Avatar 2
- Thread starter Goonie
- Start date
MooCriket
Master Member
I feel ya. I can't stomach a rewatch of it. Cameron got me good for his retreatment of Dances With Wolves with Smurfs in space. I was drunk on the 3D at the time and paid twice to see it. Not again.
What actually is sad is, I know people who'd want to see all of these sequels. But won't be alive to see them.....
Gimpdiggity
Master Member
I enjoyed the first film, it was visually stunning and I didn't completely hate the story.
The sequels though have me perplexed...do we really think people want to see a sequel to this in 2020? When it was slated to come out in 2014 that made sense, but now? I don't know...I guess I'm just kind of over it.
That said, I'll probably go see it anyway.
The sequels though have me perplexed...do we really think people want to see a sequel to this in 2020? When it was slated to come out in 2014 that made sense, but now? I don't know...I guess I'm just kind of over it.
That said, I'll probably go see it anyway.
Not certain about this: http://uk.ign.com/articles/2017/08/08/avatar-sequels-main-villain-revealed
Solo4114
Master Member
I never saw it in the theater, but I did buy a 3D bluray of it. It's one of the few films I've watched on my TV using 3D glasses. I was not impressed.
It was visually impressive, but honestly not all that impressive. I found the 3D more distracting than enhancing. If it wasn't doing a "Coming at ya!" gag, it was just playing with depth of field, which, frankly, at least for home viewing, you can get from focal lengths, perspective shots, etc. Having all aspects of a shot be equally visible doesn't matter if the action is in the foreground. Having the foreground visible if the action is in the background is just distracting and annoying. Moreover, it didn't look more "real" to me. It just looked...different. Neat in its own way, but nothing special.
Maybe the effect is lost when your screen is "only" 55" and it's the kidn of thing that has to be experienced in the theater. But honestly, the story itself was just...blah. I've seen it. I've seen it done better, too. It just didn't hold my interest, and it didn't help that the film was 2.5 hours long, either. It didn't need to be that long, honestly. Much like, say, Man of Steel, by the time we got to the big action set-piece, I really just didn't give a crap anymore. I was just ready for it all to be over with.
And on top of all of that, I had a splitting headache for hours after I watched it. I had no such problems watching Dredd, however, where I found the 3D effects to be a true enhancement of the story. Probably because they were only lampshaded at moments where it was appropriate to the story itself (e.g., the drug sequences).
I won't. And honestly, I can't imagine audiences will be all that excited about it, either. Like I said, the core issue is the story.
Avatar 1 was at once too serious to be treated like ******* Transformers mindless entertainment with non-stop-sploshuns, and too "been there, done that" to be taken all that seriously.
I think, in the last analysis, that people were really just into this because of what a fresh take the technology was, but that's just flash-in-the-pan appeal. It doesn't have any real cultural resonance beyond that. Based on that, I kinda doubt that the sequels will do all that well. I mean, they'll make money, sure. But I think it'll be seriously diminishing returns.
MooCriket
Master Member
How's this for what in the hell are they thinking?!
http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2017/08/08/stephen-lang-will-be-the-villain-in-all-four-avatar-sequels
Stephen Lang...somehow, will be he villian in all four Avatar sequels.
http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2017/08/08/stephen-lang-will-be-the-villain-in-all-four-avatar-sequels
Stephen Lang...somehow, will be he villian in all four Avatar sequels.
harrisonp
Sr Member
It's possible because all the humans in the first movie were actually doppelgangers controlled remotely by the host bearing their likeness. This time the real Lang character will be the villain.
Edit: I completely made that up, but it's the kind of foolery I wouldn't be surprised to see utilized
Edit: I completely made that up, but it's the kind of foolery I wouldn't be surprised to see utilized
Last edited:
If this was Spider-Man they would have already had several sequels and re-booted it twice.
Hmm. I'm one of the folks who actually REALLY liked Avatar, but this just seems hella-dumb. I mean, how long would it have taken them to recover his body? And bouncing back from 2 broomstick-sized arrows through the heart & lung just seems farfetched, even in the film's "universe".
Having said that, ima see every one of those flicks. So yeah.
Attachments
Last edited:
Maverick313
New Member
I hope they bring him back, he was the best part of the movie. When I watch it and he dies, I stop the movie.
MooCriket
Master Member
Estimates are over $1 Billion budget for sequels.
http://deadline.com/2017/09/avatar-...secutive-sequels-1-billion-budget-1202176798/
http://deadline.com/2017/09/avatar-...secutive-sequels-1-billion-budget-1202176798/
