Creative COW SIGN IN :: SPONSORS :: ADVERTISING :: ABOUT US :: CONTACT US :: FAQ
Creative COW's LinkedIn GroupCreative COW's Facebook PageCreative COW on TwitterCreative COW's Google+ PageCreative COW on YouTube
FORUMS:listlist (w/ descriptions)archivetagssearchhall of famerecent posts

Does the world need 3 More Avatar Movies?

COW Forums : TV & Movie Appreciation

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Share on Facebook
Mike CohenDoes the world need 3 More Avatar Movies?
by on Jul 15, 2012 at 6:48:02 pm

I don't think so, unless Cameron has something up his sleeve that will make the sequels and prequels so much more visually and dramatically unbelievable than Part I.

Talk amongst yourselves.

Mike


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Joseph OwensRe: Does the world need 3 More Avatar Movies?
by on Jul 16, 2012 at 12:45:52 pm

Is the question you're asking really "What would Eywa do?"

I can think of other things to do with a couple of billion dollars that will go otherwise wasted.

jPo

"I always pass on free advice -- its never of any use to me" Oscar Wilde.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Tim WilsonRe: Does the world need 3 More Avatar Movies?
by on Jul 16, 2012 at 2:55:00 pm

Hey, the world doesn't NEED ANY more movies. Not really, right?

But when I look at all the crap movies that get even crappier sequels (do you have any idea how many Beethoven the slobbering dog movies there are?), I LIKE the idea of a good movie by a good director, an original(ish) story, in a unique world. The first one was nominated for 9 Oscars. It's not like it was...say, Beethoven, or Final Destination.

(Dude, it's FINAL. You can't have FIVE things that are FINAL. Unless you're the end of Return of the King - there were at LEAST five of those.)

I can also only imagine what Cameron has done with technology since 2006 or so when he started Avatar. Of course he STARTED Avatar in 1994, with a planned release of 1999, but the technology to pull off what was in his head just didn't exist. So he invented it. I can only imagine what he's got up his sleeve this time.

It would almost be an insult NOT to do sequels.

Tim Wilson
Vice President, Editor-in-Chief
Creative COW Magazine
Twitter: timdoubleyou

The typos here are most likely because I'm, a) typing this on my phone; and b) an idiot.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Post removed.

Scott RobertsRe: Does the world need 3 More Avatar Movies?
by on Jul 17, 2012 at 2:34:15 pm

Warranted or not, I assume the Avatar sequels will be some of the most "hated out of spite" films of all time.

I liked Avatar, but didn't love it. I've now seen it probably three times since its release, and it doesn't have the greatest replay value. It was great spectacle for the time, but loses most of its appeal on a TV. However, I'll be excited for seeing the spectacle once again when the sequels come out. And Cameron said the next one will be about the oceans of Pandora... so prepare for a lot of crazy sea monsters, Na'vi conch shell breathing apparatuses, and not so subtle messages about preserving EARTH'S ocean.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Tim WilsonRe: Does the world need 3 More Avatar Movies?
by on Jul 17, 2012 at 4:52:06 pm

[Scott Roberts] " I assume the Avatar sequels will be some of the most "hated out of spite" films of all time."

I don't think so. I really don't.

Using Rotten Tomatoes as a point of reference: Top Critics came in at 92% Fresh, audiences 93%.

(I use Top Critics because any ass-munch suck-up can worm their way onto Rotten Tomatoes. 300 critics actually becomes LESS statistically significant because there are so many quote-trollers who extoll crappy movies to get quoted in their crappy commercials.)

Compare Avatar numbers to a nasty sequel like the fake-ass "Episode 1 (But Not Really)," aka "Are You SURE That This Is A Star Wars Movie???" JAKE LLOYD IS NOT DARTH VADER Episode 1:": Top Critics 67%, audiences 64%. (WTF? Critics liked it better than audiences? Smaller sample size than Avatar, but still.)

I think you guys are way overthinking this. You don't go from 90% favorable and 9 Oscar nominations to "hated on principle." You just don't. I'm genuinely surprised that this is even a consideration for purposes of friendly banter. The world doesn't work like this. There weren't knives out last time, even among the 3D haters, and there won't be next time either. My prediction: the numbers go up. Potentially WAY up.

This is very much how Batman worked. First Nolan pic: 61% Top Critics (!),the second one was 91% critics, 95% audience. Frankly, a lot of that was driven by Heath Ledger, certainly for me -- otherwise, definitely not so fresh.

Then look at the bank: the second one more than doubled - roughly $200m domestic vs. roughly $500m. Avengers looks to be closing in on $650m domestic - Dark Knight HAS to be in that neighborhood, don't you think?

As much as I really, really don't like the Dark Knight movies AT ALL (very nearly hated the first one), I have tickets to an 8 AM (not a typo) showing Friday, and definitely not hating on principle.

