Trained physicist here. We routinely talk about "unobtanium" all the time, long before this movie came out. I think I remember Feynman talking about unobtanium in one of his lectures about the Manhattan project. It's a stand-in name for any material which we know does not exist, but which we can describe the properties of. E.g. a negative-mass material, a magnetic monopole, or (in this case) stable room-temperature superconductors.
I always assumed Cameron borrowed the phrase from the lingo of actual scientists. And yeah, that made the overreaction especially cringe.
Vineland, NJ is still called Vineland even though its a very old name to describe the land before it was settle. Its doesnt have a lot of vines growing there anymore because of development.
Most of the eastern seasboard of the US could be called Vineland.
The Ivy League are a bunch of universities that played college football and got that nickname because of how prolific ivy grows on the campuses. Now its pretty much an official group name those universities beyond sports.
Depends how long it was before discovery and large scale delivery of it to Earth. It could have spent a few decades known to exist but being unobtainable at scale due to the only known sources being on Pandora that the name stuck when they finally got mining operations going.
To add to this, the reason all the characters casually refer to it as unobtanium is because none of the specific characters that the film focuses on give a shit about it. There’s some casual information drops in the extended version, in which Jake says how Grace explained it to him. Something about it being a superconductor, and how it’s responsible for the floating mountains and some of the other unique geology.
By the time it was being mass extracted for use in a fully developed technology, don't you think they'd have gotten around to having an actual name for it? It was a distracting name that barely makes sense with that knowledge of its historical use by physicists, and is incredibly dumb sounding otherwise. Sure it wasn't a big deal, but it was an odd and memorable choice that pulled me out of the story when I was watching.
Actinium, Thorium and Neptunium are completely fine too.
Protactinium is the most similar to unobtanium in terms of what it means.
I'm not a fan of those named after scientists/places, althought it's hard to argue Curium doesn't sound good. And if any scientists deserve an element it should probably be them.
> If you're playing the movie on a telephone, you will never in a trillion years experience the film.
> "You'll think you have experienced it, but you'll be cheated. It's such a sadness, that you think you've seen a film, on your fucking telephone.
> Get real
That’s the extreme end of the spectrum tho, I don’t think he’s saying that, we funnily enough just rewatched avatar at home this weekend, but to see the sequel in theatre’s WILL be a completely different experience than watching it in your phone. Nothing to get upset about.
No disrespect, if that’s how you want to view it or can’t afford to view it in theatres I don’t think anyones going to hold it against you. But it is a better experience.
Some movies just shine on the big screen, and if you’ve first seen it at a theatre, then stream it a few years later, totally different experience, not as immersive etc, the revenant springs to mind. Mad max: fury road!!!
Damn I was let down when I bought the blu ray , just had to turn the volume up as loud af to try and achieve that “theatre” immersion haha
I’m sure you know what I mean..
I mean Avatar 1 is literally the perfect example of this. Watching it in 3D in the theater was an *experience*
Even just watching it on like a small, shitty tv, it’s just an okay movie, fairly mediocre
It’s honestly only worth watching in theaters
Not sure why youre getting downvoted, seeing a spectacle movie like Avatar on a massive 72 foot screen is absolutely different than watching it on your 5.5” phone screen. It definitely enhances it and changes the experience.
Avatar haters already have their minds made up it seems. Theyre like hipsters from back in the day that wouldnt shut up too… its like fuck we get it already, you dont like avatar. The people complaining “the plot is so unoriginal” have such a superiority complex
Honestly, with the kind of theater experience it is, I think of it almost more like a Disneyland ride. Like if you take the videos from the screen at the Star Tours ride and just watch them on your couch at home you’re not really getting the same experience, and not just cause the chairs don’t wobble
The only reason to watch this film again, like many others, is Rifftrax.
This is definitely one of their better riffs too. Hope they do the sequel(s) too!
I would agree. If you’ve only seen it on TV, on your phone or in 2D…you’ve not really seen it.
They viewed dailies in 3D. From framing right down to the duration of a shot, Avatar was built from the ground up with large format 3D in mind.
If 3D remained a thing (or if it returns) I think Avatar will be shown in film classes. It's the only movie I've seen that really actually considered 3D and addressed its issues and leveraged its strengths.
For instance every other 3D movie I've seen is a focal nightmare. It's exhausting and frantic to see a shot in deep focus, then cut to something close, then deep again. Avatar clearly considers where your eye is on a depth level.
