So I'm watching The Venture Bros. which I recorded last night (pure television joy) and I see that Mr. Cameron is re-releasing Avatar in theaters, now with more extra visual goodness and extra awesomeness. (Pregnant women and people with cardiac conditions should consult with their physician prior to purchasing tickets. We're not saying don't buy tickets, just talk to your doc first and then buy tickets.) So what was the first movie? The Beta Version? The give me your money now and then later I will show you the REAL movie and take some more money from you because I won't be happy until God comes looking to me for a loan or at least a refi on Heaven version? Opinions?
Eh, it's a money spin. Avatar the first was interesting, but ultimately bland and shallow. Avatar the second might turn out to be the second coming of Christ, but I'm not paying for the cinema ticket again. And is this definitely Cameron's doing? As opposed to the studio getting their hands on some unused footage, shoving it in their, and replacing their pupils with cartoon dollar signs?
I read an interview with Cameron a few months ago where he mentioned this would happen. Basically, even at the end of its run, Avatar was still filling cinemas, but the cinemas had to stop showing it because they were obliged to show other upcoming blockbusters (Alice in Wonderland I think it was). Now the studio obviously don't mind as it should make more money and I reckon Mr Cameron is just gonna add more into it for the benefit of the fans. Remember it was a long film as it stood, so including everything in it the director wants isn't commercially feasible (recall Cameron's 7 hour cut of Titanic!). However, this showing is likely to get people who have already seen it and want to see it again, so making it a 3hr 3D monster with longer action scenes, longer explorations of Pandora etc commercially viable. That's what the fans want, and it's the fans who will be paying for these tickets. Seeing it at the cinema is a better experience than at home. I don't see a problem if people want to pay (nobody is forcing them to), and if Mr Cameron wants to add to extraneous visual goodies, go for it man. Having said that, I won't be seeing it. The plot creaked more than my grandpa's floorboards. Unobtainium indeed...
That was actually a reasonably witty sci-fi reference. Unobtainium is a genre trope for some substance difficult to obtain, which drives the plot. Calling the mineral unobtainium in Avatar was basically the equivalent of calling your MacGuffin "MacGuffin". It's just that only reasonably hardcore geeks like yours truly would have gotten that, so it fell on it's computer-generated blue face.
If it was meant ironically, that would have been ace, but I don't see it myself. There are too many other terrible, terrible cliches played out so earnestly for me to let it go. This is the guy who created Alien(s). That proved that the general public can cope with grown up sci-fi, Avatar was kiddy school plotting. Makes me sad.
Oh I agree, Avatar was awful plotting. But I find it hard to believe that at no point did someone with serious genre knowledge sit down with the script, and chuckle at that. They had to have known what it was, and so had to have kept it in deliberately. But yeah, Avatar was definitely not on the same level as Aliens, and unfortunately Cameron and the film studios are going to dance the George Lucas on it, and rape it for sequels and merchandising for years to come.
OK, I'll give you that. But I still don't like it. Knowing pastiches require delicacy and tact. Avatar is non of those things. I still think the re-release is OK though. Just wish they'd re-release Star Trek II though. In 3D. On Imax. Permanently.
I spent most of the movie thinking about the evolution of these creatures which made very little sense at all. Like, why did the Na'vi have hair? Not a single other thing on the planet has anything resembling hair, and yet the Na'vi are all about the corn rows. I found it painful that it appeared that there was so much attention payed to the fauna of this planet for there to be so many rampant non sequiturs.
Avatar isn't the first movie to be re-released to grab more money. George Lucas did it with Star Wars, Steven Spielberg did it with ET, and I'm sure others have done it as well. Lucas has also sold fans about six different versions of the Star Wars original trilogy on VHS and DVD and whatever else, and fans keep paying for them. Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy has been released in extra-super-expanded director's cut editions over and over, too, and fans keep paying for those. These guys aren't d-bags. They're businessmen; they're just providing what the fans want. The fans are d-bags, if anyone is, for buying and re-buying and re-re-buying the same thing over and over. If you don't like Cameron or what he's doing, don't give him your money. Simple.
The only director I'm mad at is M. Night Shymalongadingdong D:<. I didn't really care much for the Avatar, and a lot of people I know didn't either, so there's a good chance not a lot of people will see the re-release. If I want interesting-looking HD flora and fauna I'll watch te Discovery Channel or Animal Planet. First I'd have to buy an HD TV, but still.