Last but not least, I mention this now and again, but using Rotten Tomatoes just because it gathers so much information in one place, and for grins, throwing in Oscars - Cameron is the most beloved and respected director working today, more than Spielberg, more than Scorsese. That's not even counting box office. There's never been a director who has combined bank, critical approval and prestige as chosen by working peers like Cameron, not even close.

AND he's written almost everything he's done as an original script.

AND he spends a lot of time behind the lens.

AND he was one of the editors Titanic and Avatar.

Oh yeah, and the pushing technology thing. (See also The Abyss and T2.)

There's simply nobody in his category. Nobody has ever had knives out for him, not audiences or critics, even when his stuff wasn't especially well-reviewed.

See True Lies...or don't...although once again, his original story and one of the editors. But the people who didn't like it - including me - largely didn't savage him. We saw it as a slump after Aliens, Abyss, Terminator and T2 IN A ROW. Strange Days was kind of weak, but right after that, Titanic, some awesome shorts (including the still awesome Aliens of the Deep), an episode of Dark Angel (although he produced all 42 eps), then Avatar. Not many duds in there.

Besides, watery stuff is Cameron's long suit. Nobody does it better, and to me, all the best animation in Avatar was the most ocean-like: the plants that contracted when touched, the sprites -- a whole lot of it was inspired by Cameron's aquatic experience. (Hey, and didn't Steve Ziszou look almost as much like Cameron as Cousteau?)

Watch. the Avatar saga is gonna have a Batman-style trajectory, which he already pulled off with Terminator. The man knows how to sequelize his own stuff.

Slam slam slam slam slam dunk.

Tim Wilson
Vice President, Editor-in-Chief
Creative COW Magazine
Twitter: timdoubleyou

The typos here are most likely because I'm, a) typing this on my phone; and b) an idiot.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Mark SuszkoRe: Does the world need 3 More Avatar Movies?
by on Jul 17, 2012 at 7:28:46 pm

I loved True Lies.



An Avatar sequel is this:

The Company that got kicked off Pandora returns with more and deadlier hardware, bombards the living hell out of the natives a la a second version of "Linebacker 2 Redux", then takes what it wants. Unless in the span between the films, Pandora has developed their own space fleet and is waiting in orbit for the return of the Earthmen.

Avatar needs no sequels, they would only further point up all the massive plot holes.


I would much rather have Cameron bring to life Larry Niven's "Ringworld" or one of the Asimov epics. Ringworld in fact would be perfect for Cameron's style and technology. Or "The Mote In GOd's Eye", which was written in almost screenplay format to start with. And that one comes with a sequel already written.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Tim WilsonRe: Does the world need 3 More Avatar Movies?
by on Jul 17, 2012 at 7:52:22 pm

Wow, you people are the most cynical bastards I've ever encountered. LOL

To rhetorically re-ask the original question, how is that the biggest movie in the history of the world, developed by one of the most original filmmakers working, who has only made AWESOME sequels that in virtually every way surpassed the original (imo anyway) DOESN'T merit a sequel or three?

Not a comic book or toy in sight. It will (presumably) be from an original script by a guy who knows how to tell a story, with a track record of upping the cinematic technology ante every time he steps out of his bedroom slippers. It really is insane to me that we're talking about this that it's not at least INTERESTING news, even if you have low expectations, a la me and Dark Knight, where my expectations are very nearly flatlined. Nolan has the goods though, so I'm at least interested, and I'm not willing to believe that anybody reading this doesn't think that Cameron has what it takes to make something that will once again raise the bar...even if you personally aren't going to go see it.

So yes, being direct. Big budget genre pic notwithstanding, this is EXACTLY the kind of movie the world needs more of. Exactly the kind of movie whose absence is frequently lamented here: strong visions from auteurs who aren't adapting stuff that's a) already been adapted before, b) sequel to such, c) probably didn't need adapting in the first place, d) a cynical product grab, or e) all of the above.

(re tie-ins: I was intrigued to note that Avatar licensed more BOOKS than video games and action figures combined.)

re: True Lies, I was living in the Florida Keys when they shot it, and it was pretty slick to watch a harrier crunch a sheriff's car. (The sheriff was a friend of ours.) Just before the movie opened, they did a free showing in our tiny local theater and made a contribution to the local children's shelter to back it up. So I liked the stuff in the Keys. :-)

My point was just that this is the LOWEST regarded of his movies when measured via critical or audience response at the time. And overall, it was pretty damn good. I'd take that as the least successful movie on my resume.

But in any case, another argument that he has the goods, and every single movie in his filmography makes it at least a little bit of a reason to NOT think any new one is a priori a useless thing -- especially when he stuck the landing last time.

I guess I don't mean to be as much as Avatar booster -- although I really liked it a lot -- as much as an anti-cynical guy. Rare, I know, and maybe a little out of character, but still...