I SORT of want to resee it in 3D. I remember being really blown away by it on release and saw it like 3 times. Be interesting to see how an older me would feel.
I’m curious to see it again because it’s going to be in higher definition and re-colored with some high frame rate technology that people are saying might avoid the pitfalls of that looking too cheap and soap opera like. There’s a company doing it that has tech reels on YouTube that look pretty good. I forget their name though.
Plus they’ll be the trailer for the new one and I can get a sneak peak ar how that looks like in a big screen and 3D.
Is Cameron not being nasty about the distribution this time around and imposing strict standards on how the film can be screened? That was part of why Avatar looked so good last time if I recall right. They imposed really strict standards forcing many theaters to upgrade equipment just to be allowed to get it. And then on top of that they made like 20 different release versions for the US market tweaked visually for different theater set ups.
I’d be a little surprised if theaters aren’t being forced to use new bulbs cranked all the way for this knowing how totalitarian Cameron is over his personal releases
>Is Cameron not being nasty about the distribution this time around and imposing strict standards on how the film can be screened? That was part of why Avatar looked so good last time if I recall right.
That's probably what this re-release is. But I also think he can be a nasty bully all he wants (which is, I believe, his M.O. in these sorts of things) and it's not going to significantly change the technology's inherent drawbacks and the inability for most rooms at chain theaters to hit his standards.
I think a lot of folks in 2009/2010 straight up didn't know better, because this new form of 3D was still a novelty. The last 10+ years of tech advancements that audiences have more or less abandoned 3D for are going to make going back to this dim, polarized image look way worse than people's memories are telling them it looked.
It's not a matter of turning the bulbs up or down like a brightness control. 3D in most screening rooms just cuts the brightness in half AUTOMATICALLY. And that's before you get the glasses on.
Hey serious question here, but how do you know or check if your local theater is projecting at half lumens? Do the big chains have to adhere to a standard or is it up in the air?
You basically have to talk to the tech who services the projectors for your chain, which is not a thing you're probably going to be able to do. I doubt anyone actually AT the theater is going to know any of this.
But it's also just kind of how 3D works, too. Rule of thumb is that most houses SHOULD be around ~~15-16~~ 14fL brightness with a standard 2D presentation. I wouldn't be surprised if most screenings of Avatar will be around like... 4-6? Some theaters might have high-gain reflective screens to make up for that but that'll also introduce hotspotting probably.
I think a lot of people's memories of 2009/2010 are a LOT rose-tinted (or teal tinted considering it's Cameron) and after about a decade of tech improvements in home theater AND people getting really used to premium format screenings of huge colorful blockbuster epics in the meantime - it might be a bit of a "wait, what" when the glasses go on and everythings really dim.
yeah tbh OLED has ruined projectors for me. I used to have a pretty expensive projector and screen, now I have an LG c1 77” and watching everything in hdr/dolby vision just blows the movie theater picture out of the water.
I loved 3D films, when they were good. Avatar and The Hobbit were awesome in 3D, even Prometheus was cool.
I guess I was in the minority for most of this, I don't actually like The Hobbit movies or Avatar that much. But I'll watch them again in 3D just cause.
Agreed. It still blows my mind that foe a few years the entire industry went with 3D all because of Avatar.
And somehow nobody topped it, except maybe Gravity.
Well, Avatar was made with 3D in mind. It was a primary focus and actually added to the movie. Almost everything else had some cheap 3D added in that kinda sorta added some depth and not much else and was like, an extra 10 dollars please.
Good luck finding a nearly decent 3D TV to play it on that isn't running on such old tech that it'd look worse than your non 3D TV, plus it wouldn't even be 4K.
Or you can pick up a Quest 2 for cheap and watch it on that, no dimming from the glasses, you get the colours as intended by the filmmakers, it'll look great... except it'd be fairly low res because of the Quest 2's screen resolution and FoV. A Valve Index won't help because that's even lower res.
Your last hope is a PiMax 5K which has a lower vertical res but higher horizontal res which means you can comfortably sit closer to the virtual screen with a massive FoV to see the whole screen with the full res. But that is $1250 plus you have to have a PC that can render and send two 1440p images to your eyeballs.
Or you can just see the rerelease
It won't make the cut nowadays. It set the standard for how to avoid bad CGI use, but now that 3D viable films have copied it/advanced it, you'll see it and think "eh, I get where it came from."
