-a-days. They were just a tad slower. Word of mouth is one that comes to mind.

Citizen Kane was a flop when it was initially released as was another film released 6 years later called It's a Wonderful Life. These movies didn't later become highly praised classics based upon marketing campaigns, but because they stand upon their own merits - script, acting and the director's ability at storytelling.

Avatar's attributes were extensive use of cgi, 3d and an estimated $150 million marketing budget.

Avatar's success is in the marketing (http://www.marketplace.org/topics/life/avatars-success-marketing)

Robert Thompson is a professor of media and pop culture at Syracuse University. He says mega-marketing efforts like these almost guarantee a mega-opening.

Thompson: It may turn out that the real artistic achievement of Avatar is the way that it was packaged, sold and marketed.

Here is a comparison of Academy Awards:

Citizen Kane

Won:
Best Writing, Original Screenplay

Nominated:
Best Actor in a Leading Role
Best Art Direction-Interior Decoration, Black-and-White
Best Cinematography, Black-and-White
Best Director
Best Film Editing
Best Music, Scoring of a Dramatic Picture
Best Picture
Best Sound, Recording

Avatar

Won:
Best Achievement in Art Direction
Best Achievement in Cinematography
Best Achievement in Visual Effects

Nominated:
Best Achievement in Directing
Best Achievement in Film Editing
Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures, Original Score
Best Achievement in Sound Editing
Best Achievement in Sound Mixing
Best Motion Picture of the Year

Notice how there were no Avatar nominations for screenplay or any of it's actors. This pretty much is the same opinion I had of the movie. It looked nice and sounded nice, but other than that there really wasn't anything else notable. The trend of using special effects as a movie's centerpiece to overcompensate for a lack of story and/or character development amounts to creating a 2 hour music video.

[Neil]

So, come on then. Tell us what redeems this film. What shred of originality it has. What performances were good. What memorable scenes stood out as something special. Anything at all. You have yet to say why its even a acceptable film yet for any reason other than 'it made a lot of money'. But so does mcdonalds and that doesnt mean its deserving of praise as an example of what it does though.
For me?

- I thought the premise of the "Avatars" were interesting, if a little hokey - but were obviously necessary for the whole story line.
- The overall premise of "unobtainium" and the resultant landscape.
- The biological combined neural network was interesting. Where everything organic and biological had a shared evolution such that their neural networks could combine (at least to some degree).
- I thought Jakes first night alone in the Jungle was very well done. The biological phosphorescence was pulled off beautifully and I love those scenes in the film. I recall my partner's reaction to it as well. A bit of a "wow" moment if only because of the visually imaginative feast it offered.
- I thought Stephen Lang was pretty good as the Colonel. He had a number of entertaining scenes.
- Jake taking his first flying lesson and gaining his wings was very well done.
- And I thought the final fight scene where Stephen Lang survived his ships crash, right up to him suddenly changing in line of attach to Jake in the 'cabin' was all pretty well pulled off.


If I infact compared it to "The Avengers" which I saw a couple of nights ago, I'd have to say, for me, that a couple of the scenes in "Avatar" offered more character building/interest than anything in "The Avengers". I found "The Avengers" very flat on character building, and far too heavy on contrived action. By the end I realised I hadn't been concerned/worried about a single character/event. At least in Avatar I found a couple of scenes 'concerning' or moving...

And before anyone starts ranting and raving, I enjoyed "The Avengers", but for me, I just needed some more character building and true concern - Which I didn't seem to get... I prefered the character depth offered in "Iron Man" or "Captain America" personally. As referenced above, I'd say "The Avengers" suffered too much from "the trend of using special effects as a movie's centerpiece," to the extent the storyline seemed compromised?

Will I bother watching "The Avengers" again? Maybe... But I suspect not, as I found the experience generally abit vapid and not very engaging. Do I therefore describe the film as "$hit?" I of course wouldn't dream of it. I enjoyed my time with it. And personally, a film would have be dire/poor in many/all aspects/areas for it to merit that sort of insult.


Anyway, not sure what you're fishing for here... Everyone of course likes/dislikes according to their own preferences, and indeed, even mood on the day. Me listing some aspects of Avatar is going to mean what to someone who seems set on not seeing a single positive aspect, scene or moment in it?

