Avatar 2

I've read a few people comment on Neytiri being sidelined etc. It is true that she is sidelined initially, but isn't that clearly the point?

A major theme of the film is "fight or flight". It surfaces repeatedly in different ways, but one of the main ways is in the depiction of Jake and Neytiri. Despite having the reputation of a "warrior", Jake's instinct is to repeatedly run/hide/compromise. This frustrates Neytiri, who is sidelined as "the mother" yet clearly believes that they need to take risks and confront the threat they face head on. Both are afraid for their family, and both are right/wrong. There is no easy answer, but the film does take a position.

As the film progresses, Jake offers to make the ultimate sacrifice in order to protect his family. This goes against Neytiri's instincts, and she finally snaps. The situation escalates and the audience absolutely gets what they have been "missing" from the film up until that point. The "fight" ensues and while it's the right call, everything comes at a price...

This theme is explicitly reinforced by the final line and shot of the film. The film is ultimately saying that you can't run and hide forever, and you have to fight for your family - safety isn't guaranteed either way.

IMO Cameron is a much smarter screenwriter than people give him credit for. On the surface, his films appear to have a very basic plot structure, but on reflection they are very sharp thematically.

I should note that he also wisely recruited the writers of the Planet of the Apes films to assist.

I don't think that's a break even figure, but rather a "success" threshold. That said I imagine break even is success in this case, as it can make a lot more on streaming and future films will be cheaper to produce.

Search Twitter and you'll find lots of people passionately insisting that they won't be watching Avatar, that they don't care about its box office and that it has no cultural impact due to a lack of memes. It's a bizarre reaction, and not something you see with other films. Titanic had similar treatment in the years following it's release, suddenly it was "the worst film ever made".

Only a tiny percentage of the population uses Twitter, and its users can have a really distorted view of what's actually happening with something like this. The Glass Onion comparison isn't reasonable. That film was released on Netflix worldwide on the same day, causing a spike in viral mentions. I doubt it had much social media activity while it was in the cinema last month.

The box office figures do prove that people are talking about it and recommending it. Most big films released these days experience front-loaded opening weekends and then heavy drop off. A slow drop off is rare and means strong word of mouth. This is what happened with Titanic and Avatar and it is now happening with Avatar 2.

You've left out the whole 'member berries' aspect of both Maverick and Avatar 2 which is heavily relied on in their success.

Both rip off plot points, themes etc of the original movies in as bad or even worse ways than other recent sequels that got absolutely slated for it.

It works for these long awaited sequels which is fine but they are really one off event/experience movies but there is nothing really beyond that.

I have to laugh at tweets like this and some of the responses. There is an obsessive regurgitation of "nobody cares" talking points from some corners of the internet. Avatarophobia.

These people are weirdly desperate to insist that the film is not succeeding, or that they somehow know an objective truth regarding people's feelings about the film. Why are some folks so triggered by the success of these films? So interesting.

The tremendous box office performance is fascinating, particularly given the post-covid/streaming-era context. It is undeniably a global phenomenon. At this point, it is quite clear it will surpass the $2 billion mark. The only question is by how much.

There are no justifiable arguments against it being a spectacle or having thrills, it is most else that is lacking.

The only thing that is stopping Avatar from being called out more for cheap nostalgia is the fact that the first movie had so very little impact that most people don't even remember key moments of it. For example, bad guy v2 taming the flying creature in the same spot as the first movie, which even included one of the crigiest attempts at comedic one liners of the year.

If the movie isnt full of nostalgic call backs then it is filled with pure rip offs of the original - just this time some of them are on water. There is a pretty decent argument that this movie is worse than Force Awakens for it.

I don't see any of it as being contradictory or complicated at all.

No one claimed they don't remember seeing the original or how they felt when they watched it in the cinema, it is that the characters and plot weren't memorable.

There are plenty of things in life that you remember the experience more than the specific details of the events. You can still pull on strings of nostalgia in those situations.