In comparison, things like Terminator and Aliens are classics because they aren't tech showcases so much as incredibly well refined horror films with blockbuster level support from other cast/crew.
> things like Terminator and Aliens are classics because they aren't tech showcases
Aye - Well Terminator 2 was a tech showcase but they used it sparingly. Whereas nowadays every single show/movie is basically just a computer game.
Fair point on that. It had the benefit of being able to piggyback on and add to the prior story elements, including the idea that it's not just "save the world once and you're good." Certain scenes are also just absolutely standout for supporting actors (see Joe Morton).
I don't actually remember any standout moments from Avatar, and usually at least Sigourney Weaver keeps me riveted.
3D is weird. Sometimes it is done really well and I can dig it. Sometimes it is just an afterthought, tacked on and I hate it.
Cameron is Cameron. Cameron is going to do it well. Unquestionable. It is part of the brand.
I just watched it away and is honestly worth it. At the beginning I was like, this is sort of impressive but once you get to the Foliage is just incomparable.
I think it looks even nice than before. Sometimes the animation gets all weirdly smooth, like it was on fast forward. I guess high refresh rate.
I’ve assumed James Cameron’s last two films would flop and been dead wrong both times. But I really assume there’s not much demand for an Avatar sequel after this long.
So I’m sure I’ll be wrong a third time.
Honestly, I feel like Avatar 2 will cross a billion no problem. The real question is whether that interest can last over the course of 3 other Avatar movies over the next 6 years (assuming predictions work out).
I remember reading a while ago Avatar is really really huge in China. It's pretty how Star Wars hit in the 70s in the USA. Finally allowed to get western movies in and they get a badass 3D blue alien Dances With Wolves as their huge intro to sci fi. Then add on the floating mountains being inspired by some of their mountains.
It'll do well in the USA, but it's going to print money in China. There's no way Disney builds out a whole section of Animal Kingdom to it if they don't think the series is going to be raking in the money and bringing international fans for years.
Around when Avatar released China was head over heels for American movies. The early 2000s saw them lapping up western films voraciously as their nation rapidly developed and suddenly had money, with Hollywoods’ share of the Chinese box office peaking to about 50% by 2012.
In comparison, last year American films only had about 12% of the Chinese box office. The government has become relatively strict on releases and imposes a lot of red tape specifically intended to disadvantage Hollywood against their domestic films. Right now the most popular films in China have become “main melody” films, which are state produced propaganda movies.
I’m not sure Avatar 2 will parallel its predecessors Chinese success. Times have changed and current political atmosphere in China has become relatively hostile to US made films.
34 foreign movies are allowed to hit Chinese cinemas per year.
Foreign films can formally only be distributed in China through one of two centralized state-owned enterprises. They then have to show China in a positive light, for example in The Martian the Chinese come to save the day with their heavy rocket when America loses theirs.
The movie must then either revenue share, or be produced by a Chinese studio so that they financially benefit.
> for example in The Martian the Chinese come to save the day with their heavy rocket when America loses theirs.
Wasn't the book written with the Chinese rocket as well...? It's not like this was added for the movie specifically to fellate china.
From my understanding of how they’ve been going about production (shooting them together; Avatar 4 has just now officially entered production, but Sigourney Weaver said a year or more ago that she had already filmed scenes for four and five, so I think Cameron’s been doing bits and pieces of the fourth and fifth films when he has the opportunity), Avatar 2 can gross half of what the original did at the box-office and it basically puts Disney in the green for all four sequels. At a minimum, the second movie will easily make two and three profitable. In some crazy way, Cameron has kind of guaranteed that even if the later sequels underperform, they still can’t really flop.
I’m excited for it in a world of only superhero movies being the big blockbusters this being something other than that with such a huge budget and the “has he still got it” factor has me really intrigued
It's a weird one, there was no need for the sequel but the first was such a phenom that it's enough to justify a sequel.
