SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
Maybe they should show us some of that amazing artwork damn it.
Remember when we finally had the first bit of artwork from the first film leak? Those were the days.
Maybe they should show us some of that amazing artwork damn it.
Is this being shot in HFR? Or has Cameron lost interest in that stuff?
"We are starting, and now we're training for them," she said. "We're learning how to free-dive and we're doing a lot of parkour sort of stuff. It's very cool stuff, and it's a good group."
Remember when we finally had the first bit of artwork from the first film leak? Those were the days.
Sigourney gives another little update.
http://www.mtv.com/news/3026653/sigourney-weaver-parkour-avatar/
Guess that underwater perf-cap tech has worked out.
It's necessary because the scene in the first film with Sam Worthington escaping the Thanator by jumping in the river and riding the rapids down was accomplished by putting him in an office chair and rolling him across the soundstage while he flailed about.Ah yes, the days when we only had that and your weekly Avatar threads.
I don't understand how is performance capture gonna work underwater. Why is this even necessary. And I wonder what kind of parkour is 67 year-old Sigourney doing.
So did Stephen Lang. Big deal!I thought sigourney weaver died in the first movie.
So did Stephen Lang. Big deal!
To be fair, there's a pretty good indication of how Weaver can return, given she was technically transferred to the collective consciousness of Pandora aka Eywa.
Stephen Lang / Quaritch is going to be a more interesting death to solve.
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/How-It-Possible-Sigourney-Weaver-Avatar-Sequels-70098.html
Weaver has apparently confirmed that she isn't playing the same character as in the first film.
I suspect Stephen Lang will probably be playing a different character as well......and that the both of them will just be mo-capped Na'vi, rather than humans.
Steven was so memorable in the first film, we're privileged to have him back," Cameron said. ”I'm not going to say exactly how we're bringing him back, but it's a science fiction story, after all. His character will evolve into really unexpected places across the arc of our new three-film saga. I really look forward to working with such a gifted actor, who's also become a good friend."
Yeah, James Cameron..... not that rich......Unless he got one of those percentage of gross deals I doubt he is that rich or got paid loads for Avatar.
Go look at past avatar threads on GAF. They consistently get hundreds of responses.I mean I'm sure I'll be proven wrong and all, I still have no idea how the original was so successful, but I just can't see the desire for this.
I mean I'm sure I'll be proven wrong and all, I still have no idea how the original was so successful, but I just can't see the desire for this.
This script better surpass fuckin War and Peace with the amount of time Cameron spent on it
Because nobody saw Avatar because they heard it was a great movie. They went to go see it because of the visual spectacle, CGI and 3D and that's why people went to go see it numerous times. Its visuals broke new ground for the time.I still don't understand people not understanding the desire for this. You have a film that is by FAR the most successful movie of all time by a good margin, that everybody and their dog went and saw multiple times. Then you get people going 'but where's the desire for this?'
Transformers and BvS were both criticaly terrible films though.Because nobody saw Avatar because they heard it was a great movie. They went to go see it because of the visual spectacle, CGI and 3D and that's why people went to go see it numerous times. Its visuals broke new ground for the time.
10 years later, CGI spectacle is standard and overblown and even past CGI franchise Juggernauts like Transformers aren't making as much as they used too.
3D is also on its way out too.
So what you're left with is a mediocre film that did some cool groundbreaking things for its time visually that have now become the standard in the box office and again as shown by Transformers diminishing returns and BvS inability to break 1bil big CGI spectacle in a boring movie just isn't going to cut it anymore.
So unless Cameron has unlocked the fourth dimension and has yet again found away to reinvent the cinema going experience I doubt any of these sequels will come close to doing what Avatar did, and maybe even also continue the trend of diminishing returns if it's just more Avatar.
Outside of visuals and art direction the franchise really doesn't have anything worthwhile going for it.
Critical reception didn't stop Transformers from making billions of dollars before, don't see why it would have now.Transformers and BvS were both criticaly terrible films though.