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I'll just have to ignore the fact that some people have difference views, and seemingly level insults to films that I cannot imagine being deserving for them. And the reason I'm arguing this point so strongly - because generally I'm fairly easy going - is every bit of me says describing a film such as Avatar is "$hit" is wrong. It feels unfair, illogical or lazy or just paramount to cynical. Guess people just have different ways of expressing things... But I would say, if "Avatar" is "$hit," with that as a measuring stick, what on earth is used to describe truely poor/lazy/unimaginative productions?! "Really $hit?" Which again rings all the more of unfair, illogical or lazy.


-- -------- Post added at 10:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:12 AM ----------


Notice how there were no Avatar nominations for screenplay or any of it's actors. This pretty much is the same opinion I had of the movie.
And I agree, some of the acting felt very flat, and indeed the script was somewhat flat/linear. It's certainly one of Cameron's 'lesser' films in those departments.

But does that reduce every aspect, scene and moment of the entire film down to "$hit"? Can't understand how anyone can say yes... Even for those individuals who think the story was very lacking, surely they can at least agree it was filmed, or directed or edited or scored well, or that it was even just mediocre? But I fear some are so fixated on their 'hatred' they're above being in any way reasonable and will continue with their damnation of seemingly every aspect and every moment of the film!?!

[LouCipherr]

And I would repeat that I suspect there's some people here, who have levelled more critical words at Avatar and Titanic than any other films... And these two films just happen to be the two most successful ($) ever.

Just remember, just because something sells a lot, doesn't mean it's "good" - I could point out a million movies and just as much music to prove the point, but I think we all get the idea. ;)

[Neil]

Just remember, just because something sells a lot, doesn't mean it's "good" - I could point out a million movies and just as much music to prove the point, but I think we all get the idea. ;)I think you've not understood the point that you quoted, or indeed the context it was put in?

My suggestion is that some individuals come down all the more harshly on "Titanic" and "Avatar" because they were so successful. As if they feel the need to bounce back all the hard with their negativity due to the films (financial) success. And I'd repeat that I suspect some of these folks have cast more and harsher insults regarding these two films than any others... Seemingly proving my point...


And to answer your comment, I'm in no way suggesting "Avatar" is a superior film. I think its a well made scifi flick with some good ideas and scenes, but let down by some poor acting and a lack lustre script. But none-the-less, I think it's a perfectly adquate and fun affair...

[bassman]

But none-the-less, I think it's a perfectly adquate and fun affair...

You're forgetting that most people don't give films a fair shake these days. They go in with only two options - It's the greatest thing ever or its the biggest POS ever. There is no grey area.

[LouCipherr]

I think you've not understood the point that you quoted, or indeed the context it was put in?

I think you are correct, but my statement still holds true. High numbers is sales do not mean a product is good. One look at Justin Beiber will clear that up. :lol: :D


My suggestion is that some individuals come down all the more harshly on "Titanic" and "Avatar" because they were so successful. As if they feel the need to bounce back all the hard with their negativity due to the films (financial) success.

There's also this point: these people might not like the film (which is their opinion of course, and they are allowed to express it as such), but because it was so successful you constantly have the fans of the film(s) telling you you're an idiot for not liking the film because "everyone else does" and because it was "financially successful" - which just makes the people critical of the film bite back harder with their criticisms.


And to answer your comment, I'm in way suggesting "Avatar" is a superior film. I think its a well made scifi flick with some good ideas and scenes, but let down by some poor acting and a lack lustre script. But none-the-less, I think it's a perfectly adquate and fun affair...

So, a film that had "good ideas and scenes" but was "let down by some poor acting" and a "lackluster script" can still qualify it as a 'superior' film?

Dammit, now I'm as confused as a baby in a topless bar! :lol:

[krisvds]

I'm actually looking forward to Avatar sequels ... (blushes)
The first one I had a lot of fun with at the cinema. Enjoyed the 3D even. Though it is by no means a good 'film', the far out imagery and design was enjoyable as pure eye candy. No need to approach this piece of entertainment as anything else but that.
Then again, I have an eclectic taste; I don't see the problem with viewing a film by Von Trier one day and following it up with popcorn fun like Avatar the next. If you know what to expect that is. You shouldn't eat a greasy hamburger and then come down on it because it wasn't lobster you know?