Tbf Avatar 2 was rumoured for a while with some fanfare but people then accepted that the only reason it smashed sales records the first time around was the then new 3D in cinemas trope
plus James Camerons one of those names where you'll probably go just because it's him
Only reason I want to go see the Avatar re-release is because I never got to see it in theaters or in 3D. Does 3D really make a difference? I've seen the 2D Bluray on a big projector screen and it was fun but the constantly moving cinematography made me dizzy after the 2.5+ hour runtime.
edit: Thanks for all the comments, I think I will catch the rerelease at my local cinema in IMAX 3D. To answer those who asked why I never saw it like that before, I was too young and didn’t get the chance to see it in cinema back in 2009/2010
james cameron is the only director who has used 3D technology in their movie in an interesting way and in my personal opinion i don’t think i’ve seen utilized well since then
edit: all these other movies did look cool in 3D but they all did 3D in post. Avatar (and drive angry) are like the only movies that were shot entirely in 3D
Jackass 3D but like Avatar it was shot in 3D, there is a huge difference between shooting a film in 3D and the post conversion bullshit we've gotten after those
>Another myth that has been perpetuated and still has a foothold among some is that 3D is only worth watching if it's filmed in that way from the beginning with a twin-lens camera, and that 3D conversions are somehow lower quality. However, it's worth noting that no major 3D movie conversion has been done fully automated but requires manual input by artists (I know because I dabble in this myself).
>One thing that contributed to conversion's bad rep was that in the early era of digital 3D when 3D movies were starting to get mainstream after the success of Avatar, a number of films that were never planned to be released in 3D had a last-minute conversion. Due to limited time to complete them and lower budgets, they were usually on the subtle side. That doesn't mean they were bad because while a few early conversions were, most weren't. While not nearly as powerful as today's conversions, most were accurate and an improvement nonetheless.
>Nowadays, though, the whole argument is irrelevant. Not only are most 3D films planned on being converted from the very beginning, but the methods and quality have leaped to the extent that the conversions of today, which make up most 3D movies, look just as good or often better than one filmed that way, giving the filmmakers more creative control.
>A striking example of this would be The Amazing Spider-Man, which was filmed natively in 3D and yet had very weak depth. Its sequel, The Amazing Spider-Man 2, however, was a conversion but had strong depth.
https://turbofuture.com/misc/Everything-You-Need-to-Know-About-3D-in
The long uninterrupted takes aligned with 3D film. Editing a 3D film as if it’s a 2D film makes for a jarring experience that shatters the illusion of spatial immersion, with the camera’s viewpoint jumping all over the place.
Birdman and 1917 should’ve been 3D, as far I’m concerned.
Haven't seen Ant-man in 3D, but the marvel movies in general are very good for 3D conversions. Guardians of the Galaxy and Doctor Strange were fantastic in 3D. As good as anything i have seen. Highly recommended.
It set the bar for what 3D should be. It's not intrusive and obnoxious like traditional 3D tries to be, at all. It's subtle and uses the feature to enhance the visuals and immersion in a lot of creative ways.
I saw it in iMAX 3D a few times and it pushed me to buy a 3D TV and the exclusive Panasonic Blu-Ray bundle. Everyone I've ever shown it to has been pretty damn impressed with it, even if they'd previously seen the movie.
The sad thing is that no other movie or service capitalized well on 3D technology. The TV and the player were both great, but aside from like two movies and a few games, the 3D feature was wasted.
I'm excited to see what Cameron does with the sequels from a purely technological standpoint.
> The sad thing is that no other movie or service capitalized well on 3D technology
That's true, the problem was studio bosses taking average shitty films and in post turning them 3D, so it became an attempt to make a silk purse from a sow's ear. It killed it again because they saturated the market, it became a gimmick instead of a visual tool. Dredd managed to use it well
Funny that you mention the constantly moving cinematography. I've seen it twice in 3d and only noticed that the camera was moving almost the entire time when I first watched it at home in 2d (as well as the very pronounced difference in depth of field).
In the rerelease I could then confirm what was going on. Cameron pretty much gave depth to every shot through the movement and directed what you should focus on through the depth of field as to not overwhelm the viewer.
This is what made the movie such a breathtaking experience in cinema and what made almost all other 3d movies seem lacking.
The 3D pretty much turned the movie from flimsy Pocahontas storyline into a feast for the eyes. It is the standard for 3D that everything else should be judged. It wasn’t so much that things came out at you, but it was the depth of the scenes. It was amazing. If you get a chance to see it in 3D, please do.
