Oh yeah that reminds me.
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-01-11/entertainment/avatar.movie.blues_1_pandora-depressed-posts?_s=PM:SHOWBIZI am guessing others are not aware of that.
Oh…..my fucking god!
In all my years of feeling like a video gaming, fictional world admiring loser.....
I'm depressed that news report is real.
Oh yeah that reminds me.
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-01-11/entertainment/avatar.movie.blues_1_pandora-depressed-posts?_s=PM:SHOWBIZ@Zephos. Unfortunately, there are people in this world that are not aware of that simple "norm".
This is why I've slowly started to lose faith in mankind.
This is why I've slowly started to lose faith in mankind.
Don't as long you know great people (I am sure you do). Be glad, you have found that in this forum that there are people who think this movie was turd as well.
I was being half serious anyway, but I haven't lost all faith in mankind.
It's just that my faith is not as high as it used to be.
People want something superficial to believe in so their lives don't feel as shallow and boring as it really is. I mean its not like One Piece(which we know exists for sure)
Entertainment isn't bad as long as you don't take it too seriously. The important thing is to have a great time.
Avatar 2 will probably be delayed (again).
There's also a big Spielberg fantasy film coming out on that date.
I honestly forgot avatar sequels were a thing.
Things I'm Never Seeing: Avatar 2
Are folks actually invested in seeing Avatar 2? I could have sworn that after the initial viewing, most folks have become jaded to it and realized how "meh/terrible" it was (err aside from the visuals). I have yet to hear anyone actually excited for the prospect of Avatar 2.
People are going to see it simply because it's the sequel to the highest grossing movie of all time (which it wouldn't have become if it didn't have good word of mouth).
And outside of the internet, most people still enjoyed it (even though they won't be able to tell you any of the stuff that happened aside from "pretty movie! And then they beat the bad guy! Right?")
I will absolutely n0t be seeing Avatar 2. Certainly not in theaters.
But it was a thing that was going to be guaranteed a billion dollar take at least, so its not something you want fighting with another other billion dollar franchise.
I'm not interested in seeing Avatar 2. I was never even interested enough in Avatar to watch the original.
I will see every Star Wars movie until they become unrecognizable.
Avatar 2 might still sell stupid amounts internationally in particular.
But here at least I'm sure that it will suffer from having to compete with Episode VIII: The First Order of Business, and not the other way around.
I couldn't care less about Avatar 2. Aren't there even plans for two more sequels afterwards?
Are folks actually invested in seeing Avatar 2? I could have sworn that after the initial viewing, most folks have become jaded to it and realized how "meh/terrible" it was (err aside from the visuals). I have yet to hear anyone actually excited for the prospect of Avatar 2.
I don't think anyone's invested right now. It's been so long since the first one and the story wasn't interesting enough to generate interest about new plotlines. But that will change once the marketing machine starts moving again.
I'll definitely see it in theatres just for the visuals. These are the only kinds of movies I like seeing in theatres, otherwise I feel like it's just a waste of money.
NNID: julsjacket
The weird thing about Avatar is how quiet everything got so quickly. They certainly aren't interested in keeping it in the public eye or finding any other ways to capitalize on the success. That might work either for or against it later, I don't know.
Pushing back VIII isn't too surprising; remember that they pushed TFA back at one point as well which shortened the originally planned production time between the next film. I'd rather they have more time to do the film right.
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible. - Frank Zappa
I am sure there was a lot of interest to make more of it sooner, but nobody will say Cameron to make them fast if he doesnt want to.
Without a doubt I'll be seeing Avatar 2 in theaters. It's a shame I didn't see the first one in theaters because I heard the visuals on the big screen were amazing, especially in 3D. Avatar 2 might be an experience worth paying to see on the big screen. The story…eh, no one is going to see Avatar for the story. Though I had no particular dislike for it, it was widely panned as Pocahontas in Space.
This is the internet and this is a Pocahontas in space discussion so I'm the guy who will point out that Mr. Cameron holds the rights on a Battle Angel Alita movie.
And he has to stop doing Avatar things and start working on the real deal, thank you.
The weird thing about Avatar is how quiet everything got so quickly. They certainly aren't interested in keeping it in the public eye or finding any other ways to capitalize on the success. That might work either for or against it later, I don't know.
Well… they are building an entire themed area at the Animal Kingdom out of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandora%E2%80%93The_World_of_Avatar
Am I the only one who went to see Avatar and was NOT that impressed with the 3D?
