God forbid that something in a visual medium would be visually stimulating and interesting in an exceptional way.
"Avatar" Sequels Delayed...does anybody care?
- Thread starter RoJoHen
- Start date
Sarcasm is useful, but this use of it is wrong because that clearly wasn't the point. When something is ONLY visually stunning and the story is (subjectively) judged to be empty of creativity, it cheapens the whole for that person. It's like saying beauty is only skin deep. Not all beautiful people are good people. And there's nothing inherently wrong with beautiful people, but it is better when they are also good people. The sarcasm is misapplied.
No.... That was not the point of the application. The text was:
In the context of your beauty is only skin deep analogy, that's like saying that it's inappropriate that someone is famous just for being very beautiful.
Being famous for being exceptionally visually stimulating and interesting is not a wrong reason to be famous, full stop, especially in a visual medium!
People like what people like, man. No need to look down on them for it.
It doesn't "cheapen" the whole. The areas of excellence are themselves not undermined.
Last edited:
You mean it's infamous?
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0b6_i_eSgR8[/yt]
Yes, obviously there are people interested in it, simply going by reading the thread.
And while the film receives a lot of criticism, justifiable or not, to say that the only reason a billion dollar plus film is famous is for negative reasons is ridiculous. Clearly it has a large and enthusiastic fanbase.
Personally, I like Avatar - both the visuals and the story. I'm advocating for the point of view where your sarcasm is misplaced because that's what I do when I see a fallacy. You may find that the point of view you express here offends the sensibilities of people, especially women (or movies), who do not appreciate being judged by their good looks when they have so much more to offer but that is ignored by those who can't get past her looks. But when there actually is nothing more to offer than their looks, their name is Kim Kardashian or her movie equivalent. So I guess some people feel that Avatar is Kim Kardashian and that's where we need to understand they are coming from. Is beauty bad? Not at all. Is beauty bad in the form of a Kim Kardashian metaphor for movies? It's more likely.
By the way, there's probably some related point that would be cute to discuss from the Star Trek episode "Is There In Truth No Beauty," but I just didn't take the time to explore it.
Last edited:
Um. The part you quoted of mine there, that I've underlined, was intended to be in reference only to films. That was intended to be completely obvious, since the phrase "visually stimulating and interesting" was the one I used in this post, verbatim. In retrospect, it would have been clearer, and arguably grammatically/semantically more correct, for me to have said, instead of the underlined:
Revised CC said:
It's true that it applies to any visual medium, though.
By the way, the word famous was Dales's word, in reference to film, in the post that sparked this whole sidebar.
The only thing I said (or meant to say) about beautiful people (and it's funny that you should apparently assume I was talking exclusively about women) was this...
... which was in a completely separate paragraph from the quote of mine I've underlined above, and it was only in reply to something you'd brought up:
You're the one who chose to introduce a comparison to beautiful people; I'd only been talking about film (beautiful films), and except for one paragraph responding to your analogy about beautiful people that's all I was talking about.
It seems you're conflating moral worth with popularity.
on point. what made the avatar films was the visual spectacle not the story. James has always been better in creating a visual spectacle than writing an amazing story.
I was one of those people who never felt the avatar sequels would make avengers or star wars 7kind of money. unless by an amazing chance james releases them in 4D that is not converted but actually shot in 4D which is right now impossible.
Not in the slightest bit interested. 3 sequels to a Smurf film that came out in 2008 and was something of a gimmick movie at the time. Unfortunately beyond the gimmick the movie itself bored me too. I miss the Terminator and True Lies days of Cameron film making.
Yea, my mother and I both saw it on DVD. If my mother was still with us. she'd be looking forward to the next movie. I still amI watched Avatar for the first time on DVD on my SDTV. It had decent CG, but I enjoyed it for the story, not the effects
The characters are interesting, the setting is extraordinary but the stroy for at least the first movie was rather ordinary. Star Wars and The Matrix were similar in their set ups, it remains to be seen if the Avatar sequels are up to the task of building on the original storyline and characters.
Sorry to dig this thread up, but seemed appropriate, it was hard to seach for "Avatar" and not just get a load of contest threads! 
So first it was one movie, then it would be a trilogy, then there would be four... well now there's gonna be five.
http://www.superherohype.com/news/3...quels-update-now-planning-four-films#/slide/1
"The first of the Avatar sequels is slated to arrive December of 2018, with the second to follow in 2020, the third in 2022, and the final one in 2023"
Personally I really enjoyed the original, and obviously looking forward to a sequel. But... well just make sure you concentrate on making the first sequel a decent movie and not spreading yourself too thin thinking about 3, 4 and 5! You only have to look at the likes of the Amazing Spider-Man and Terminator: Genysis films of folk getting carried away with themselves thinking so far ahead..
So first it was one movie, then it would be a trilogy, then there would be four... well now there's gonna be five.
http://www.superherohype.com/news/3...quels-update-now-planning-four-films#/slide/1
"The first of the Avatar sequels is slated to arrive December of 2018, with the second to follow in 2020, the third in 2022, and the final one in 2023"
Personally I really enjoyed the original, and obviously looking forward to a sequel. But... well just make sure you concentrate on making the first sequel a decent movie and not spreading yourself too thin thinking about 3, 4 and 5! You only have to look at the likes of the Amazing Spider-Man and Terminator: Genysis films of folk getting carried away with themselves thinking so far ahead..
It's a tradition for people to whine about Cameron taking forever (and spending too much) to make his films, and then the moment they come out, they break records. People should not expect a simple continuation of the look and feel of Avatar circa 2009. It's going to push the envelope as much as it can be pushed. Whether that's reached a point of diminishing returns or not (witness the gimmickry of The Hobbit films) we'll have to wait and see.
I'm vaguely curious about the next Avatar movies, but I don't particularly care whether it comes out now or later.
I genuinely liked the first movie, so I'm up for sequels. I'm a bit wary about it (the first movie didn't feel like it should have a sequel), but I'm interested. Now, four sequels seems like a bit much, especially announcing them all before seeing if one sequel will do well, but it will be interesting to see what they come up with.
Next years announcement: The first of five Avatar sequels will arrive December 2020 ...
At this point it feels like an elaborate joke, the sequels are getting pushed back and are growing in number but nothing ever happens.