Will we live to see Avatar 2 ?

One of the major things I find in 3D is you get a few flashy Deep depth of field shots at the start of one to draw you in, maybe a flashy WB a la Harry Potter logo then it seems to peater out... Or your eyes get adjusted to it but many a time I found myself removing my glasses mid movie and couldn't tell the difference said for some odd blurring...
A few jump scares along the way maybe, I still find Friday the 13th in 3D to have some good elements and that was like back in 1983!.. Maybe Cgi works differently as in its harder to trick the mind?
There was a movie I saw as a kid in 3D it’s an 80s film I think it was Treasure of the four crowns . It had amazing non stop 3D it’s not hard to do . The only thing that’s gonna save this is mind blowing 3D on imax the story is complete ****. And I don’t even know if that’s worth sitting threw a 3 hr lesson on how humans ****** up the planet and stole it from the Indians .
 
Cameron is past his prime but IMO it's premature to stick a fork in this movie this early. We've only seen a few seconds of non-spectacle footage.

The fact that this one is being marketed on spectacle again does not tell us anything either way. They would market 'The Godfather' on spectacle if it looked like 'Avatar.'
 
It's an homage when it's done with craft, meaning it works within the context of the story being told.

Take the shot of the Nazgul riding out from Minis Tirith in LOTR. It's a low angle shot that looks identical to the kind you'd see in a western where you see the posse ride out to take out the bad guys. Only this time it's the villains riding out to take out the heroes. Plus it's taking a trope from Westerns used in a Sword and Sorcery film. That's craft. It uses a reversal of tropes and puts them in a new context. It's subconsciously familiar, while also feeling new.

By contrast look at Super 8. An unseen alien kills people violently and without mercy then suddenly tries to garner sympathy from the kids when they realize he looks like E.T. and just wants to go home. That's a rip off, because it's trying to copy a movie that actually works, and uses the reference without working within it's own story because everything leading up to that doesn't even remotely match up with the end.
Very well illustrated.

Somehow Jar Jar Abrams impresses me... I mean, the guy always manages to sell his total lack of skills like it's on purpose... it's mysterious storytelling and plottvists. Or like in TFA: "we're going back to the roots... it's all practical now!"... Shure thing dude, but what about the story?... Jar Jar: "like I said, we're going back to the roots... even the story is the same, and this time we mashed all three classic movies into one... just like on a discount!"

Cameron is greatly influenced by Nature, the conservation of it, and the oceans of course. Since that enormous body of water of our planet is still unknown for the most part, he made a few deep sea missions himself to explore and film some of them.
Of course; this is translated in the first movie and also more so in the next installments.

Bit of a reach, don't you think? I mean I know he is interested in the ocean, but I'm not really seeing how that translates into hes movies? Then again, there was a lot of water in Titanic!
 
He's been working on these films for so long its ridiculous . It really looks no different than Avatar . But who knows maybe he is holding back something to get people in the seats I really hope he is .

Meh.

Why must the expectations be heaped up so high just because this movie has been a long time coming?

Nobody thinks George Lucas spent 16 years making 'Phantom Menace'.

If you interviewed Cameron about his last 20 years, I'm sure he could rattle off a list of other things that he has also been doing with his life besides the two 'Avatar' flicks.
 
Last edited:
Meh.

Why must the expectations be heaped up so high just because this movie has been a long time coming?

Nobody thinks George Lucas spent 16 years making 'Phantom Menace'.

If you interviewed Cameron about his last 20 years, I'm sure he could rattle off a list of other things that he has also been doing with his life besides the two 'Avatar' flicks.
It doesn't matter how long anyone works on a project, it only matters how good the product is when released. Even if Lucas had worked for 16 years on Phantom Menace, it still sucked.
 
The Abyss isn't about nature which was what I commented on. The Abyss is about aliens, and the human race realizing that we're not alone... And therefore hopefully stop fighting amongst ourselves.
under the ocean...:confused:

"I mean I know he is interested in the ocean, but I'm not really seeing how that translates into hes movies?"
 
In 'The Abyss' Cameron portrayed an unknown underwater civilization reacting to humans invading their part of the world.

In 'Avatar' he invented a whole new fictional ecosystem, complete with imaginary plants & animals & topography.
 
I'm sorry but this trailer does nothing for me. Nothing but random beauty shots of everything. Not even a hint of a story. Easy pass for me. Didn't care for the first one either.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of people today who only care about the beauty shots. They want cool CGI. Who cares about characters or story if they get flash and zero substance?

Those people have some serious problems.
 
Technical thingamjargons were created as filming was happening. Hand held stedicam with computerized motion control not just for running but underwater filming. Another big deal was the creation of a giant motion control rig that encompassed the entire sound stages similar as the sky cam rigs you see on Monday night football. As filming initially began these things didn't exist. I assume scenes or perhaps even large chunks of the film were reshot or restructured to take advantage of the new tech and help the future sequels and the first two films mesh cinematicaly.

There is also a practical passing of time for child actors to age into their roles for the sequels. If avatar 5 is released in 2030, sounds far but that's less than 8 years away, that would give ten years for the kids to naturally age in real life as the first wrap party for avatar 2 was 2018. 2018-2028 is a ten year gap. Two years to complete a final film where scenes are needed for those actors, post production, final cut and release potentially being two years. Just spit balling on those release dates but being realistic at the same time.
 
Unfortunately, there are a lot of people today who only care about the beauty shots. They want cool CGI. Who cares about characters or story if they get flash and zero substance?

Those people have some serious problems.

Spectacle in the vast majority of today's movies is fleeting. The reason the effects driven movies of the past have endured for so long is because they weren't just novel in the time of their release. They lasted because the effects were in service to stories that were so expertly crafted and written that they speak beyond the generation in which they were created. Visuals aren't enough. There has to be substance behind them.
 
Spectacle in the vast majority of today's movies is fleeting. The reason the effects driven movies of the past have endured for so long is because they weren't just novel in the time of their release. They lasted because the effects were in service to stories that were so expertly crafted and written that they speak beyond the generation in which they were created. Visuals aren't enough. There has to be substance behind them.
I totally agree with you and could name a slew of movies that still hold up today going right back to the silent and B/W era you can prolly guess which ones I am referring too.. And all because of the reasons you mentioned above .
I'm happy to leave my brain at the door on occassions but also want a well crafted movie that you find yourself getting totally committed invested and maybe learn something along the way and find you are still discussing dibating its merits driving home and eating breakfast pizza the next day..
 
Unfortunately, there are a lot of people today who only care about the beauty shots. They want cool CGI. Who cares about characters or story if they get flash and zero substance?

Those people have some serious problems.
What I always admire is back when film makers used a dash of CG just to blend or augment a shot physically not possible..

From the top of my head the Garden scene in Shaun of the Dead were the check out lady/zombie falls on a washing line pole/, base and she rises and we get a nice look of disbelief from our leads from through her Tummy..


Flip contrast..
Pretty much any Space Scifi movie that relies on Blue/Green screen where the actors eyes don't line up with a Tennis ball er Alien..

I think one of the best use has been Gravity from recent years, certainly for tricking the eye and emersing you in that environment.

Maybe it's an Age thing though too as a 16 Yr old who's first paycheck helped buy a Video recorder was to watch Trailers and based on those said Trailers rented Anything with Blood n Guts or what looked like a cool Italian Space opera rip off..

Except for StarCrash which is Gold!
 

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top