Avatar - biggest movie, least impact?

[Push The Button]

I remember that Sigourney Weaver, Giovanni Ribisi and Stephen Lang were in it, but only because I like those actors. I don't remember anything about the main character, or the actor that played him.

It was a mildly interesting movie for me, the same way that Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow was interesting because it was one of the first movies shot almost entirely in front of a green screen. In other words, the technical production gimmickry was more interesting to me than the story, plot or characters.

 

[HIjol]

I don't know that its following has gone anywhere. I'm expecting the sequels to have the same amount of general appeal the original had and to bring back whatever hard-core of fans is still out there running forums about Na'vi (which, I'm assuming they're out there in the fan-forum version of Rule 34).

What I'm getting to be more intrigued by is... why does the franchise status of Avatar obsess Trekkies so much?

I did spend some time thinking about this question, BigJake, because I am a Trekkie, and I did focus a little bit on Avatar. Here are my thoughts:

Cameron is a Huge name to many of us
Roddenberry is a Huge name to many of us

Star Trek was about hope and challenge, conflict and resolution, flaw and redemption
Avatar had wonderful and awful aspects, greed and callousness, caring and altruism

Star Trek, for its time, and even now, was high-tech and relevant/applicable to our world
Avatar has tech that is really in the pipeline, and has relevance to our technological advances

Star Trek was based in a Universe that we recognize, but also in places that we only imagine
Avatar's setting is also recognizable, but, in part, beyond our current understanding

Star Trek has strong protagonists/antagonists and twists and turns that keep us interested
Avatar, while its characters are not so universally recognized - yet - also keeps our interest

The themes of both are those we have faced, in different guises, or, at least, ones we can see on the horizon, depending on our choices and direction, as a people. We can relate.

 

[Magellan]

All I remember is unobtanium.

That was my most memorable part also. While relaying what the movie was about for friends, I had to keep stopping with 'No, that is what they actually called it"

 

[Noname Given]

In the recent SF franchises thread, Avatar got mentioned, and since SW TFA came out it's getting mentioned by the media every day, but it's always about how much money it made, never about it's story, characters, theme or anything related to the actual content of the film itself.

It's kind of weird that a film that everyone has seen and was well liked has left almost no trace on pop culture, there's no quotes from it, there's no memorable scenes, there doesn't seem to be a dedicated core fanbase of it, it's like it doesn't represent anything in the public eye except the money it made.

Anyway, apparently, next year a sequel is getting released, and two more in years after that.
So what do you think, can the sequels reignite interest in it? Does it have a shot at becoming a successful franchise, or has that ship sailed already?

Again as others have said, it's impact was on how the CGI was used and incorporated. As for anytory/character' impact: For me - meh. Story wise it was 'Pocahontas: In Space'

 

[Gaith]

I probably would've gone to see it in 3D in theaters at least once had it been rereleased around Christmastime. I'd think it'd be ideal for national one-night-only revivals that digital distribution and projection has facilitated...

 

[tomalak301]

I wouldn't mind going to see Avatar again, in 3D in the Theater. Maybe something can be worked out to show it before the sequel comes out. Remind myself what the movie was about.

 

[dahj]

I'm not sure what kind of impact it's supposed to have.

Like a fandom, for one.
Way, way smaller, older, cheaper, crappier SF films have "cult followings".
This is the biggest science fiction film of all time, yet no discernible fandom anywhere.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

Like a fandom, for one.
Way, way smaller, older, cheaper, crappier SF films have "cult followings".
This is the biggest science fiction film of all time, yet no discernible fandom anywhere.

Wait, what?! Give me one good example.

By the way, a "cult following" is not quite the same as a fandom. A cult following is usually what smaller, cheaper movies have. Because a "cult following" is way smaller than an actual fandom.

 

[Richard Baker]

I respect the film in it's technique but did not care much about the story or the characters. Visually stunning but I just could not connect with it like some films.
I brought up my copy from downstairs last weekend so my wife can see it for the first time.

 

[dahj]

By the way, a "cult following" is not quite the same as a fandom. A cult following is usually what smaller, cheaper movies have. Because a "cult following" is way smaller than an actual fandom.

Yeah. That's what I mean. Sci-Fi films, no matter how small or tiny usually get some core group of fans, or a cult following as they say.
You'd expect the biggest movie of all time to get a proper fandom. Like what happened to SW when it broke all records, or more recently when MCU hit it big.

 

[Trekker4747]

Avatar could have had "an impact" and maybe have been more memorable in people's minds if it has been soon followed up on with a sequel in order to build the franchise. And I know a sequel is due at the end of next year but that's sort-of my point. Considering the hype and the following it had at the time Avatar should have been quickly followed up on to capitalize on that; not eight years later. Marvel will have burned through most of their fist, huge, hunk of their franchise by the time Avatar 2 comes out, Star Wars through two new movies and a third tangential one.

It's hard to keep momentum and hype going for your franchise when you make a movie for it once every time your body completes rebuilding itself.

 

[slappy]

It's because it was an experience over being a movie. As a movie, it just wasn't that great.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Avatar could have had "an impact" and maybe have been more memorable in people's minds if it has been soon followed up on with a sequel in order to build the franchise.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I said earlier. The double-edged sword in this is that it takes long enough to make that next year is probably the earliest they could have gone anyway. And there's another thing. The movie pushed huge advances in 3D, pretty much changed the way 3D is looked at (no pun intended). But it's now out there and the next movie is likely not going to have that advantage tied to it. The huge numbers the movie got in the first place was because people were curious to see just how well it used 3D.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

Yeah. That's what I mean. Sci-Fi films, no matter how small or tiny usually get some core group of fans, or a cult following as they say.
You'd expect the biggest movie of all time to get a proper fandom. Like what happened to SW when it broke all records, or more recently when MCU hit it big.

That's actually a phenomenon of smaller movies. It's more of a psychological thing, you connect with other people over a movie you've seen, but you also dissociate yourself from people who haven't seen that particular movie. The bond you have with people is special, but not if everyone has seen that movie.
It is only with sequels that a big movie can create a fandom, because then it creates the mythology, the discussions can start over which installment was the better one, etc..

On the note that it's been too long for the sequel, there were seven years between 'The Terminator' and 'Terminator 2: Judgement Day'.

 

[Corran Horn]

Disney is leveraging the IP for a big new build-out in Animal Kingdom - so I think it's a little much to be like "nobody gives a shit about Avatar anymore."

 

[crookeddy]

The next Avatar movie is supposed to do the same thing for HFR that Avatar did for 3D...

 

[Kor]

Yuck, high frame rate.

A CGI soap opera on a fifty foot screen? No, thanks.

Kor

 

[CorporalClegg]

I don't think HFR is going to catch on in the same way. The metrics overwhelmingly suggest people cap videogames at 60, even if their monitors are capable for higher. And that's videogames.

 

[Skywalker]

The Hobbit already did high frame rate and it seems to have been received pretty negatively. And that was at 48 FPS. The Avatar sequels are supposed to be filmed at 60 FPS.

 

[tomalak301]

The next Avatar movie is supposed to do the same thing for HFR that Avatar did for 3D...

I thought that's what the Hobbit movies were trying to do?