The difference is that Avatar was a good spectacle film. Plus, the action in Avatar shits all over those two films.
Why are you so intent on rewriting history?Critical reception didn't stop Transformers from making billions of dollars before, don't see why it would have now.
Avatar is just an okay film with pretty visuals. Which is fine. No more no less.
Did you mean to quote Scullibundo or was that comment self reflection?Why are you so intent on rewriting history?
Explain all the repeat watches and it holding the highest 2D home video sales until Frozen's release.Because nobody saw Avatar because they heard it was a great movie. They went to go see it because of the visual spectacle, CGI and 3D and that's why people went to go see it numerous times. Its visuals broke new ground for the time.
10 years later, CGI spectacle is standard and overblown and even past CGI franchise Juggernauts like Transformers aren't making as much as they used too.
3D is also on its way out too.
So what you're left with is a mediocre film that did some cool groundbreaking things for its time visually that have now become the standard in the box office and again as shown by Transformers diminishing returns and BvS inability to break 1bil big CGI spectacle in a boring movie just isn't going to cut it anymore.
So unless Cameron has unlocked the fourth dimension and has yet again found away to reinvent the cinema going experience I doubt any of these sequels will come close to doing what Avatar did, and maybe even also continue the trend of diminishing returns if it's just more Avatar.
Outside of visuals and art direction the franchise really doesn't have anything worthwhile going for it.
Who's sharpening their knives hoping the film fails?Explain all the repeat watches and it holding the highest 2D home video sales until Frozen's release.
I swear it's never a James Cameron movie unless you have people sharpening their knives for his next film failure, only to be proven wrong every time.
It's precisely because James Cameron knows how to craft an audience pleaser that people want to watch again and again. The man knows how to make films, no matter the subject matter, that audiences connect with on a wide spectrum.
You're trying to rewrite history when you sayDid you mean to quote Scullibundo or was that comment self reflection?
Not sure where I'm rewriting history by stating my personal opinion along with talking about my anecdotal experience with the film.
I remember quite vividly the time when Avatar came out, the buzz was that it had life like CGI, beautiful alien visuals and amazing 3D. That's pretty much why I and most people I've ever spoken to about the film bothered to watch and rewatch it.
That's why it got the attention it did, the same way The Force Awakens (a movie I love quite a bit) only got as much attention as it did because it was a new, sequel Star Wars film, and it wasn't terrible.
The last Jedi won't do as well as The Force Awakens because of that. The people that went to go see it to be part of the spectacle alone probably don't care to drop in enough for the sequels. Avatar will be the same, except it can't even piggyback off of the momentum from the first film since it's been a decade.
Because nobody saw Avatar because they heard it was a great movie. They went to go see it because of the visual spectacle, CGI and 3D and that's why people went to go see it numerous times. Its visuals broke new ground for the time.
Nice cherry picking.You're trying to rewrite history when you say
When tons of people watched the film and loved it beyond the 3d. Again: critical reception of the film was overwhelmingly positive and the film set blu-ray records despite it not being 3d. So don't say "nobody saw avatar because it's a great movie" and then claim that you're not trying to rewrite history.
I mean, the other half of that post is you claiming the future with regards to Last Jedi and how that also means that Avatar 2 won't do as well. So that doesn't pertains to the rewriting history gripe that I have.Nice cherry picking.
I said visual spectacle, CGI and 3D and you pick 3D to attempt to invalidate what I said rather than taking that statement as a whole. You know what that's called?I mean, the other half of that post is you claiming the future with regards to Last Jedi and how that also means that Avatar 2 won't do as well. So that doesn't pertains to the rewriting history gripe that I have.
cher·ry-pick
ˈCHerēˌpik/Submit
verb
gerund or present participle: cherry-picking
1.
selectively choose (the most beneficial items) from what is available.