Really the 3D movie that has impressed me the most was Coraline. And now I don't go see 3D movies because they give me headaches.
Looks like Avatar 2 is going to be delayed after all.
Am I the only one who went to see Avatar and was NOT that impressed with the 3D?
Nope, not at all, I agree with this completely. Everyone kept hyping up Avatar to be this technical marvel of the world but fuck it, 95% of all blockbuster movies have looked as technologically impressive in their time and in the end it doesn't matter shit because the actual story leaves you with nothing.
I mean, graphics are nice and the advances the world has gone through in terms of what we can do in movies is fantastic. But mainly so because it means that we don't have to actually hold back in terms of imagination, and that's an awesome thing.
But doing pretty graphics for the sake of pretty graphics while sacrificing depth, story, and character just doesn't rub with me, and it's hard to care about all the pretty when the movie has given me very little reason to care or get immersed. Even worse when with the sequels we all know that it's a situation of them doing pretty graphics for the sake of doing three sequels that they can cash on with minimal effort because people will pay for it just because of the name. They literally have no reason to invest in story.
But yea, in any case, this whole conversation makes me glad there's more investment in Star Wars avoiding the pitfalls of random epic glory of special effects thanks to the terrible taste that the prequels left from doing that very thing. Instead we get to have more dedicated time for character development and plot. Good stuff.
Am I the only one who went to see Avatar and was NOT that impressed with the 3D?
Really the 3D movie that has impressed me the most was Coraline. And now I don't go see 3D movies because they give me headaches.
The visuals were great but I totally didn't get the 3D hype either. Ditto on getting headaches. I have a lazy eye, I dunno…
It doesn't seem to be dying at all either.
NNID: julsjacket
The visuals were great but I totally didn't get the 3D hype either. Ditto on getting headaches. I have a lazy eye, I dunno…
It doesn't seem to be dying at all either.
I never went to see Avatar or any 3D movie. Okay I've only seen (successfully) one 3D movie and that was a Goosebumps that an Imax was showing. They used some different 3D goggles instead of the red/blue paper glasses. Its the only time I've successfully seen a 3D movie for my lazy eye doesn't like the flimsy paper/film glasses, they just don't work for me.
I don't remember any headaches. Maybe I didn't get them because I didn't sit down and watch the entire thing (maybe that's it, not sure) I do remember eye strain and the frustration at not being able to enjoy movies like other could so getting up after a few minutes. That's why I so surprised to see the big chunky goggles the IMAX used actually worked. (I only had to wait until my 30s to experience it).
Know those drawings that are in red/blue lines for a 3D experience? Can't see them either … well I see the lines but they don't 'blend in' like normal eyes to give that 3D experience. Its really annoying
@Galaxy:
Well… they are building an entire themed area at the Animal Kingdom out of it.
And that's the first I've heard of that. Maybe eventually there will be more stuff happening, but still, this whole time since the last movie came out there just hasn't been much in the media about it.
I never went to see Avatar or any 3D movie. Okay I've only seen (successfully) one 3D movie and that was a Goosebumps that an Imax was showing. They used some different 3D goggles instead of the red/blue paper glasses. Its the only time I've successfully seen a 3D movie for my lazy eye doesn't like the flimsy paper/film glasses, they just don't work for me.
It hasn't been the red/blue glasses in some time. Avatar launched the new projector style which comes with the goggles. Pat of the reason the 3d fad hit so hard this time around, it was better than it used to be… but its still not great, especially for anyone with glasses or any sort of eye problem.
What people don't realize is that, Avatar made a ton of money... but Cameron also has investments in the copyright on the cameras and the projectors, so he made way more money based on every theatre everywhere refitting itself and ontinung to rent and use those things, and no one realizes it.
Let's all rewatch Avatar: The Last Airbender in defiance of Avatar 2. (I'm with you guys, not excited for a sequel at all)
Hidden:
Hidden:
The thing about Avatar is that even with its lack of original or creative narrative it not only managed to be a huge commercial success, but a generally well received one too. That says a lot about its visuals and the creativity and imagination put towards the world and its creatures. It says a lot about how people experienced that movie. It shows you exactly how immersive the world felt and why people are anticipating its sequel eagerly waiting to visit that world again. Sure, there are other factors like hype and name but those alone don't count for Avatar's success.
