Avatar to have three sequels

[Deezy]

I honestly don't know what you are talking about, what movies besides his first two low budget movies Xenogenesis, Prinha 2 are meh? He's only done 9 movies so far, and the films are not bad by any stretch. So he uses special effects, how is that a strike against him? Success boi, him and Michael Bay have plenty of it. Frustrated filmakers can cry all they want, but let's be honest here. When your movies rake in billions of dollars all those people who paid to see them can't be wrong.

Also inventing cameras, sfx techniques and ILM software are raising the bar of cinema, way more important than Spielberg or Scorsese doing dolly shots.

 

[John McHenry]

But he's only done the 9 movies so it's more of luck (or perhaps skill at picking scripts/writing) But he's not actually a great director. He's a good director. He's a great writer but only a good director.

 

[Keith]

^ Well I am more on Bash's side on this one, also deezy in a previous post said that the first Avatar was rubbish so why are you now saying that you would look forward to the sequels?

I am a bigger fan of Cameron's earlier work, really like the original Terminator film as it was just something different in the Sci-Fi/action genre. Also thought he did a decent job with the second Alien film, after that not many of his films have interested me. Good technical director yeah, but to be a great filmmaker takes more than that. He has had his fare share of luck, but everyone needs luck at some point. Part of the success of Avatar was down to the twelve year gap between films, it made a new James Cameron film more of a big deal, but I think with three sequels he is over doing it and could come unstuck.

 

[Deezy]

I didn't say Avatar was rubbish, you are putting words into my mouth, I could do the same and say you were on Camerons dick a few posts ago, and now you are saying he is just lucky.

I said "I didn't enjoy Avatar", but as a native, I don't enjoy movies that hit me over the head about colonialism. I know that shit pretty well. Someone said the sequels were going to explore the oceans, and seeing as Cameron is somewhat of an expert on deep sea diving, I do look forward to seeing what he will put on screen. Am I not allowed to be persuaded by others into changing my original viewpoint on certain things?

Waiting years to build the technology to put what you want on screen is not being "lucky", it's by design. And Avatar, still with it's lazy writing is all about the pretty colours, style always trumps substance in the world of cinema, first movie to use 3D perfectly and probably the last one imo.

 

[Keith]

I didn't say Avatar was rubbish, you are putting words into my mouth, I could do the same and say you were on Camerons dick a few posts ago, and now you are saying he is just lucky.

I said "I didn't enjoy Avatar", but as a native, I don't enjoy movies that hit me over the head about colonialism. I know that shit pretty well. Someone said the sequels were going to explore the oceans, and seeing as Cameron is somewhat of an expert on deep sea diving, I do look forward to seeing what he will put on screen. Am I not allowed to be persuaded by others into changing my original viewpoint on certain things?

Waiting years to build the technology to put what you want on screen is not being "lucky", it's by design. And Avatar, still with it's lazy writing is all about the pretty colours, style always trumps substance in the world of cinema, first movie to use 3D perfectly and probably the last one imo.

Fair enough on the first and second parts, but I don't think him exploring the worlds of Deep Sea Diving to its fullest extent is enough to hang three sequels on. It may just be a personal thing but if I want to see that I will watch a documentary on the subject.

Your confusing my argument a little, I didn't really say he was lucky on Avatar just that it made a difference that it was his first film in 12 or 13 years, that was part of the big sell for the movie and that is why he could come unstuck with the sequels.

I think great characters and stories always trump effects. When people talk about Back to the Future don't they remember it more for the coming of age story, and the funny dialogue and timeless characters than the effects? The effects have a part to play, but when you have a three hour movie it is a big mistake to build it around the effects, rather than those effects just being a supporting feature for the story.

 

[Embrace Thou Maryse]

I honestly don't know what you are talking about, what movies besides his first two low budget movies Xenogenesis, Prinha 2 are meh? He's only done 9 movies so far, and the films are not bad by any stretch. So he uses special effects, how is that a strike against him? Success boi, him and Michael Bay have plenty of it. Frustrated filmakers can cry all they want, but let's be honest here. When your movies rake in billions of dollars all those people who paid to see them can't be wrong.

Also inventing cameras, sfx techniques and ILM software are raising the bar of cinema, way more important than Spielberg or Scorsese doing dolly shots.

Its no secret pretty colours sell better than talent. Just look at the Transformers movies, I'm a fan of them but there's nothing of any depth there, just robots going smash. Look at the music industry, mindless, talentless garbage outsells people who can sing without autotune.

 

[Keith]

Its no secret pretty colours sell better than talent. Just look at the Transformers movies, I'm a fan of them but there's nothing of any depth there, just robots going smash. Look at the music industry, mindless, talentless garbage outsells people who can sing without autotune.

Not that you are wrong, but everything comes to an end and there is a sense that people are starting to get fed up with that style of filmmaking, don't forget some of the most successful movies of recent years have been the likes of the Nolan Batman films (exciting action yes, nothing wrong with that, but also moody character driven films), Bridemaids (a refreshing female led black comedy), Les Miserables (classic musical with issues attached) and the King's Speech (I didn't get all the hype, but no explosions or flashy effects here). Not to mention the likes of Black Swan, The place Beyond the Pines and The Muppets which have all appealed to different audiences.

 

[Chris]

Not that you are wrong, but everything comes to an end and there is a sense that people are starting to get fed up with that style of filmmaking, don't forget some of the most successful movies of recent years have been the likes of the Nolan Batman films (exciting action yes, nothing wrong with that, but also moody character driven films), Bridemaids (a refreshing female led black comedy), Les Miserables (classic musical with issues attached) and the King's Speech (I didn't get all the hype, but no explosions or flashy effects here). Not to mention the likes of Black Swan, The place Beyond the Pines and The Muppets which have all appealed to different audiences.

This last part is what makes it where you aren't really arguing for your cause anymore. What ETM said was about the mainstream audience and which movies are the top grossing there. Superhero movies are always the best the past few years (I like most of them so I don't have a problem with this), not any oscar winners that get amazing reviews.

 

[Mick Donalds]

The Oscars haven't been relevant since they decided to base their awarding system on whomever is playing a blueberry, gay, obscure painter, obscure musician, or whatever Meryl Streep did that year. Same old shit, year after year.

The Oscars are completely worthless. Good movies are constituted by a mainstream audience, not what a bunch of artsy, hipster homos in Napa Valley think was the best because it was only available in 4 theaters.
(even if a mainstream audience is stupid enough to keep giving Michael Bay their money) Just my .02