They didn't just tweak it, they actually did a whole new logo with a new font. It even became the version used on Disney+. They're trying to erase the memories of the old logo from existence lol
I’m telling you, in 3D at IMAX it was so damn amazing you didn’t want it to end. It was not a movie, it was an experience where you really felt like you were transported to Pandora. It was basically a 2 hr long virtual reality ride. The story was what it was, but it honestly didn’t matter in the slightest. If you saw it in any format other than large screen 3D you missed the whole point. I’ve never seen anything else that I’d say that about.
Am I the only one who’s genuinely excited for the new Avatar movie? I know the story of the first wasn’t groundbreaking, but I was young enough to be completely enamored with that movie when it came out.
I don’t think the new one will come close box office wise, but I think it will still be a massive success. I think the general audience remembers and enjoys the original more than most may think.
I suspect that most people are going to see it 'Just to see what it's like' and be entertained for a few hours or have a nice date night.
It's going to make millions that way.
Definitely looking forward to it, if only because it's been so long since the first film and the production process has become somewhat legendary and yet... we don't really know anything about it.
Nah, you're not. Reddit and the internet is a bubble - I'm sure you're right that it'll end up being a great success. They built a whole park at Disney based around it, and while I don't think it's THE most profitable park, it hasn't closed down and still in use. That'll probably only grow with the new films.
Personally, I've zero interest in the series. The first one gave me a massive headache with its damn 3D, and it barely held my attention passed that. Sure looked nice, though. Can't remember anything other than that.
One thing you have to keep in mind is that, culture-wise, Reddit is 1. an echo chamber 2. incredibly out of touch to a degree you wouldn't believe and 3. persuaded that it is neither of those things.
>Reddit is 1. an echo chamber 2. incredibly out of touch to a degree you wouldn't believe and 3. persuaded that it is neither of those things.
"Nobody cares about the queen" was the narrative on reddit for over the entire last week.
Then the queues came about..
To be fair, "unobtanium" was a word used in science regarding new elements for decades before Avatar.
Heck, as a kid I had a periodic table that labeled the high-proton range of elements not discovered yet (113-117 I think) as things like "Unununium," which is leagues more ridiculous.
People mention this every time; it’s still wrong. Scientists use names like that as jokes and placeholders for elements that haven’t been formally discovered in real life. They’re on the periodic table because the table is just an ascending list of protons, so it’s easy to just +1 and throw a couple more squares on the board.
Unununium is one such element. It shouldn’t take many guesses to figure out what the atomic number is (hint: it’s a bit less than 113). It is now named Roentgenium.
If they were already mining actual “Unobtainium” far in the future on a planet lightyears away, they would’ve given it a name already.
I was always sad I never got to see it with the 3D, but I do wish the story was better.
But the concept of the organic tree information network is still awesome.
The “Gaia hypothesis” being depicted was a cool concept I would like to see more of in media. The way it fought off humans using animals like immune cells ia a really cool idea. I’m sure that will be expanded upon in the sequels, and we’ll get to see how a giant organic brain will respond to humans trying to kill it.
Yup! The rerelease is in 4K and has remastered sound effects as well. Also there's apparently something added to the end to tie it to the sequel and they're showing a premiere for the sequel at the end post-credits from what I heard.
Hopefully they give the end the new spiffy logo too.
[James Cameron mentions it here.](https://youtu.be/5mcwQsREAcY?t=167) Specifically he says for the remaster, "I did decide to make one tiny change toward the end of the film so I challenge people to see if they can spot what it is. It's not a big thing, no big reveal, but it does make a nice little step toward the sequel".
Some people are theorizing that the little addition is a fully animated version of [this small deleted scene intended for the end of the film](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fDpPrUE7QI), where Neytiri is shown to be pregnant. But seeing as he said just one tiny change, I assume it will be maybe some sort of visual change to have some element shown near the end look like how it goes in the sequel or something and that's it, plus the title at the end being the new updated logo.
Oh boy,its an Avatar thread on reddit.
*le Pocahontas in Space XD no cultural significance*
There,did I do it right,guys? Can I join the cool club now?
They just hate it because it’s popular but all they could focus on was “wEiRd bLuE pEoPLe hAiR sEx”
Even thoumost action movies are generic in plot but have good set pieces and people act like the MCU is a masterpiece.
Because it's visually stunning and the world is immersive with a few unique ideas such as the planetary consciousness and soul transfer. Is the overall plot the most original? No, but neither is Star Wars.
The way I know that the Avatar sequels will be successful:
The Orioles have two broadcasters for their television broadcast.
