Judging how successful a movie will be is hard enough for producers planning current films but 8 years from now?
I guess if anyone can pull it off Cameron can but to be honest I don’t think the first Avatar is wearing well. I saw it again recently without the 3D and it brought home to me that the film is pretty ordinary really, not a bad movie, just not that good. Any thoughts?
I’m still pissed at James Cameron for ruining a perfectly good meme. :mad:
I didn’t care for Avatar when I first saw it. I’d seen all the basic pieces of it (plot lines, character concepts, etc) many times before, and didn’t care much for them when they were used in other stories, so seeing in three D and in blue, wasn’t a treat.
I’m easy going about movies for the most part. I go to watch them for entertainment value primarily, and only go to a theater for them when I expect them to be a sort of huge screen generated carnival ride to watch. By keeping my expectations low, I rarely get all that upset about the end result.
Maybe Cameron has new story lines planned out that will actually be worth telling, I don’t know. The opening one was pretentiousness squared, so I will have EXCEEDINGLY low expectations for the sequels.
I’ll hardly be the first to point out that the story is basically a predictable and hackneyed Dances with Wolves with funny blue aliens.
But Cameron did succeed in drawing the viewer into his amazingly realised world and IMHO that still holds up today.
It wont be enough to sustain four sequels. I expect the first sequel to do well and to be a hit, but below expectations, followed by diminishing returns for the remainder.
On the other hand, Fast & the Furious and Transformers franchises are still doing inexplicably well, so who knows.
Doesn’t he have to wait for the sequel to Dances With Wolves to be made first?
That implies that Avatar 2 wont be a rehash of the original.
I don’t think Cameron has made a genuinely good movie since 1991, so I’d say, “Yes” to the OP.
But he sure as fuck has made a lot of successful movies since then, so what do I know?
I’m not sure I’d consider directing 2 movies between Terminator 2 and Avatar “a lot”.
But *Avatar *and Titanic are the two highest grossing movies worldwide so he’s got that going for him. (Star Wars: the force awakens is third; no other movies have exceeded two billion dollars gross )
Ever wonder why?
[sub]Note: that’s the start of a story arc dealing with James Cameron and aliens competing to gather the most stupid people. Go through the arc to see why.[/sub]
Okay, which meme was ruined? I looked at the link, but couldn’t suss it out.
“Once, in 1960, for 17 minutes,” is an old SD board meme, referencing the first (and, and the time, only) manned descent to the Marianas Trench. Why it became a SDMB meme in the first place, I can’t recall.
For the factual question of whether he can produce the films on the published schedule and on budget? I’m confident he can, and I have no doubt he can slip the schedule or raise enough for shortfalls, if need be. He had a proven record of managing large and complex projects. (Full disclosure: a friend of mine is in the management of 20th Century Fox and will directly profit from these films.)
For the movies themselves, I’m not a big fan of Avatar. I have no problem with rehashing old stories–good stories deserve to be retold. I don’t like this particular story: newcomers (except for one token) don’t understand old customs and then receive unfortunate fate when they get uppity. I hope Cameron doesn’t get preachy with the new films, but his track record does not give confidence.
The thing I really liked about Avatar was that it was the most complete, complex, and biologically plausible alien world I had ever seen, not to mention visually stunning. (The physics of Pandora are another story.) I saw it twice in IMAX-3D when it first came out, but have never watched it on the small screen in order not to be disappointed when it didn’t live up to its original impact.
The plot of Avatar was derivative and hackneyed, to be sure, but then so was Star Wars: A New Hope. Whether or not Avatar can succeed as a franchise may depend on whether they can get improved plots. On the other hand, other successful franchises don’t depend on good plots in the least.
Like “Rio, by Duran Duran” it was because several posters posted the same answer in succession. Of course everyone else then just kept repeating it.
It’s true, but where did it start? Was it an “interesting fact” thread?
The whole point of Avatar was that it was the first film to use a new technique of 3D viewing that was said to be much better than the previous ones. And that was arguably true.
I imagine these next ones are planned to have a more than incremental improvement on that and then on the previous ones that it’s the technology that is driving the road map. I am an engineer for a high tech company that makes world class products. I am a Development/Sustaining guy but the R&D folks definitely have plans for that far in the future.
I’m honestly not trying to threadshit, but god I hated that movie. I know tastes differ but it just seemed about as deep as 1940’s western. But if people love it, sure, why not make more.
Nor can I but I think like many SDMB memes, it started due to accidental repeat posts.
Agreed. This is its strength and IMO Cameron will build on it, possibly by the introduction of a new world (different planet? under Na’vi oceans?) and/or sentient alien.
The plot of Avatar was derivative and hackneyed, to be sure, but then so was Star Wars: A New Hope.
Memorable characters and humour count for a lot. Avatars characters were bland cardboard cutouts. Star Wars had Darth Vader, arguably the most memorable movie villain of time. Avatar had … some cheesy (not in a good way) middle-aged military guy. And took itself way too seriously for a movie composed mainly of three metre tall blue guys.
Its not going to be a major factor and I think you know it.
The “Just once, for 20 minutes” meme goes back at least this far:
Note that it’s 20 minutes, not 17 minutes.