I wonder if he’ll spend more than 20 minutes down there.
Does Avatar really need a sequel? I mean, sure, it’ll probably be profitable, but the first movie just wasn’t that good, special effects aside. How bad will the plot be for the second one?
“Special effects aside,” as if they weren’t the whole point of the movie.
Look, that planet is rich with unobtanium and Cameron will keep cranking out the films until its scorched to barren, smoking rock and we can finally mine it in peace.
Undoubtably very bad if the first one is any indication. But look at the bright side, it can’t get any worse.
I believe Cameron has had a full three-movie story arc planned out for several years now. So yes, it can get worse.
Oh, I’m supposed to snort crank and smoke rock before I go see it? That explains much.
According to the article:
I know it’s fun to pick on Avatar, but the vitriol it gets is totally beyond me. The plot, which admittedly was derivative, is still a fun, serviceable plot. The special effects were breathtaking. If you decide 3D is a blight on movie theaterdom, you could see it in 2D (nobody made you watch it in 3D). It grossed 3 billion dollars, and has a a huge fanbase both domestic and international.
Acting like it was the worst film in the history of capturing light onto celluloid just strikes me as a ridiculous.
It would make more sense if a ton of people were running around claiming that it was great, but I haven’t heard that. I’ve just heard “fun,” which is how I felt. It was like Star Wars; when I saw that, I wanted to be a Jedi, when I saw Avatar, I wanted to have one of those giant blue bodies. I never mistook either of them for profound cinema.
Yea, I don’t get it either. The plot was a “paint-by-numbers” sorta deal, but it was in service to a pretty fun and very pretty movie. Its certainly not the worst, or even the top 100 worst sci-fi plots I’ve seen. And the plot was pretty clearly not meant to be the point of the movie.
Plus, the guy made Terminator 2 and Aliens, its not like making a decent sci-fi sequel is beyond him. Actually, he’s one of the very few directors who do make good sequels.
I have never seen Avatar, so I won’t give an opinion of it. But I remember it being pretty well received critically. The fact that it has to have it’s own Wikipedia article just for it’s awards (including Golden Globes for best movie and best director) should mean something.
If he wants to explore the extreme depths of the ocean, that’s cool. As a background for a movie? Doesn’t sound cost effective to me. Photos and movies I’ve seen from other, not quite as deep, spots kind of indicate that the extreme depths are really lush with life forms. There’s a lot of featureless ooze, with with an odd looking worm or fish here and there. Still, what do I know? He’s made a bunch of hit movies and nailed Linda Hamilton.
I have a feeling he’s just using it as an excuse to go to the trench and it has absolutely nothing to do with the movie.
Well since the first Avatar movie loosely followed the plot of Dances with Wolves… a Kevin Costner movie… doesn’t it make sense that this one would also loosely follow the plot of another Kevin Costner movie?
Wait for it.
…
Waterworld! 
Look at what it’s winning, though: Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, Best Special Effects, Best 3D Effects, Best Scifi Film, Best Fantasy Film, Best Sound Effects. Who would argue against those?
As far as the Best Picture-type nominations/wins: what I was told by someone inside the industry is that “cultural significance” is a huge criterion in voting, and it’s pretty hard to deny that the highest grossing film of all time has cultural significance.
:eek:
*“Evacuate? At our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances.”
“Nonsense! They couldn’t hit an elephant at this dist-”
“But look at the bright side, it can’t get any worse.”
*
What are you going to do for an encore, tear off your own head?
I liked Avatar and I think that we should try and avoid another shouting match about the movie’s merits and the subsequent snark that follows along with any major mainstream success in this thread. There are probably 6 threads where that ground is beaten and scorched already that can be resurrected.
To the OP, link dump thread aside, this news concerns me. Cameron seems to be treading the fine line between eccentric narcissist and nutjob ego maniac. While I think visiting and filming footage of the trench is a worthwhile goal in an of itself, I don’t think shoehorning it into Avatar 2 is really a wise move. The story reads to me like a 7 year old insisting on dragging his favorite toy to a fancy dinner with adults. We all know that Cameron is obsessed with the ocean and ocean exploring and I suspect that this whole Avatar 2 gimmick is an excuse to bundle the costs of developing the sub and mission into the movie development costs. I fear that that type of move could undermine the movie by taking budget and energy away from making a good film and redirecting it to some glorified IMAX special event. Plus Cameron might be forced to shoehorn some underwater storyline into the movie where it doesn’t belong or make sense in order to justify the project.
All in all, it sounds painfully indulgent at best. I hope it produces results, but I suspect it won’t. It’ll just be a really expensive and boring backdrop for a bunch of flashy CGI to spruce up.
Zing!
Zing!