Avatar 2

Oafley Jones

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119292498#Comment_119292498

That's not saying much. A bit of background...

2010: The Wizarding World of Harry Potter opens in Universal Orlando. Immediately it's declared a game changer in the industry and drives huge growth towards the resort. Disney had been been trying to acquire the rights for years, but JK Rowling balked at their extremely half arsed approach. Universal gave Rowling final say in every aspect of the design and worked closely with the film's production designers to replicate the look of the film. It's mostly built by ex Disney imagineers.

Bob Iger has been CEO since 2005. He's allowed the parks to stagnate, with little investment. He prefers financial engineering to pad out the Parks numbers. Under pressure from the board (vanity also plays a part here) Bob announces in 2011 that he's finally building a new land in one of WDW's parks. Based on Avatar. The most successful movie ever.

2014: Universal announces a second WWoHP land at Studios. They open it.

2016: Jim Cameron has threatened to walk away again. An ultimatum is issued and both parties land on an acceptable layout and design. Some earth gets moved around Disney's Animal Kingdom. Also, WWoHP is announced and opens in Universal Studios Hollywood.

2017: Iger announces that Avatarland will open later that year. And it does after almost seven long years.

That's how much Disney believes in the property.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119295068#Comment_119295068

Ouch; and those timelines are interesting 'cos in between those dates, I imagine both Star Wars and the MCU started really coming into their own for Disney, further relegating the Avatar development.

(sidebar, not a criticism of you, but I really shudder at the term "imagineer" Blergh.)

speedboatchase

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119296797#Comment_119296797

Right now MCU and Star Wars are Disney's bread and butter, but post-Avatar 2 that could change. I feel like Star Wars is slowly being relegated to a TV-only property and a lot will depend on that (far off) upcoming Taika Watiti movie.

speedboatchase

Read the Empire magazine cover article and didn't realise that Sigourney Weaver's appearance will be in a different character: the adopted teenager daughter of the two main characters. Yes, a 72-year-old actress will portray a teenager.

Most likely this will probably be some kind of reincarnation of Weaver's character (assuming the teenage aspect refers to the amount of time since she died in the original and is 'reborn') but still... seems a wild decision.

TheIrishGrover

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119297000#Comment_119297000

I think this is a decent point. It would certainly seem that the... uh... shine... is beginning to fade from MCU and Star Wars franchises. I mean, don't get me wrong, they are still making literally billions of dollars but you can bet that Disney are looking to reignite another "next thing" franchise that MCU became. They are regurgitating "live action" versions of their animated back catalogue. And this shows no signs of abating. And these are paying the bills. (I'm old enough to remember the dearth of quality Disney animation in the 70s/80s and their cheap (Often made for US TV but released theatrically in Europe) live action stuff). But they need their "Holy cr*p. You have GOT to see this on the biggest screen you can find"... word of mouth.

As you say, Waititi's Star Wars is years away if it ever happens at all (Remember Tarantino's Star Trek?). Personally I don't think it will happen at all. So Star Wars for the foreseeable future will be Disney+ bound. MCU is still doing pretty well but, as I said, it's... It's not that it's going downhill or anything. They still make metric tonnes of money but it's so regular now that it's almost routine: Another 3 months, another MCU movie/TV series.

Whereas the first sequel to the most successful movie of all time (Is it that again? I know if hopped back and forth with Endgame)? Directed by James Cameron? And NOT a desperate cash-in (cough-Matrix-cough)? That should get a hell of a lot of bums in seats. I will admit, the promotion has been lacking so far. I would have expected teasers basically showing nothing but logo and voiceover to have started last year. Should be feverpitch by September.October (Time yet I suppose)

peteeeed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpFd4NwnrCo

new trailer

2smiggy

https://twitter.com/JimCameron/status/1562108193961938952

I thought it was the new one upon reading it first yesterday evening

CastorTroy

Can't confirm it was there as hadn't looked for it before but seems the first one has been removed from Disney+ ahead of the theatrical rerelease. And supposedly will be returned later. I think I remember it being added a while back but can't say for sure.

https://variety.com/2022/film/news/avatar-disney-plus-removal-1235348400/

Shred

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119513650#Comment_119513650

I’ll be definitely going to this, the first one remains the most impressive 3d cinema experience I’ve had; if only other studios hadn’t sought to cash in on 3d and actually put some thought and effort in using it it might have stuck around longer.

pixelburp

Hollywood Reporter got the runtime and it's a bladder testing 3 hours 10 minutes. So about 3 hours for the actual movie, at least 10 for credits?

