[trebleshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vampireheart

Hey simmer down! If we do that the big guys up stairs in those big studios on their big cushy chairs lose money on the DVD/BD and network events such as the crapfests known as The Oscars and we cant have the little guys on top that takes big money out of the head honcho up at the top of the chain. Go back to sleep, now where did I leave that blue pill.

LOL, I'll try to keep it down to a dull roar.

Quote:

Originally Posted by proteus

This is EXACTLY how i felt about Avatar,the "green" message was just ridiculously overwrought,and i just dont get what all the fuss was about,the only good thing to come out of seems to be that it has opened the door to more CG/effects heavy films being made...

And of course, YMMV on how "good" that technology is...

Quote:

Originally Posted by behindthemask

OK, I gotta defend Avatar a bit, because nobody seems to lol, it was the first movie to use 3d technology in the masses, not to say it was the first ever to use 3d, but it was shot all in 3d, using 3d camera, technology never before made,used or concieved was made to make his film work, tons and tons fo cgi, plus this was a movie that was stuck in the directors mind and project pile for 20 years, he just needed the wait long enough for the technology to come available, to make the movie the proper way he invisioned it. It turned out to be the best selling, most seen movie of all time.

I'm certainly not knocking the effects in Avatar, as they were impressive (even when it wasn't in 3D). But technology/effects alone don't make a good movie. You have to have a story first. And to me, the story of Avatar fell flat. Yeah, the action scenes were pretty cool but they also ran in the face of the rest of the story. Even Cameron admitted that the ending was off-base, considering the general disposition of the Na'Vi (anti-violence + one-with-nature).

Quote:

This is also 1 of 3 movies, he's making 2 more movies to create a trilogy, kinda like star wars, George Lucas waited years to gain the technology he needed to create the remaining 3 movies. I can only imagine how badass the next 2 movies will be, as like most good trilogies, the best is at the end. and the story seems more grand when you've watched the whole story unfold.

I find it hard to believe that Cameron was planning an Avatar trilogy from the start, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. And while Lucas may have waited to do the Prequels, it wasn't because he needed new technology to film them. Everything that was done in the prequels could have been done with then-current technology and would have been fine. Probably better from a story-telling point of view, since those restrictions tend make the writers more creative (IMHO).

Quote:

Yes the movie is kinda preachy, but there's a lot of good underlying messages besides don't fuck with mother nature, and to respect the earth, belief in one's self, one's identity, and sticking up for what is right, all noble beliefs, something today's culture of fb/twitter junkies could use more of.

In closing if that doesn't turn your mind on the movie and what will be a trilogy, a good friend of mine told me she thought the Avatar people were sexy blue kitties, and the 2nd time I watched the movie I totally got what she meant and made me laugh, might make you do the same if you keep that in mind, lol.

Not into the furry scene, but I can see how one might interpret Avatar that way. Pretty sure Rule 34 applies as well.

Maybe now that the shine has worn off 3D tech, Cameron can focus more on the story and try not to brow beat the audience.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jmacq1

There's not going to be any sort of "grass roots" success for John Carter, no matter how much good word of mouth it receives. "Titanic" came out in an entirely different time and place for movies (before DVD was commonplace, when movies would play in theaters for months at a stretch if they did well enough...now no matter how successful a movie is, it's out of the theater in two months, tops because the DVD/Blu-Ray probably comes out a month or two after that).

You have a point regarding ticket sales, but home video is an entirely different animal.

History is full of movies that underperformed or flat-out bombed at the theaters, only to have a new life on home video. That was my main intent behind the "cult following" comment. And that has nothing to do with how long a film was in theaters. It was also a friendly jab aimed at the Titanic fans who went to see that film multiple times during its theatrical run (for reasons I will never understand).

Quote:

And yes, when your movie costs $250 million to make, a $30 million dollar opening weekend is bad news.

Obviously. My comment was in reference to the general state of movies and the fact that not too long ago, a movie that grossed $30 mil was considered a blockbuster.