[AcesandEights]

And to answer your comment, I'm in way suggesting "Avatar" is a superior film.




So, a film that had "good ideas and scenes" but was "let down by some poor acting" and a "lackluster script" can still qualify it as a 'superior' film?

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest Neil left the word 'no' out by mistake, based on the sentence structure. I assume you suspected this, but figured I'd try and clarify in case you didn't.

[Neil]

which just makes the people critical of the film bite back harder with their criticisms.I don't know what the reason is. But I'm sure people are guilty of it for some reason. And let's remember no one here is suggesting anyone is an idiot for not liking "Avatar"... Indeed no one is even suggesting anyone is wrong for not enjoying the film. The problem I have is people seemingly berating it beyond belief as if it's an afront to the silver screen on every level. It's $hit!




So, a film that had "good ideas and scenes" but was "let down by some poor acting" and a "lackluster script" can still qualify it as a 'superior' film?
I'm not suggesting it's a 'superior' film. I think it's too flawed to qualify. I guess visually it might qualify for its new technology/techniques, but not really on any other levels.

-- -------- Post added at 04:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:52 PM ----------


I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest Neil left the word 'no' out by mistake, based on the sentence structure. I assume you suspected this, but figured I'd try and clarify in case you didn't.

A+. Yep my bad!

Fixed!

-- -------- Post added at 04:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:53 PM ----------


I'm actually looking forward to Avatar sequels ... (blushes)
I'm hoping he can put more depth into the scripts. Knowing the process now, and seemingly having also invested time/effort into improving it, you'd hope they can worry less about that, and more about the script it's based around :)

I am worried about his implied 'eco message' though :(

[shootemindehead]

My suggestion is that some individuals come down all the more harshly on "Titanic" and "Avatar" because they were so successful. As if they feel the need to bounce back all the hard with their negativity due to the films (financial) success. And I'd repeat that I suspect some of these folks have cast more and harsher insults regarding these two films than any others... Seemingly proving my point...

And again, Neil, I'll reiterate my response to that point, in that there will be legions of "fans" that will elevate the product far beyond its deserved place, because it made a lot of money. Actually, more so, than the naysayers.

Also, If you're promising to be the son of god and it turns out that your not, you're actually just another average Joe, then you damn well better expect a serious backlash and I think that that's where a lot of people's ire comes from.

For all of the money spent on 'Avatar', plus the asking price of entry these days, coupled with the studio generated hype, etc, I think people had a right to ask for a bit more TBH and I can certainly understand some people getting their back up at being duped yet again by the "next big thing".

[Neil]

And again, Neil, I'll reiterate my response to that point, in that there will be legions of "fans" that will elevate the product far beyond its deserved place, because it made a lot of money. Actually, more so, than the naysayers.
Can't really agree with that. I don't think I've ever seen someone saying Avatar's really good, and the fact it made x billion dollars proves it. But - and you've just done it - I've seen plenty of folks strangely using financials as a reason to criticise it!



For all of the money spent on 'Avatar', plus the asking price of entry these days, coupled with the studio generated hype, etc, I think people had a right to ask for a bit more TBH and I can certainly understand some people getting their back up at being duped yet again by the "next big thing".
So, as stated above, you're affirming my comment that people aren't being fair and rational with their diatribe?

I can't comment if people felt Avatar met their expectations, or if they somehow felt they were mortally insulted with what they saw for their $10-15, but of course a lot of Avatar's huge budget was due to the cutting edge technology, which, unfortunately, mostly looked so good, you didn't notice it :) ie: It's like uncanny valley. If it's nearly good enough, but not quite, it stands out a mile, but once it's good enough, you don't notice it.

The amount of visuals and their quality was generally astounding TBH, and I think it's easy to overlook it. Without out discussing anything else, it certainly was a big leap forwards for effects.


But, I don't care if Avatar cost $20m or $200m to make. It has the same pro's and con's no matter what :) But seemingly hating it (more) for one of those numbers seems odd to me. Especially when it seemingly means reducing one's opinion to a well considered and fair minded "$hit!"

[AcesandEights]

But, I don't care if Avatar cost $20m or $200m to make. It has the same pro's and con's no matter what :) But seemingly hating it (more) for one of those numbers seems odd to me. Especially when it seemingly means reducing one's opinion to a well considered and fair minded "$hit!"