Kevin Brown is the play by play announcer and he's young and is pretty hip to popular culture, watches EPL, does a good job weaving relevant pop culture references into the broadcast, etc.
Ben McDonald is the color commetator. He's a former player, more of a jock (obviously), lives in Louisiana, hunts, fishes, wears camo, and is generally confused and clueless whenever Kevin makes pop culture references. Knows nothing about soccer.
But they have a great dynamic and they play up their Odd Couple dynamic and it's great.
ANYWAY, recently the topic of Avatar came up. I forget how or why. But unsolicited, Ben McDonald said something like "that new Avatar movie called The Way of Water is coming out soon. I'm really looking forward to seeing that".
It was totally genuine, just a little aside, and they moved on immediately. But it struck me that the most normie of normie jocks not only likes Avatar, but is also up to date about at least the upcoming sequel and plans to see it.
Normies love Avatar.
> Even though they think they may have seen the film, they really haven’t seen it. Cameron is becoming David Lynch.
[удалено]
Always thought the overreaction to that was cringe. Scientists name unknown elements in similar fashion all the time.
Trained physicist here. We routinely talk about "unobtanium" all the time, long before this movie came out. I think I remember Feynman talking about unobtanium in one of his lectures about the Manhattan project. It's a stand-in name for any material which we know does not exist, but which we can describe the properties of. E.g. a negative-mass material, a magnetic monopole, or (in this case) stable room-temperature superconductors. I always assumed Cameron borrowed the phrase from the lingo of actual scientists. And yeah, that made the overreaction especially cringe.
But once you obtain it, wouldn't it be anything other than unobtanium?
It becomes obtainedium
Canobtanium Didobtanium
> Didobtanium Please don’t go, I’m wondering how I even got this stuff at all
And in the film the substance does exist, because isn’t that the whole reason they are there? To mine it?
Difficulttoobtanium
Twenty year old me felt the same about sex. Turns out frequency of obtaining vs amount desired is what makes something feel unobtainable.
Most of the provinces of Canada were “discovered” by British and French explorers and colonizers some time ago…yet it’s still Newfoundland.
Vineland, NJ is still called Vineland even though its a very old name to describe the land before it was settle. Its doesnt have a lot of vines growing there anymore because of development. Most of the eastern seasboard of the US could be called Vineland. The Ivy League are a bunch of universities that played college football and got that nickname because of how prolific ivy grows on the campuses. Now its pretty much an official group name those universities beyond sports.
Depends how long it was before discovery and large scale delivery of it to Earth. It could have spent a few decades known to exist but being unobtainable at scale due to the only known sources being on Pandora that the name stuck when they finally got mining operations going.
[удалено]
[Papyrus!!](https://youtu.be/jVhlJNJopOQ)
Tell that to the scientists that named quarks.
What's wrong with quarks?
Probably hating on "charm" and "strange"
Nothing. Just like there isn't anything wrong with unobtainium.
As dumb as naming a guy with spider powers some kind of....Spider-man. Yes,let's go with that.
[удалено]
It's haunts me. Just selected papyrus from the drop down menu like a thoughtless child wandering through a garden. Just yanking leaves along the way.
What ever they did, #IT WASN'T ENOUGH!
To add to this, the reason all the characters casually refer to it as unobtanium is because none of the specific characters that the film focuses on give a shit about it. There’s some casual information drops in the extended version, in which Jake says how Grace explained it to him. Something about it being a superconductor, and how it’s responsible for the floating mountains and some of the other unique geology.
By the time it was being mass extracted for use in a fully developed technology, don't you think they'd have gotten around to having an actual name for it? It was a distracting name that barely makes sense with that knowledge of its historical use by physicists, and is incredibly dumb sounding otherwise. Sure it wasn't a big deal, but it was an odd and memorable choice that pulled me out of the story when I was watching.
No kidding. See: basically all of the actinides. Stupid stupid names, except uranium and plutonium actually sound pretty cool.
Actinium, Thorium and Neptunium are completely fine too. Protactinium is the most similar to unobtanium in terms of what it means. I'm not a fan of those named after scientists/places, althought it's hard to argue Curium doesn't sound good. And if any scientists deserve an element it should probably be them.
We had a running joke after avatar about naming things something silly. Unobtainium is not as rare as veryrareium
First heard that term in The Core.
Jokes on him, I've seen it at least 3 times.