Diminishing returns== failing.When you lump Avatar in with Transformers as a draw that relies solely on visual-spectacle, then explain that those films are all experiencing diminishing returns, it's not hard to see where you're implying that the sequel/s are due to fail. When I say knives out, I'm talking about waiting for the financial failure that so many did before both Titanic and Avatar.
Homey you freaked out on me back in the day formposting this shot!!! Well maybe it was a screenshot from the final production rather than the concept art for it. But it was the same shot:Remember when we finally had the first bit of artwork from the first film leak? Those were the days.
All the hot takes will suddenly disappear the moment the first trailer drops.
Didn't feel like typing out a list since I'm on my phone. But my points still stands so I don't know what your issue with my points are.I said visual spectacle, CGI and 3D and you pick 3D to attempt to invalidate what I said rather than taking that statement as a whole. You know what that's called?
Diminishing returns== failing.
Avatar 2 won't make as much as Avatar 1, that doesn't mean it'll fail
The Last Jedi won't make as much as The Force Awakens, that doesn't mean it'll fail
That means it'll make less than the previous entry.
If I said Avatar 2 won't make back its budget, that's me saying it'll fail.
Lumping it in with another popular, billion dollar CGIfest blockbuster isn't unfair, and I put it in the same performance category as star wars along with Transformers. You're being oversensitive.
You have one single point that fails to address anything else I've said in an attempt to invalidate what I said despite the fact that your "argument" falls apart when my statement is taken as a whole. But carry on.Didn't feel like typing out a list since I'm on my phone. But my points still stands so I don't know what your issue with my points are.
I'm confused, you are claiming that people only saw the film for technical reasons. My counter point is that the film was also critically a hit so you are rewriting history. How does that mean my point falls apart?You have one single point that fails to address anything else I've said in an attempt to invalidate what I said despite the fact that your "argument" falls apart when my statement is taken as a whole. But carry on.
Was it really a critical success though when it lost the Best Picture Oscar to The Hurt Locker? I mean, Golden Globe wins only mean so much.I'm confused, you are claiming that people only saw the film for technical reasons. My counter point is that the film was also critically a hit so you are rewriting history. How does that mean my point falls apart?
I'm confused, you are claiming that people only saw the film for technical reasons. My counter point is that the film was also critically a hit so you are rewriting history. How does that mean my point falls apart?
I hope they film at 48fps, higher framerates in films is something that needs to happen, especially for 3D.
I said the film has great visuals, art, CGI and 3D, these were the biggest things that were both marketed and praised and thus resulted in the biggest draw both at the cinema and at home. The story and characters have often been a point of criticism for the film, none of this is "rewriting history" even if you personally don't agree.I'm confused, you are claiming that people only saw the film for technical reasons. My counter point is that the film was also critically a hit so you are rewriting history. How does that mean my point falls apart?
Avatar 2 won't make a billion at the box office
lol I mean I think it's going to drop ALOT from the first one, but it's easily going to hit $1b ww. Come on now.
People seem to misunderstand why this film will do well.
It's not because it's a sequel to the highest grossing film of all time or because it will have a ridiculous budget. None of that has a bearing on why these sequels will succeed. It isn't because James Cameron is a recognisable name, either.
It's precisely because James Cameron knows how to craft an audience pleaser that people want to watch again and again. The man knows how to make films, no matter the subject matter, that audiences connect with on a wide spectrum.
Didn't you say "nobody saw Avatar because they heard it was a great movie"?I said the film has great visuals, art, CGI and 3D, these were the biggest things that were both marketed and praised and thus resulted in the biggest draw both at the cinema and at home. The story and characters have often been a point of criticism for the film, none of this is "rewriting history" even if you personally don't agree.
I'm not saying people hate the movie or its a terrible film. I'm saying the film did as well as it did largely because of groundbreaking technology and visuals. These are positive aspects of the film, these are what the film is positively remembered for and why it did as well as it did.
Saying that "yeah well, people liked it! And and and people bought it at home too!" Doesn't dispute anything I've said. Its a strawman.