Beautiful looking movies don't automatically = good movies. Original screenplays don't automatically = good movies. But if you have one of those done really really really well there are proven examples that, that movie can be really "good" mostly based off of that one strength, as long as the other area is not abysmal. Of course, it sounds so shallow to say anyone who relies more on visuals for their entertainment than story is missing some kind of point, but I will argue there's another point to be missed. That there can be a story in the visuals and the acting. You know the phrase, 'A picture is worth a thousand words'. A video is worth a million. No, not literally, but I've seen stories told solely through pictures and moving frames. Through the actor's faces and emotions. Through the surrounding environment the story takes places in. That is Avatar's main story of success.
Now I'm not saying just because that was their main focus they couldn't concentrate on the narrative story. Of course they could have and the movie would have been all the better for it.
Everything's Eventual…
Avatar doesn't even work on a purely visual level. The effects are pretty but nothing special, the cinematography and directing are not special in any way, can you even remember a shot or a scene that made you go wow this was so visually striking or this was so clever in conveying the story in a simple but visually appealing way? I can think of several from Mad Max for example.
Avatar's success came purely from Cameron's reputation, the hype of 3D and how generic and bland the story was making it super appealing to foreign markets. Avatar is just bland paste and that fact is what made it so easily digestible and profitable.
Am I the only one who went to see Avatar and was NOT that impressed with the 3D?
Really the 3D movie that has impressed me the most was Coraline. And now I don't go see 3D movies because they give me headaches.
3D movies are shit. After 30 minutes or so you can't notice it is 3D you have to try hard to notice it. Its not worthy the extra tax.
@TLC:
Avatar doesn't even work on a purely visual level. The effects are pretty but nothing special, the cinematography and directing are not special in any way
The fact that you claim the visual effects were nothing special goes in contrast to what the entire movie was pushing and the praise it received for what it actually accomplished. The entire movie itself was a canvas for special effects and pushing the boundaries of visual technology. Mainly improved motion capture so that cameras could better encompass the emotional range of the actors playing the characters from facial expressions down to the eyes. Was it done before? Of course. Was it done to the degree and minute detail of Avatar before then? Nope, of course not.
can you even remember a shot or a scene that made you go wow this was so visually striking or this was so clever in conveying the story in a simple but visually appealing way? I can think of several from Mad Max for example.
Flying scene on top of the winged animals through the valley was pretty fantastic actually and I didn't even see it in theaters. I saw it on my tiny little laptop screen and was still impressed.
Avatar's success came purely from Cameron's reputation, the hype of 3D and how generic and bland the story was making it super appealing to foreign markets. Avatar is just bland paste and that fact is what made it so easily digestible and profitable.
What I don't understand is how James Cameron's name, hype about 3D, and a cliche storyline alone nets you 2.7 billion. Explain that. Now, if you also factor in people actually being impressed by its visuals and wanting to share the experience with others or experience it themselves again that'll probably get you there. I'm not saying Avatar is the end all be all visual experience in all of film making, but it was a clearly a visual experience for most people who are clearly looking forward to a sequel. Hype included.
Everything's Eventual…
The fact that you claim the visual effects were nothing special goes in contrast to what the entire movie was pushing and the praise it received for what it actually accomplished. The entire movie itself was a canvas for special effects and pushing the boundaries of visual technology. Mainly improved motion capture so that cameras could better encompass the emotional range of the actors playing the characters from facial expressions down to the eyes. Was it done before? Of course. Was it done to the degree and minute detail of Avatar before then? Nope, of course not.
For all the acclaim it had, I was not impressed by it in the slightest. It could be that I was not engaged in the slightest by the movie but I don't remember ever going oh wow that's so cool and amazing and I remember seeing better things that year. Off the top of my head, I was more engaged in the CGI that went into the bug aliens in District 9 than the generic blue, cat people. I thought it looked better and not as artificially manufactured. A lot of those "ground-breaking" effects were wasted in my opinion and took me out of the movie because it looked so artificial.
Flying scene on top of the winged animals through the valley was pretty fantastic actually and I didn't even see it in theaters. I saw it on my tiny little laptop screen and was still impressed.
Oh wow, you remembered a scene from the movie, congratulations, it's more than I can remember. Was there anything particular about the scene that struck you in particular other than how superficially pretty it was? Does it have the emotional impact of say Furiosa falling on her knees in the middle of the desert? Or even something superficial but at least more clever and creative in how it represented the kinetic energy and camaderie between the characters like the back to back shot in Avengers? These are iconic scenes that most people in this forum would recall instantly if you ask them, I doubt you'll get a lot of people recalling pretty dragon tourism.