No one claimed it is 'just' the spectacle of Pandora - it is the entire spectacle of all elements of the movie. The movie, like the original, is an experience.

They are far from superficial and it isn't echoes or certain elements, it is the majority of the movie that is copied from the previous one.

Even the examples of themes that you claim are different are seen in the first. Fight or flight is dealt with in detail when Jake is trying to get the people to leave before the humans come, being an outsider is a huge element of that story with Jake eventually being accepted before they realise he has been leaking information, and respect for nature is a huge part of turn against the humans.

I'm not saying JC doesn't know what he's doing - this is a good movie and a huge success. Like you noted earlier, lets be honest about what the movie is and isn't.

Feel your confusion is coming from the fact that I'm not trying to argue anything, I'm just stating my opinion on the movie with examples.

It is a weird one, as I'm not saying the movie is bad or anything like that - I said it was pretty good but has flaws, which most seem to agree with.

Seems a few of us have our opinions flipped from what is usual on threads about other franchise blockbusters - with others giving more leeway to this one and/or me giving less.

I saw this in IMAX 3d in BFI. Jesus F*cking Christ. Unbelievable. Omniplex in Cork would be my usual go to and I was dying to see this but then I heard the Maxx screenings were in 2d I decided I'd wait until I was in London.

I utterly loved it. Pandora is just to easy to get lost in that I could have happily sat there for another three hours. The first act is a little messy as Cameron catches everyone up and sets the scene for this movie. And on rewatch and not in that environment I might think that some time could be shaved off the middle act (because obviously a lot of that underwater exploration is clearly meant for proper IMAX 3D viewing). But when I saw it, that middle act - I wanted as much time as possible there. I'm totally blown away.

One thing I really appreciated, especially when so many blockbusters are chock full of quips now, is that the movie was so earnest. Thankfully, not every bloody story beat or interaction or line of dialogue was undercut with some cynical quip. Just this refreshing sincerity to the whole thing that was really really appreciated by this viewer anyway. The story isn't the most complex but it doesn't need to be.

The final act is James Cameron back doing what he is most known for - crafting sensational action set pieces. Unquestionably one of the best action set pieces of the last decade at least. Nobody does them better.

I was just as 'cheeky' having mentioned the exact same thing in my earlier response to johnny_ultimate.

If an MCU sequel had even a tiny portion of same copying from the original you and others would be burning the director at the stake for laziness.

Not sure how we ended up switching our normal viewpoints, maybe it is down to me having higher hope of what could have been possible for the plot with Avatar given there was only one movie in 13 years, with endless narrative routes that could be explored in a sequel, and feeling disappointed with what was 80% reheating version of the original.

With MCU I am probably generally more understanding because of the 100+ hours of movies and shows that there will be some overlap, especially given that they are somewhat restricted by the source material. It is much harder to do something unique there so 'slamming' those movies when it isn't there always seems to me like complaining that the sky is blue.

For MCU, the mere presence of a large CGI battle in the finale draws complaints, even though it is an element of practically every blockbuster. Avatar goes far, far beyond that - though it also follows the original Avatar with finales that include a large CGI battle. I'm sure the response will be that 'well Avatar had a good CGI battle' but that isn't the bar that is set for MCU, again the mere inclusion of it is enough to bring on ire.

I take your statement of your belief in good faith but given what I see as the pernickety standards you and others tend to set for other movies I can only believe there are outside factors that must be impacting your opinion, either being more understanding to this or harsher to MCU. I similarly strongly feel that the rehash here goes far beyond the norm in sequels, I provided a list that ranged from core elements to more minor things, but I've also admitted what there are likely similar outside factors at play for me, impacting my opinion to be opposite to my norm.

Agree we're going round in circles and not more left to say. Maybe we take this potential newly found self awareness into how we judge the many upcoming movies in the MCU and Avatar franchises.