Cephus
Master Member
Important to fans and important to studios are two entirely different things.
Will we live to see Avatar 2 ?
- Thread starter Knightmare
- Start date
Important to fans and important to studios are two entirely different things.
CB2001
Master Member
THIS! That last bit he says. Every discussion I've ever had about the Disney Sequel Trilogy, people keeping using "It made money at the box office!" Like that is some sort of a point that they were good films. And I keep telling people, "Just because it makes money doesn't mean it's good." There is a giant difference between a film being successful and a film being good when it comes to story and character. For Avatar, it was good in regards to advancement of film technology, but it failed story and character wise (which honestly, in comparison to past James Cameron films, Avatar failed at keeping that balance between film tech advance and storytelling that Cameron was good at before that).
Last edited:
WOW...
You just blew my mind, cause I was SURE The Abyss was at least on blu-ray. All grades of Special Editions out there, but all on DVD.
That is absolutely INSANE to me
Knightmare
Sr Member
I think they are waiting for this part 2 ? Pretty sure they made a 3d version with glasses
.
Last edited:
My thoughts exactly! Waaaaay overdue.
Rumor: The Abyss 4K Blu-Ray tentatively coming in August with James Cameron's approval
joberg
Legendary Member
I think the "Climate Emergency" not so-subtle message of Avatar was a downer for me. Sure, the visuals were extremely good (saw it in 3D in theater) and knowing that JC made a lot of ocean explorations in his life (he's very good at it, btw) molded Avatar to "something".
What was that "something"? Well, I'm still debating this question years later (saw it again a few years back)...
It's a love-hate relationship
What was that "something"? Well, I'm still debating this question years later (saw it again a few years back)...
It's a love-hate relationship
I don't know about "live to see it" but I certainly won't ever see it as long as I live. I never understood the appeal of the first one and I saw it in theaters. I just didn't get what the hubbub all about. It being totally CG wasn't anything new, or impressive--in fact, it just made it a cartoon. It made it on the same level as Shrek, only not as fun to sit through (memes or no).
Solo4114
Master Member
I saw the 1st one on my 3D plasma and the experience gave me an absolutely splitting headache. The 3D effect was nifty at first, and then it just was this weird artificial depth-of-field thing that felt wholly unnecessary, unless they were doing a standard 1950s "Comin' at ya!" shot, and frankly, I don't care about that crap. That's just gimmickry.
The actual story itself was pretty mediocre, and none of it felt to me like it warranted a sequel in terms of story. I felt no burning desire to go back to....uh....whatever the world was where the story happened, nor to spend time with characters whom I can now barely recall.
I think it's telling that you've seen basically no serious fandoms spark up about it, no people cosplaying as any of the soldiers or whatever, basically nobody these days doing one of the blue skinned aliens, etc. It was hype built up entirely around the technology and -- just like in the 1980s and then before that in the 1950s -- no, 3D is not the way of the future. The actual film itself, the story of that film, the characters, the whole ethos of it, has been largely forgotten....because it's largely forgettable.
So, as a counterpoint to "Will we live to see the sequel?" I offer the question "Will anyone care either way?"
The actual story itself was pretty mediocre, and none of it felt to me like it warranted a sequel in terms of story. I felt no burning desire to go back to....uh....whatever the world was where the story happened, nor to spend time with characters whom I can now barely recall.
I think it's telling that you've seen basically no serious fandoms spark up about it, no people cosplaying as any of the soldiers or whatever, basically nobody these days doing one of the blue skinned aliens, etc. It was hype built up entirely around the technology and -- just like in the 1980s and then before that in the 1950s -- no, 3D is not the way of the future. The actual film itself, the story of that film, the characters, the whole ethos of it, has been largely forgotten....because it's largely forgettable.
So, as a counterpoint to "Will we live to see the sequel?" I offer the question "Will anyone care either way?"
As I've said before - IMO the fact that 'Avatar' made so little impact is the most interesting thing about it.
The weak story doesn't even come close to explaining it. 'Transformers' movies have garbage stories & characters but people still like them and come back for more. Same with most of the big tentpole franchise movies.
IMO Avatar's (story) problem wasn't the lack of originality, it was the tired preachy feeling. It wasn't just "I've heard this one before". It was "I've been hearing this in the political sphere for years."
Releasing that movie in 2009 . . . imagine a more recent tentpole action movie coming out and taking a strong position on Donald Trump. Oh god, just don't. Even if I agree with the movie's position - don't go there. Please. No. Enough. Spare me. Make it stop. I thought I was buying two hours of escapism.
drusselmeyer
Master Member
I think Cameron will breathe new life into The Last Airbender. I don't understand why anyone doubts this.