If you can get over the lame plot (And come ON!, when has Cameron ever made a movie with actual awesome plot. They have all been popcorn flicks), and watched it in 3D (And a nice IMAX with super large screen), the movie was a pleasant few hours. This Avatar SE is a load of wet hot stinking crap though. Was it not in the DVD. AND does that mean another DVD. Piss off JC. I think i heard there was an extra 9 minutes!! (Probably credits) I always enjoyed his movies. They were great to watch and enjoy (Again, I'm not going to jump onto the plot crap. people need to get over that part. I'm as sick of hearing about it, as annoying as what they think of the plot). This. P.S His also re mastering (not for cinema i hope) Titantic for 3D. Screw that, give us Terminator 2 in 3D. (Actually, no that movie with Aliens is already perfect)
Fairly certain that Star Wars was only re-released in cinemas on the 20th anniversary, which is a bit different from releasing essentially the same film again 12 months after releasing it in the first place and 6 months after the DVD came out. This is cynical for me, and I really don't like it. Pay £8 again to go and watch a film which is Dune with blue things and without the interesting bits - no, thank you. I'll leave that to people deprived of good SF and go and watch Blade Runner instead (which is also guilty of the 600 cuts charge, but it's a good film, so can get away with it).
Sadly mainstream will watch the sequels (and some even the SE). But after going on a few forums, a LOT of peope want be spending their money on this franchise anymore. All for the same reasons. JC isn't that dumb, I'm sure he knows of the hate for what his done. WHY would he even be doing this. People are beginning to get a lot tighter with the money they have now, so why! You know i think James Cameron may have scripted his own death. Bill Paxton from Aliens must have saw the future. Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Oh, thank goodness! I thought I was the only one who thought Avatar stunk. The plot was predictable, every person could be nicknamed, and the battle sequences were incredible, but that's all they were, so as to appeal to action-loving men. I fail to understand what was so whoa, wow. Besides, all of us members here could have come up with a better plot. Am I not right?
Weirdly, I found the opposite. The folks who seemed to love Avatar the most were the girls in my classes (and my gf). The lads didn't seem to care for it much, but the girls (and being honest, not girls typically associated with sci-fi(who are cool, obviously)) were banging on at me to see it for a week solid. They loved the Na'avi.
Really Phlogiston? Well, my relatives and friends all loved it, both guys and girls. It didn't seem to gravitate outside of my family either (Co-workers, especially guys said they loved it. One said he went to the theater three times. And still, I'm hearing from all my connections: "It was so good!" I disagree.
I am happy to say that Avatar did not get any of my money the first go around and it will not get any the second. A lot of people gave me crap for not seeing it in theaters, as I am a big sci-fi nut, but after hearing most trustworthy people saying, "It's a pretty pretty movie with a plot that you've already seen done much better." I failed to see why I needed to see it. Finally did though, on a friend's blue-ray. And it was pretty. And blue. That's the most I took away from it.
Same here. I wanted to see it when the hype first started, but then Joel ended up seeing it with family while I was at work, so I never ended up going to the theater. At this point, the shininess has worn off...I wouldn't be sad if I never saw it. And I think it's super lame to re-release it this soon after it came out initially. I mean, come on. Maybe if it was years old and you were like "hey, look, all new, digitally remastered!" or what have you. But this is just silly, blatant money spinning.
Plot, schmot. I liked it. Sure, it wasn't the most original story, and some of the characters were thin. OK, most of the characters were thin. OK, OK, I can't think of a really well-developed character in the film. You got me. The writing was fairly poor. But the visuals were amazing. When I go to see a James Cameron film, I'm not expecting philosophical depth or psychological insight. I'm not even expecting that the tired old plot and characters will be presented well. I AM expecting to see state-of-the-art visuals, and Cameron delivered in spades. I don't regret the money I spent. I've spent money on movies that are lots worse.
As I Honestly no intelligent free thinking person can say that the movie was anything other than visually impressive. Although I can't say I expected it to be anyways. I don't regret watching it on blueray at a family member's house.
I wasn't expecting much from Avatar because I resented being carried along on the tide of hype right to the door of the cinema. The blue dudes didn't appeal to me. I enjoyed the film and accepted it was stunning visuals on top of a tired old plot. It doesn't mean the film was worthy of contempt. It was just okay. And yes, Cameron is an egotistical twit.
My son's name is Cameron. I don't see anything wrong with the name....unless you want to call a 10 yr old little boy an egotistical twit also. Generalizations aren't nice. BTW, I will be seeing Avatar in the theater. My husband hasn't seen it yet so we're planning on a date night. I really enjoyed the film.
I meant Cameron as a surname, and was meaning David Cameron, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. I meant no offence to your son, or to anyone other than DC, really.