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Scott RobertsRe: Does the world need 3 More Avatar Movies?
by on Jul 17, 2012 at 8:48:55 pm

I said I was excited for another Avatar movie! However I do agree with Mark that the plot is probably going to involve the Earth company coming back to Pandora, this time harvesting the Ocean or something, and the natives defending it once again. I'm sure I'll be surprised; but I imagine this next movie, much like the first one, will be an environmental message layered in human guilt. Whether that's good or bad, to me, depends entirely on how entertaining that message actually is.

THAT BEING SAID... Avatar was fun as hell, and brought us something we haven't seen before. So kudos to James Cameron on that front. He did the same thing with the spectacle of Titanic. He also cleverly jammed an overlong love story into that historical drama as well... but you gotta do what you gotta do. Teenage girls aren't going to watch a movie about a boat from 1912 three times in theaters, much like grown men don't want to watch a movie about (pre-badass) Leonardo DiCaprio smooching Kate Winslet while Celine Dion plays in the background. Gotta meet people in the middle.

But, I mean, c'mon. There WAS negative feedback regarding Avatar. Even from the people who did *overall* like it (hey, remember Prometheus?). I think if you took a 100 random people who generically said they liked The Dark Knight, and 100 people who said they generically liked Avatar; and asked these people who liked the films to list everything bad they chose to overlook in them, the list would be staggeringly higher in the Avatar group. Now, until the state of Illinois decides to fund the Scott Roberts Center for Asking Nerdy Questions, I can only just assume that would be the result. But I'm sure, hypothetically, a lot of people would agree with me on this.

Maybe the only way I can possibly explain why I think more people criticize a disgustingly huge movie like Avatar over a disgustingly huge movie like The Dark Knight is... ...Batman is cool as hell, and giant blue cat people aren't...? :/


Now to answer a series of rapid fire questions to myself:

Should they make Avatar sequels?

Yes.

Because the audience wants them?

Yes.

And because the studio wants another billion dollars?

Yes.

And because we want to see what James Cameron does to push film/special effects technology forward?

Yes.

Will it be too long?

Yes.

Will it be a simple, probably cliche story?

Yes.

Will everything else around the story distract us from the story?

Yes.

Will it be worth seeing in 3D?

Yes.

Will it give Sam Worthington another boring role in a big budget movie?

Yes.

Are you aware that Sigourney Weaver is slated to come back for the sequel?

Ye- ...wait, what?! Didn't that character die in the first movie...?


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Mark SuszkoRe: Does the world need 3 More Avatar Movies?
by on Jul 17, 2012 at 9:18:03 pm

Did I miss the link where Cameron even says this is happening?


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Scott RobertsRe: Does the world need 3 More Avatar Movies?
by on Jul 17, 2012 at 9:19:35 pm

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/James-Cameron-Making-Avatar-Movies-From-Now-...


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Mike CohenRe: Does the world need 3 More Avatar Movies?
by on Jul 19, 2012 at 5:05:21 pm

Don't read into my thread title that I do not want any sequels. I loved the 3D Avatar experience because:

It was something new. 3D was used conservatively.

It had elements we love about Jim Cameron: Aliens, sci-fi gun ships, explosions, Sigourney Weaver (who looks pretty good for a woman of 83), a mechanized fighting apparatus, and basically the same story as in all of his movies except Titanic and The Abyss (bad guys vs good guys with a lot of shooting and stuff blowing up).

I will see the sequels assuming Cameron does something else new. If it is simply going back to the pot for more money then forget it (ie, Jurassic Park 2, E.T.: The Reckoning, Witness II: Revenge of the Silo People, etc.).

Seriously, I hope that whatever he makes continues to blow us away.

And I agree, Sam Worthington is sort of unremarkable. Just saw him in "Man on a Ledge" and you could have replaced him with any other young actor - he really doesn't bring much to the role. Same with Terminator 7 - could have been anyone.

Ok, off to drink coffee for the Dark Knight marathon tonight.

Mike


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  


Mark SuszkoRe: Does the world need 3 More Avatar Movies?
by on Jul 20, 2012 at 12:36:36 am

Notice Nolan didn't shoot Dark Knight in 3d on purpose: only in IMAX. He's not a 3-D fan.


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

Mike CohenRe: Does the world need 3 More Avatar Movies?
by on Jul 20, 2012 at 2:46:42 am

You use 3D where appropriate. It is generally not needed and can be a distraction. I saw TRON in 3D IMAX. It needed neither 3D nor IMAX. It possibly didn't need to be made at all. But that's another story.

I was pleased to hear that Nolan would simply use good old fashioned 2D for his movies.

Mike

PS - I opted to not do the Batman marathon. Need to work tomorrow!


Return to posts index
Reply   Like  

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Share on Facebook


FORUMSTUTORIALSFEATURESVIDEOSPODCASTSEVENTSSERVICESNEWSLETTERNEWSBLOGS

Creative COW LinkedIn Group Creative COW Facebook Page Creative COW on Twitter
© 2014 CreativeCOW.net All rights are reserved. - Privacy Policy

[Top]