I think backlash (and backlash to backlash) is unavoidable, even understandable to some degree, but it does help when people are honest with themselves, which is probably one of the hardest things for a human to consistently achieve.

[Neil]

I think backlash (and backlash to backlash) is unavoidable, even understandable to some degree, but it does help when people are honest with themselves, which is probably one of the hardest things for a human to consistently achieve.

Absolutely! I know I gave the last Indiana Jones film a very hard time. I know it's not a bad film, but the problems with it frustrate the hell out of me, especially given the track record.

But I feel, in the case of Avatar, "$hit!" hits me more as "backlash"...

[shootemindehead]

Can't really agree with that. I don't think I've ever seen someone saying Avatar's really good, and the fact it made x billion dollars proves it. But - and you've just done it - I've seen plenty of folks strangely using financials as a reason to criticise it!

But, you're willing to accept that people will poo poo it because it made millions of dollars?

That doesn't make sense to me.

Also, I am not critising 'Avatar' because of its income. I am saying that it's a factor, for some people, that when a producer advertises their product as the greatest thing ever, it's obvious that people will be part of a backlash, when it turns out to be simply average, or below average.

To me, 'Avatar' is just simply "not that great", based purely on its actual content. I don't care how much it made, or was made for. In fact, I don't even know the figures. I'm not that interested. My own viewing of 'Avatar' was years after its release, for free and with no bagage. But, the result was "...um, not that great really" and that was solely based on the content of the film.


So, as stated above, you're affirming my comment that people aren't being fair and rational with their diatribe?

No, I'm not.

I just don't buy into your argument that because it cost millions to make (and promote) and made millions, that ANY critical opinion in the negative will be because of that parameter...in order to generate some sort of "cred". Although, as stated earlier, I agree that there will be some people who will "jump on the bandwagon going either way". However, I think to dismiss a negative opinion in the way you are doing constantly throughout this thread, is simply ignoring the fact that there are people who just don't rate the film, based on the content, which even you have stated is lacking, despite your positive assessment of bits and pieces throughout.

If you were "astounded" by the visuals, then that's fine. Personally, I wasn't that moved. It felt a bit too gamey to me and separate from the live action sequences.

In the end, I usually say to people, that they should make up their own minds whether they like it or not, based on their own terms.

[Neil]

I just don't buy into your argument that because it cost millions to make (and promote) and made millions, that ANY critical opinion in the negative will be because of that parameter...

Great point... Just a shame I've never put forward such an argument :confused:

I've suggested some people have 'bounced' off the films success, and 'retaliated' with over the top negativity. I've never suggest this was the case for all people, or all criticism, as that would be absolutely daft. But I'll stand by my statement this is the case at times, and seems likely to play a part for those people suggesting "Avatar" is nothing short of "$hit" or "rubbish"...



But, the result was "...um, not that great really" and that was solely based on the content of the film.I don't have a problem with that comment or find it unreasonable. It's when people suggest it's a total "waste" or is "rubbish" I roll my eyes!



I think to dismiss a negative opinion in the way you are doing constantly throughout this thread, is simply ignoring the fact that there are people who just don't rate the film, based on the content, which even you have stated is lacking, despite your positive assessment of bits and pieces throughout.
You seems to be missing my entire point. I don't have any issue with people having negative opinions/comments/views of any film. And I've more than happily listed a number of problems I have with Avatar.

What I do have an issue with is when people suggest a film is nothing more than "$hit", "rubbish" or "a waste of space" when it seems utterly unfair and illogical to stoop to such a dire or unfair evaluation. Such an opinion seems nothing more than emotive rather than fair or considered IMHO. It's the kind of reaction I'd expect from a 12yr old talking about their parents taste in music, not an adult discussing a film which certainly isn't anything more offensive than a mediocre space romp.

[LouCipherr]

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest Neil left the word 'no' out by mistake, based on the sentence structure. I assume you suspected this, but figured I'd try and clarify in case you didn't.

Actually, I did not realize that so thanks for the clarification Aces (and Neil), I was totally confused by that. But it doesn't matter. The argument is the same. People retaliate with over-the-top negativity do so because people who praise the film bash those who don't like their opinion and try to justify why it's their view is correct and yours is not.