What I don't understand is how James Cameron's name, hype about 3D, and a cliche storyline alone nets you 2.7 billion. Explain that. Now, if you also factor in people actually being impressed by its visuals and wanting to share the experience with others or experience it themselves again that'll probably get you there. I'm not saying Avatar is the end all be all visual experience in all of film making, but it was a clearly a visual experience for most people who are clearly looking forward to a sequel. Hype included.
What is there to not understand? Seems pretty simple. Everything about the movie was manufactured to get maximum profit down to the childishly simple story because executives were scared that anything more compelx would be a turn off for audiences. It's nice that you got something out of the movie but for me personally, nothing about it is engaging in any way neither narratively or even visually. I've seen movies before that are low on plot but high on visuals(one could make the argument that Fury Road counts as one), I can get behind the notion of some movies you're only in it for the cinematography but Avatar failed to impress me even on that level.
Was Avatar really that bad? All I can remember is "pretty movie! And then they beat the bad guy! Right?"
Avatar was a perfectly fine and entertaining action adventure movie, with fantastic visuals and a cool 3d experience in the cinema, nothing more, nothing less.
Avatar was too bland and safe to be be bad. It didn't do anything right (besides the visuals and cinematography) but it didn't do anything neccesarily BAD either. It follows filmmaking and storytelling 101 to an annoying tee. Plinkett's review even mentions how the entire movie is basically made to make people like it and to not get bad feelz. To put it back on topic, it wasn't like the prequels that were just turds.
It was Blue Cat Pocahontas in Space. lol
I also like how elements of it seem like they were cut out of a trope book and pasted into the movie. Like, "Unobtanium"? Really? That term is supposed to be used to describe a hypothetical material in either actual science or fiction that's difficult to find, It's not supposed to be the actual name of a particular material. It's not much better than just calling the substance "Maguffinium"
It's also funny how the consensus is that it's nothing special these days considering there were news articles back around its release about people APPARENTLY getting depressed because real life wasn't like Pandora. lol
Switch Friend Code: SW-1795-2519-1884 • Click Here to check out my Twitch Channel
Avatar is bad in the sense that for all its acclaim and hype, there is nothing visually or narratively impressive about it, take away all that, it's meh. And way too long.
Moved the Avaturd conversation to the appropriate thread.
I liked it. Sometimes a light read is all you really need.
Not really interested in the sequel. The story makes a nice whole as it is.
One of the good parts was colonel Stephen Lang, who I hear is returning as a character. As a cyborg maybe? I don't remember if he got blown up or something.
I certainly didn't hate Avatar, but I remember being really bored when I saw it.
Not in theaters, it was in a summer college program (yeah bare with me). It really grossed $1B+?
I phased out like halfway through the movie and dreamed I was watching Wayne's World in 3D.
Avatar is only good for making you sleep with how generic and god-awfully boring the movie was. It's the only movie in the last 10 years that made me sleep over 5 times when i first watched it. I can't figure out how this product of time and forgettable movie even made over 1 billion let alone being the highest grossing movie of all time.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
I certainly didn't hate Avatar, but I remember being really bored when I saw it.
Not in theaters, it was in a summer college program (yeah bare with me). It really grossed $1B+?
It grossed over 2.5 billion.
Avatar was a tech demo.
Think back: the earliest years of film, when the notion of a moving picture was still considered black wizardry by moral inquisitors (which may or may not be true, I'm a little fuzzy on the details of human history), movies were not more than the size of what we call a gif. I mean just look at this shit:
[hide]
[/hide]
No plot, no nothing, just some jackass riding on about 15 frames of horse. And people were stunned. There was no expectation of drama (or if there was by anyone, then they must have been thoroughly disappointed) and horses aren't even that interesting. It was a marvel of technical advancement and that's why people cared.
1895, the first film ever made (according to the high intellectuals of youtube):
[hide]
Nobody gives a shit about trains, but man people came out to see them. Did you know that "Arrival of a Train" was the highest grossing film of its time? Well, it was the only film of its time, but that's besides the point! They decided that, with 50 seconds of film, out of all the moments in this beautiful world they could have captured, they went with 'waiting for a fucking train'.
The point is that clearly people choose really stupid things to test out new film tech on, presumably because any failure would just be a waste of good images otherwise. So when we look back at this dumb film about blue dongs in space, I want you to reflect on all of the potentially better ideas that weren't used up in the process, and thus allowed to flourish later on the path paved by Avatar: The Last Hairboner.