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/avatar-way-of-water-runtime-1235251391/

pixelburp

New trailer has dropped; credit where it's due, the CGI and the world created does remain rather awe-inspiring. As much as I'd like Cameron to return to something grungier and stripped-down - the guy knows what he's doing.

https://youtu.be/d9MyW72ELq0

johnny_ultimate

Find someone who looks at you the way James Cameron looks at the ocean.

FortuneChip

Visually appealing pseudo-spirital nonsense.

Ah, sure why not?

silliussoddius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119824375#Comment_119824375

And 3 hours and 10 minutes at that!

pixelburp

If the trailer is anything to go by, the sequel might further lean into Humans being the antagonists, as it doesn't seem to imply we'll see much from their side beyond as the enemy.

Mind you, as a man so enamoured with the ocean as Cameron is, he's probably very aware at just how knackered the environment is at this stage. I'd not be surprised if the humans in this are even more comically evil than before.

McFly85

It’ll be very nice to go to the cinema to watch CGI that you know will have been an integral part of the filmmaking process. I’m sure the whole film will look as stunning as the trailer.

Im expecting practically nothing from the story, though.

silverharp

Im sure it will do well but its kind of a copy paste movie, I remember I liked the first film but special effects dont do it for me anymore

Flinty997

I really liked the first one. I liked the story, the concept, pretty much everything. A good yarn, visually impressive. Lots of SciFi/fantasy tropes and the better for it imo.

People try overcomplicate things these days and lose the plot literally and figuratively. I don't need 2hrs of martial arts and a plot that ties itself in knots.

Sad Professor

I really liked the first teaser and you count Cameron out at your peril yada yada... but this is a bit too much deja vu. They are still leaning heavily on ooh and aah without giving a good sense of what the film is actually about and how the story is going to sustain another 4 films. I admire the first Avatar as a technical achievement but anytime I have revisited it I get to the half-way point before I start wondering why I didn't just put Dances with Wolves on instead. However the marketing is just ramping up and they'll probably be in "remember Avatar?" mode for most of it, so we'll see...

Flinty997

There are lot of movie before and after Dances with Wolves basically on the same theme. Some better, many worse.

KilOit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119824824#Comment_119824824

I wouldn't say they were comically evil at all. look what civilized nations did to Africa and the Americas when it was discovered. lookup Leopold 2nd on what he did in the Congo. I thought the Na'vi were mostly treated well before the military went nuclear.

If man discovered some distant planet they would suck it dry no matter the consequences.

FunLover18

With 4 sequels coming I just can't help but feel that Cameron is going to do to the Avatar franchise what the humans are trying to do to Pandora. I'm curious as where he goes with the story but not enough to actually watch 4 three hour sequels.

Flinty997

It's titanic 2 and 3 I'm curious about..

CastorTroy

After being removed before the rerelease, it looks like the first film has been added back to Disney+. Looks to only be the original 1080p version rather than the new version.

CastorTroy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119843812#Comment_119843812

I only went through it quickly but Titanic 2 was not good

https://m.imdb.com/title/tt1640571/

Mr Crispy

New trailer;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5F8MOz_IDw

pixelburp

The water FX do look rather convincing in places, and unlike much CGI these days, to be fair I was rarely looking at the CGI, if you catch my drift.

Sam Worthington must be laughing, especially if his contract has any kind of profit sharing aspect to these movies.

2smiggy

see it advertised at my local cinema for both normal viewing and 3d. is this made for 3d like the original. Went to cinema to see that in 3d and really enjoyed it.

pixelburp

May just be hyperbole from the man, but Cameron revealed that this is going to need to do big money to make any back:

The Way of Water was expensive to make—How expensive? “Very ****,” according to Cameron, who told me he’d informed the studio that the film represented “the worst business case in movie history.” In order to be profitable, he’d said, “you have to be the third or fourth highest-grossing film in history. That’s your threshold. That’s your break even.”

Yikes. But then it is James Cameron, so if anyone stood a chance here...

Came via an interview with GQ

https://www.gq.com/story/james-cameron-profile-men-of-the-year-2022

TheIrishGrover

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119907454#Comment_119907454

Didn't they have a budget of 900 million+ for three sequels? So assuming this one cost, what, 320 million... Plus another couple of hundred million for advertising. Yeah, accounting-wise I'm assuming they will need about 1 billion to "break-even" and 2 billion to "make money".... Insane money

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119907837#Comment_119907837

When you tot up those numbers ... yikes. 2 billion before money's made; Hollywood has gone truly insane. Of course, the other factor is films running for months & months, slowly accumulating, is relatively rare these days; the window to make these Megabucks has shortened IMO bar the occasional Top Gun Maverick

loyatemu

only a fool would bet against JC but that trailer looks super boring, even if the the 3D effects are amazing, we saw it all before in the first film.

johnny_ultimate

It's actually the Na'vi themselves I find hard to get over. In a film that looks like it has some of the most impeccable CG scenery and waterscapes, those lanky blue folk still stand out as rater cartoonish despite the obviously great care that has gone into crafting them.