It wasn't good. My opinion.

Visually, perhaps, I'll give Cameron that. Story/script? Totally bland, lazily written, lackluster, and already done many, many times. Too many times for me, personally, to give Cameron a free pass when I and everyone else knows damn well he's capable of a lot better.

[EvilNed]

You can dislike it all you like. My point is suggesting that this qualifies the film as "rubbish" or "$hit", when clearly its a perfectly adequate film in at least some ways.

There's some films I detest, and would never watch (again). But I realise that, a) they're at least directed/produced/written/scored well or adequately, and/or b) the subject matter is just not my cup of tea, so I wouldn't cast such unfair descriptions at them solely on it not being my thang!?

And it never struck you that this might not be so "clear" to other people?

What merit is there to Avatar? Here's a list of all the positive things about Avatar:

- The CGI looked good, you know, as good as CGI can look.
- Ehrm...
- There were mechs?
- ...

Oh, I guess that's about it.

How difficult is it to understand that films are not objectively good or bad. They're neither. I'm glad you enjoyed it. I didn't.

EDIT:

Also, Titanic is a vastly superior film. Avatar is Cameron's only turd.

[bassman]

This thread keeps circling around like a debate on religion....

http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lnq2yfNWmU1qkldfho1_500.jpg

[EvilNed]

Ok, entering advanced Reply mode.

I'm gonna give this my full attention now, because frankly, like bassman has pointed out, this is just getting ridiculous.

I'm somewhat provoked by the fact that someone tells me that I'm wrong in my opinion. That I'm overreacting and that something is clearly not as bad as I make it out to be. My answer to that is simply "Doesn't my opinion count?". I don't like Avatar. I think it's a really bad film. It's not average. It's not "meh". It's not bad. It's really bad.

Now, Neil suggests that I feel this way only because of the fact that it's one of the highest grossing films of all time. He also points out that similar opinions are held of Titanic, another high grossing film. I do not dislike Titanic. Infact, I think it's a good film. Is it "teh bomb"? No, but it's good. I've seen it a few times. I saw it in the cinema as well. I'm not one of the people who diss Titanic simply because it features a love story.

Neil is suggesting that I dislike Avatar simply because the majority like it. Now, reading from this thread alone, it doesn't really seem as if the majority are all that crazy about it. So again, Neil, what gives? Are we all "wrong"? Is Avatar an OK film, and that's somehow a fact? (Or "clearly" an OK film, whatever that "clearly" means) I don't believe we are.

Does that mean that you are wrong? No, you're not wrong in your opinion of the film. Of that you are entitled. But I dare say that what you might be wrong about is the perception of the situation.

Your perception that people are against this film simply because it's popular. Then you point out similar opinions about Titanic and/or other moneymaking films. But I believe the fallacy here is that people are "out for these films". A more valid assumption would be that you're simply more perceptive of these opinions BECAUSE of the fact that they are more popular.

If you're in a room full of people and you and a bunch of friends are rating them from appearance, and there's this one person that really stands out as beautiful and you and your friends all rate her as a 9 or 10. But there's one or two that don't agree and would rather rate them rather lowly. Maybe even at a 2 or 3. You're more likely to pick up and remember THAT than any other differeing opinion. But to instantly jump to the conclusion that they're doing it just to be "different" or because it's "cool" is kind of ignorant. Why can't it just be that people have different taste? Is that so hard to grasp? Yes, they are the odd ones out. But so what? Those kind of people exist in all kind of situations.

[Sammich]

And I agree, some of the acting felt very flat, and indeed the script was somewhat flat/linear. It's certainly one of Cameron's 'lesser' films in those departments.

But does that reduce every aspect, scene and moment of the entire film down to "$hit"? Can't understand how anyone can say yes... Even for those individuals who think the story was very lacking, surely they can at least agree it was filmed, or directed or edited or scored well, or that it was even just mediocre? But I fear some are so fixated on their 'hatred' they're above being in any way reasonable and will continue with their damnation of seemingly every aspect and every moment of the film!?!

I didn't say it was a shit movie. My issue is with people who intentionally or ignorantly are trying to elevate Avatar to ridiculous levels above classic movies. Have they actually seen Citizen Kane or are they just parroting what some 20 year old knob said on youtube?

