Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Avatar 2

Options
1…34689…14

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    Oafley Jones
    Registered Users Posts: 6,468 ✭✭✭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.



  • Options
    #153
    pixelburp
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,006 CMod ✭✭✭✭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.)



  • Options
    #154
    speedboatchase
    Registered Users Posts: 5,779 ✭✭✭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.



  • Options
    #155
    speedboatchase
    Registered Users Posts: 5,779 ✭✭✭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.



  • Options
    #156
    TheIrishGrover
    Registered Users Posts: 6,018 ✭✭✭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)



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    peteeeed
    Registered Users Posts: 13,563 ✭✭✭✭peteeeed


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

    new trailer



  • Options
    #158
    2smiggy
    Registered Users Posts: 20,238 ✭✭✭✭2smiggy


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

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



  • Options
    #159
    CastorTroy
    Registered Users Posts: 28,912 ✭✭✭✭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/




  • Options
    #160
    Shred
    Registered Users Posts: 2,473 ✭✭✭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.



  • Options
    #161
    pixelburp
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,006 CMod ✭✭✭✭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/




  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    pixelburp
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,006 CMod ✭✭✭✭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




  • Options
    #163
    johnny_ultimate
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,229 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


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



  • Options
    #164
    FortuneChip
    Registered Users Posts: 2,749 ✭✭✭FortuneChip


    Visually appealing pseudo-spirital nonsense.

    Ah, sure why not?



  • Options
    #165
    silliussoddius
    Registered Users Posts: 3,864 ✭✭✭silliussoddius


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

    And 3 hours and 10 minutes at that!



  • Options
    #166
    pixelburp
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,006 CMod ✭✭✭✭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.



  • Options
    #167
    McFly85
    Registered Users Posts: 3,007 ✭✭✭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.



  • Options
    #168
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 17,853 ✭✭✭✭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

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #169
    Flinty997
    Registered Users Posts: 11,782 ✭✭✭✭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.



  • Options
    #170
    Sad Professor
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,671 CMod ✭✭✭✭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...



  • Options
    #171
    Flinty997
    Registered Users Posts: 11,782 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


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



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    KilOit
    Registered Users Posts: 2,990 ✭✭✭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.



  • Options
    #173
    FunLover18
    Registered Users Posts: 6,793 ✭✭✭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.



  • Options
    #174
    Flinty997
    Registered Users Posts: 11,782 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


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



  • Options
    #175
    CastorTroy
    Registered Users Posts: 28,912 ✭✭✭✭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.



  • Options
    #176
    CastorTroy
    Registered Users Posts: 28,912 ✭✭✭✭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/



  • Options
    #177
    Mr Crispy
    Registered Users Posts: 7,765 ✭✭✭Mr Crispy


    New trailer;

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




  • Options
    #178
    pixelburp
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,006 CMod ✭✭✭✭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.



  • Options
    #179
    2smiggy
    Registered Users Posts: 20,238 ✭✭✭✭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.



  • Options
    #180
    pixelburp
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,006 CMod ✭✭✭✭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



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    TheIrishGrover
    Registered Users Posts: 6,018 ✭✭✭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



Advertisement