As for the film's chances of success, well it does have every chance as it seems to be getting a saturation release. There's not a single film I'd personally class as a 'blockbuster' competitor released between December 1st and early to mid February. Plenty of great indie films and awards-season fare, of course, but Avatar is out there on its own grabbing the 'premium' multiplex screens for at least a month or two.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119910225#Comment_119910225

I wouldn't bet against Cameron; but I also wouldn't bet for him either. Precisely because this feels like a litmus test for his powers as they exist in modern blockbuster cinema. Time was he alone could define what blockbusters were by upping the ante, and his peerless craft; this has always looked like more of the same, now swamped by ... well, the MCU.

silverharp

I heard it needs to be the third highest grossing film to breakeven? You'd kind of hope they get a financial kicking.

TheIrishGrover

I don't know, I think this is going to make a metric tonne of money. I can see this making 2.5 Billion. If he does it right, he will have a whole new generation of audience. For all the spectacle, Titanic and Avatar had paper-thin and predictable "storylines" But Titanic especially appealed to the teenage audience given its romance plotline and DiCaprio, Winslett etc. It looks like they are going to lean into a bit of teenage romance. So potentially you could have a HUGE teenage audience, Kids who may not have gone to the cinema for years. Looking for something not on their phones.

I know I sounds like an old fart ('cos I am), but I think you could have a large amount of people looking for a big blockbuster that is NOT as Superhero movie. Another group of people who just want to see a James Cameron film on screen again. And potentially a large teenage audience (Pending decent work of mouth).

I think the animation looks amazing. Any "floatiness" I put down to different environment and the fact that they are not human. As opposed to some "uncanny valley" disconnect. The facial animations in the original are still amazing (The fact that the characters are not human does help and will help here).

So I'm not saying it will be a great movie. Avatar itself was not a great movie but it was certainly a spectacle and needed to be seen on the biggest screen you could find. There is no doubt it changed how movies are made: From convincing digital environments (Some of the internal shots do look a bit ropey) to Weta's amazing facial animation. Expanding on their awesome work with Golumn.

So, I think it will be a pretty paper-thin. Not so much "Dances With Aliens" that the first one was but more of a "Romeo and Bluey-ette" with some (well crafted) action sequences (Say what you want about Cameron, he knows how to construct a coherent action sequence). But I suspect it will be HUGELY popular.

I certainly hope so. If only to shake things up a bit and to introduce a new generation to James Cameron action "Hey, did you see that real old movie Terminator 2?"

youngblood

I really don't think a movie of this size is going to be mega blockbuster it would traditionally have been.

Interest in this film is at best, average.

The viewing audience has changed hugely over the last 10 years and the appetite for seeing movies on the big screen as a must-see event, has waned greatly.

I hope it succeeds on story telling/animation front.

santana75

Went to book tickets there and noticed the run time: 3hrs 13mins!!!

youngblood

It's been given a China release which is something many Hollywood Blockbusters have failed to do over the last 2 years.

However with enforced Covid lock downs in China, it may not prove to be the boost a China release would traditionally bring to a movie of this size

Josey Wales

Is there a list of what cinemas are showing this in HFR 3D?

Movies@Dundrum are showing it in that format but I don't see anything on Cineworld or Odeon websites.

Big Gerry

Is Avatar 2 going to be in 3D ?

speedboatchase

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119949070#Comment_119949070

Yep

peteeeed

reviews are starting to come out

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/dec/07/silly-soggy-or-screamingly-good-first-responses-to-avatar-the-way-of-water-emerge

Theboinkmaster

absolutely no interest in this film.

silverharp

The summary I saw was, looks great, thinner plot than the first, drags in the middle, 3rd Act is great

youngblood

These are gonna be the most divisive yet I feel!

MisterAnarchy

3 hours 13 minutes is ludicrous .

No need for any film to be that length especially something like this, its not plot heavy.

Big Gerry

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119967899#Comment_119967899

 Cameron thinks 3D is on a par with Colour in the advancement of film technology.

But I'd say 3D is more comparable to surround sound.

In some films 3D and surround sound can totally immersive you in the environment but in other films they are just not needed at all like in a court room drama.

Big Gerry

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119969369#Comment_119969369

I have never watched a film over 2 and a half hours that I liked.

I think 2 and a half hours is the max length any film should be before you start to get bored.

Josey Wales

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119982145#Comment_119982145

Depends on the person. For me, if the film is good enough, it doesn't matter how long it is. Films like Lawrence of Arabia, Godfather 2, LoTRs, The Wolf of Wall Street - all long, excellent films.