Like I said CK and It's a Wonderful Life have all of the elements that makes them classic films. Avatar has nice sound and visuals and that is about it. When I go to the theater and pay $15 I expect to see a movie, not a music video and for something that was hyped as being 15 years IMO it fell far short.

[LouCipherr]

This thread keeps circling around like a debate on religion....

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/FORUM%20PICS%202/rabbitduckseason.gif

[Neil]

Ok, entering advanced Reply mode.

I'm gonna give this my full attention now, because frankly, like bassman has pointed out, this is just getting ridiculous.

I'm somewhat provoked by the fact that someone tells me that I'm wrong in my opinion. That I'm overreacting and that something is clearly not as bad as I make it out to be. My answer to that is simply "Doesn't my opinion count?". I don't like Avatar. I think it's a really bad film. It's not average. It's not "meh". It's not bad. It's really bad.

Now, Neil suggests that I feel this way only because of the fact that it's one of the highest grossing films of all time. He also points out that similar opinions are held of Titanic, another high grossing film. I do not dislike Titanic. Infact, I think it's a good film. Is it "teh bomb"? No, but it's good. I've seen it a few times. I saw it in the cinema as well. I'm not one of the people who diss Titanic simply because it features a love story.

Neil is suggesting that I dislike Avatar simply because the majority like it. Now, reading from this thread alone, it doesn't really seem as if the majority are all that crazy about it. So again, Neil, what gives? Are we all "wrong"? Is Avatar an OK film, and that's somehow a fact? (Or "clearly" an OK film, whatever that "clearly" means) I don't believe we are.

Does that mean that you are wrong? No, you're not wrong in your opinion of the film. Of that you are entitled. But I dare say that what you might be wrong about is the perception of the situation.

Your perception that people are against this film simply because it's popular. Then you point out similar opinions about Titanic and/or other moneymaking films. But I believe the fallacy here is that people are "out for these films". A more valid assumption would be that you're simply more perceptive of these opinions BECAUSE of the fact that they are more popular.

If you're in a room full of people and you and a bunch of friends are rating them from appearance, and there's this one person that really stands out as beautiful and you and your friends all rate her as a 9 or 10. But there's one or two that don't agree and would rather rate them rather lowly. Maybe even at a 2 or 3. You're more likely to pick up and remember THAT than any other differeing opinion. But to instantly jump to the conclusion that they're doing it just to be "different" or because it's "cool" is kind of ignorant. Why can't it just be that people have different taste? Is that so hard to grasp? Yes, they are the odd ones out. But so what? Those kind of people exist in all kind of situations.

OK! I'll put my hands up and admit I've taken the bit between my teeth on this matter, and maybe got carried away. And you make a very fair and valid point!

But in my defense, if I use your analogy:-

You're rating a group of people based upon their looks, character, fitness, kindness and humour etc etc. One of your friends rates one particular individual as not just a bad human being, but a really bad human being. Now you don't believe the person in question is particularly offensive, and you know for certain your friend has met many far worse people, some of which are clearly deserving of such a harsh description.
Would you not question such an outcome?

In short, if "Avatar" is "really bad" on your measuring stick, then where do "Transmorphers" or "Howard the Duck" measure up? Really really really bad, or really really really really really bad? :)

Anyway, I admit I've been far too defensive! I apologize if I've upset anyone!

[Tricky]

I'm with Neil on this one, I've seen far, far worse films than Avatar so lumping it with the shittest films ever made is pretty harsh. Its all opinion though, just because someone thinks its shit doesnt mean its shit, just as someone thinking it is the best film ever doesnt make it so. I thought the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre was a load of shite when I watched it, but that doesnt stop it having a huge fan base and cult status because plenty of people love it. Its like music, plenty of peple listen to Beiber and he obviously flicks the right switches for some people, even though I think its a load of shite because I listen to what I consider "proper" music, but its just my opinion, doesnt make me right

[LouCipherr]

I thought the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre was a load of shite when I watched it, but that doesnt stop it having a huge fan base and cult status because plenty of people love it.

Not to derail this thread from... well.. whatever it is now.. :lol: I am SO glad I finally found someone who agrees with me on the original TCM! I could never figure out WTF was so "great" about that film, yet everyone raved about it. I guess the same thing is happening with me and Avatar.

