I'll have you know I wash regularly.
There's something, of course, to be said for consistently directing good films. Cameron's name wouldn't mean much otherwise.
"Avatar" Sequels Delayed...does anybody care?
- Thread starter RoJoHen
- Start date
I'll have you know I wash regularly.
There's something, of course, to be said for consistently directing good films. Cameron's name wouldn't mean much otherwise.
That's seriously weak, man. People all over the world paid to see that movie - many repeatedly - and continue to buy the Blu-ray because they liked it.
It really is that simple. This "everybody's out of step but Johnny" stuff is snobbish nonsense.
Avatar was Dances with Wolves meets The Last Samurai in space, but it was entertaining as hell, with a brilliantly-realized world that you escaped to for 3 hours. No, it wasn't a masterpiece. But I'll watch the sequels because I want to go back to Pandora. Simple as.
I thought Avatar was decent and it was nice to see Sigourney Weaver in a sci-fi movie again, but, frankly, I could care less if they continue the storyline or not. The initial movie, as it stands, resolved the main storylines quite nicely- it was essentially "Dances With Wolves" in a sci-fi setting. Maybe there is more that can be done with the "Avatar-verse" but I'd be just as content if they ended it then and there.
Yes, but Dances With Wolves ended on a downer, was historical fiction of which we are in its future, and we know exactly what happened from then until now. Avatar didn't, isn't, and we don't.
Aaaaaaaarrrrggghhhhhh!!
If what he did before and after Titanic is any measure, he's probably talking some studio into financing an expedition to the moon on the pretext that he can use the 3D footage in a sweeping romantic drama set during the Apollo era.
Oh and making an appearance on Mythbusters.
When you peel back most films you'll see they're all based on a fixed number of plots. Wrath of Khan has a lot of Moby Dick in it, for instance. Or go back to the primordial "good sci-fi" template, Forbidden Planet (aka The Tempest). So I think this criticism is the usual internet hater attempt to rain on a movie that made so much money.
Cameron always takes forever on his films, always goes over budget, always has people doubt him, and always laughs last. The only exception to this rule was The Abyss.
Andy Warhol released a film called 'Empire' which was about two hours watching the nav warning light blink on top of the Empire State Building. My favorite quote of his: "Art is what you get away with"...
I just saw 'Titanic' for the first time last month, and I even had the double VHS set unopened on my shelf for years. I just have a resistance of being stampeded into a film that "everybody loves". I really respect the amount of time and talent it takes to product a film like that, but I feel no urgency to join the crowd either.
I don't wonder.
I can imagine that some of those illustrious psychologists that study Internet "trolls" could likely draw a connection between how much time a person spends commenting on the Internet and that person's level of cynicism and desire to negatively judge entertainment properties.
The unwashed masses must have been busy not washing their hair the day The Abyss, Ghosts of the Abyss, and Aliens of the Deep came out.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_...irrational_or_ungrammatical_as_you_might.html
Besides, isn't it rather contradictory to believe that the unwashed masses, the ultimate in casual fans, would follow a director with that much fervor to see anything with his name attached?
What are the wrong reasons?
I went and seen it, thought it was decent and never saw it again. If there are sequels, I might revisit the first film on Blu-ray.