Solo4114
Master Member
I don't recall Avatar being especially preachy or political. I mean, I get the "Dances with Wolves" thing coupled with some vague eco-friendly "save the rainforests" stuff and maybe "Corporations are bad, m'kay?" But outside of that, I don't really remember any political implications...but that may simply be because I don't recall much about the movie at all.
Like, if you asked me about, say, any of the designs in the film -- of ships, of armor suits, of weapons -- it's all just a blur. I think the soldiers wore some kind of powered armor? And I vaguely remember some kind of heli-carrier armored personnel carrier with maybe rotary cannons on it? I dunno. And if there were guns, I think they probably just looked like G36s with greeblies and barrel shrouds or something?
I remember that the blue-skinned dudes plugged their hair or tails into Yggdrasil. I think they had digitgrade legs, too? And mohawks. Definitely mohawks.
I totally agree with your assessment. I also felt (from what I remember years ago from my one viewing) that Cameron was hellbent on sending a message rather than entertaining. C'mon, Jimmy, this isn't a cure for cancer! It's just a MOVIE! Say what you will about Peter Verhoven and Michael Bay, their films are not exactly high art but they are built for the sole purpose to be fun and entertain. I understand everyone expects something different from their movie viewing experience but for me, I just want to be entertained, not educated to "preached" to.
Solo4114
Master Member
Oh, Verhoeven still absolutely has political messages in at least some of his films. I mean, Soldaat van Oranje is all about the Dutch resistance in WWII. Robocop is rife with socio-cultural satire, and definitely has political messages in it. Starship Troopers is shot through with tons of political messaging.
The difference with those films, though, is that with Soldaat van Oranje, you go in knowing what you're signing up to watch. And with Robocop and Starship Troopers, you really can just watch it with your brain turned off and it's still entertaining spectacle. I'd argue that the political messaging in both of those latter two films is about as subtle as an airhorn, but the films themselves are entertaining in a separate way from them. You can watch them as big, dumb action flicks and they still work.
Part of that, however, is the era in which they were made, where the style of film is reminiscent of other big-budget action films of the time. There's not a lot of daylight between, say, the action in Rambo: First Blood Part II and Robocop (except that Robocop was actually more explicitly violent). Most of Arnold Schwarzenegger's 1980s body of work is in large parts indistinguishable in terms of style from Verhoeven's stuff, again, with the exception that Verhoeven dials up the explicit violence more.
But there's something different about how Avatar handles its messaging. It's much less....hmm....I guess "deft" is the word I'd use...than Verhoeven's work. His messaging is less central to the story in his films. I mean, it's still absolutely there. (e.g., Nazi imagery in Starship Troopers, the fact that you have an emotionless brutal machine that immediately resorts to brutal and excessive violence in Robocop acting as a police officer) But Verhoeven's films also have another story going on that's much more detached from the "message." Like, yeah, ok, we get it, the humans are the fascists in Starship Troopers, but there's also just the personal story of Rico and his buds getting thru the war. And yeah, alright, corporations are greedy and immoral (or at least amoral) and the police are ultraviolent thugs (who are responding to even more violent criminal thugs) in Robocop, but you also have the usual meditation on the nature of "humanity" and how much you can take away from that concept before something is no longer human. You know, the whole Frankenstein's monster debate.
With Avatar...I mean pretty much any personal stories of the characters (Jake? And....uh............Nefertiti? Naytiri? Whatever. And...Col. Bulgevein and...um...............Sigourney Weaver who definitely had a character name) are intrinsicly intertwined with the whole "SAVE THE TREEEEEEEES" message that there's no way to separate the two if that's not your thing.
Cephus
Master Member
That's really the thing today. Most movies just aren't fun anymore. They all have a message or they're just CGI porn, they aren't entertaining. You don't walk out thinking you had a good time for a couple of hours. They're just spectacle and no value. It doesn't have to be a big budget masterpiece. It just has to be fun, even if it's "turn your brain off for a couple of hours" fun.
Hollywood is generally lacking that today. It's sad.
As you've said Solo4114 the real question is does anyone really care? I don't remember much of Avatar but what I do recall was derivative and heavy handed. Asthetically pleasing in the VFX department isn't saying much, even for 2009, because by then CGI had been in wide use for over a decade. I think the fact that it's been largely forgotten and there is no lingering fandom that came from it speaks volumes as to it's longevity or importance. It might as well be a demo reel for an FX artist than an actual movie.
The franchise Cameron hopes to build from what honestly amounts to a passion project and I think his desire for this to be considered his defining work is a misplaced hope. He has some great movies under his belt but this ain't one of them.
The franchise Cameron hopes to build from what honestly amounts to a passion project and I think his desire for this to be considered his defining work is a misplaced hope. He has some great movies under his belt but this ain't one of them.
Similar threads