Then again perhaps I really am just the HPotD curmudgeon! Hey, I can accept that! :lol: :D

[AcesandEights]

Not to derail this thread from... well.. whatever it is now.. :lol: I am SO glad I finally found someone who agrees with me on the original TCM! I could never figure out WTF was so "great" about that film, yet everyone raved about it.

It's like Freud, but in film. A landmark in its genre, but not for technical reasons. It was the right film, at the right time and innovative in what it brought to the general film-going public.

[LouCipherr]

It's like Freud, but in film. A landmark in its genre, but not for technical reasons. It was the right film, at the right time and innovative in what it brought to the general film-going public.

I guess I missed the window of opportunity for that one. Then again, I was 3 when it came out, so I didn't see it for a while after it's original release. :D

[Sammich]

It's like Freud, but in film. A landmark in its genre, but not for technical reasons. It was the right film, at the right time and innovative in what it brought to the general film-going public.

One of the few things I remember from school was how the "cool kids" would always talk about how the guy in the wheelchair got killed. It was one of those things back then that kids used for bragging rights because it meant you snuck in to see a R rated movie.

[Neil]

Weaver confirms - http://www.showbiz411.com/2012/06/26/james-cameron-will-film-three-avatar-sequels-at-the-same-time


Sigourney Weaver confirmed tonight that James Cameron is shooting “Avatar” 2, 3, and 4 all at the same time, all with her, and starting this fall.

[MinionZombie]

Three movies back-to-back? Well I hope the scripts are good in advance of shooting all that footage!

Wasn't really expecting anything to happen with these for ages yet, but starting to shoot this fall, eh? Moving earlier than I thought he would on this.

[shootemindehead]

...but starting to shoot this fall, eh?....

Look at you...gone all American.

:p

[Neil]

Three movies back-to-back? Well I hope the scripts are good in advance of shooting all that footage!

Wasn't really expecting anything to happen with these for ages yet, but starting to shoot this fall, eh? Moving earlier than I thought he would on this.

Yep, the scripts need to be an improvement from the first. So fingers crossed!

[MinionZombie]

Yep, the scripts need to be an improvement from the first. So fingers crossed!

The script for the first wasn't atrocious (although some vehemently claim so), but it wasn't all that original either. It definitely needed some more subtlety, some new ideas for the plot, and some of the dialogue was ever-so-blunt, but I still enjoyed it. The tech aspects were the wow factor in the movie, not the script, that's for sure.


Look at you...gone all American.

:p

*starts swiping at self in a panic*

Dear God, you're right! :eek:

Naturally, what I meant to say, was "Autumn". :D

[Neil]

^^ The idea Colonel Miles Quaritch might be back seems daft to me, unless it's some sort of flashback etc!?

[MinionZombie]

^^ The idea Colonel Miles Quaritch might be back seems daft to me, unless it's some sort of flashback etc!?

In the script it'll read "Quaritch is back ... ... it's summut to do wiv Ey'wa, or whatever..." :p:sneaky::p

[Neil]

Avatar 4 may be a prequel?

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/58238


"I have an idea for a fourth. I haven't really put pen to paper on it, but basically it goes back to the early expeditions of Pandora, and kind of what went wrong with the humans and the Na'vi and what that was like to be an explorer and living in that world... Because when we drop in, even in the first film in AVATAR 1, as it will be known in the future, we're dropping into a process that's 35 years in to a whole colonization. That will complete an arc and if that leads into more, we'll start, not imitating STAR WARS, but it's a logical thing to do because we'll have completed the thematic arc by the end of three. The only thing left to do is go back to see what it was like on those first expeditions and create some new characters that then become legacy characters in later films. It's a plan."

[JDFP]

I didn't like the first one. It was poor character development and storytelling. You can't make a great film by masking a weak plot and development through heavy CGI and "blowing shit up". Mindless stuff generally isn't for me - I doubt I'll be seeing the sequels (unless for free if that).

I actually recently saw "Battleship" which was shockingly really good (in my opinion) as I've mentioned it elsewhere as well - sure, it's pure sugar-laced mindless entertainment - just as "Avatar" was - but I thought it was a far better sugar-laced mindless film than "Avatar" was at that.

j.p.