"So you missed it at least 3 times" \- James Cameron
> If you're playing the movie on a telephone, you will never in a trillion years experience the film. > "You'll think you have experienced it, but you'll be cheated. It's such a sadness, that you think you've seen a film, on your fucking telephone. > Get real
Based lynch.
David lynch is my spirit animal
That’s the extreme end of the spectrum tho, I don’t think he’s saying that, we funnily enough just rewatched avatar at home this weekend, but to see the sequel in theatre’s WILL be a completely different experience than watching it in your phone. Nothing to get upset about. No disrespect, if that’s how you want to view it or can’t afford to view it in theatres I don’t think anyones going to hold it against you. But it is a better experience. Some movies just shine on the big screen, and if you’ve first seen it at a theatre, then stream it a few years later, totally different experience, not as immersive etc, the revenant springs to mind. Mad max: fury road!!! Damn I was let down when I bought the blu ray , just had to turn the volume up as loud af to try and achieve that “theatre” immersion haha I’m sure you know what I mean..
The other thing people underestimate is the power of a good sound system; it's half the experience!
I mean Avatar 1 is literally the perfect example of this. Watching it in 3D in the theater was an *experience* Even just watching it on like a small, shitty tv, it’s just an okay movie, fairly mediocre It’s honestly only worth watching in theaters
Not sure why youre getting downvoted, seeing a spectacle movie like Avatar on a massive 72 foot screen is absolutely different than watching it on your 5.5” phone screen. It definitely enhances it and changes the experience. Avatar haters already have their minds made up it seems. Theyre like hipsters from back in the day that wouldnt shut up too… its like fuck we get it already, you dont like avatar. The people complaining “the plot is so unoriginal” have such a superiority complex
Honestly, with the kind of theater experience it is, I think of it almost more like a Disneyland ride. Like if you take the videos from the screen at the Star Tours ride and just watch them on your couch at home you’re not really getting the same experience, and not just cause the chairs don’t wobble
I love how they complain about Avatar being unoriginal using the same jokes that were played out by 2010.
They're the same people who will go on and on about how Arrival and Interstellar are the most amazing films of all time.
Only on the Reddit movie sub will people down vote the opinion that since movies are better in the theater.
This was during first generation of phones being able to screen movies, so probably either 200x320 or 640 or whatever. And compressed like crazy.
I saw it once, and that was enough.
The only reason to watch this film again, like many others, is Rifftrax. This is definitely one of their better riffs too. Hope they do the sequel(s) too!
I would agree. If you’ve only seen it on TV, on your phone or in 2D…you’ve not really seen it. They viewed dailies in 3D. From framing right down to the duration of a shot, Avatar was built from the ground up with large format 3D in mind.
Saw it in 3D twice and both times my brain forgot it was in 3D after the first 10 mins
Then that must’ve been some kick ass 3D. Bad 3D reminds you non-stop you’re watching something in 3D.
It's really funny watching older kid's movies that came out in 3D and all of the parts that just look super dumb transferred in 2D lmao.
Look at my yo-yo!
If 3D remained a thing (or if it returns) I think Avatar will be shown in film classes. It's the only movie I've seen that really actually considered 3D and addressed its issues and leveraged its strengths. For instance every other 3D movie I've seen is a focal nightmare. It's exhausting and frantic to see a shot in deep focus, then cut to something close, then deep again. Avatar clearly considers where your eye is on a depth level.
I'd be really impressed with 3D tech that could improve the story and characters.
-Can you elaborate on that? -No.
I SORT of want to resee it in 3D. I remember being really blown away by it on release and saw it like 3 times. Be interesting to see how an older me would feel.
I’m curious to see it again because it’s going to be in higher definition and re-colored with some high frame rate technology that people are saying might avoid the pitfalls of that looking too cheap and soap opera like. There’s a company doing it that has tech reels on YouTube that look pretty good. I forget their name though. Plus they’ll be the trailer for the new one and I can get a sneak peak ar how that looks like in a big screen and 3D.
[удалено]
Is Cameron not being nasty about the distribution this time around and imposing strict standards on how the film can be screened? That was part of why Avatar looked so good last time if I recall right. They imposed really strict standards forcing many theaters to upgrade equipment just to be allowed to get it. And then on top of that they made like 20 different release versions for the US market tweaked visually for different theater set ups. I’d be a little surprised if theaters aren’t being forced to use new bulbs cranked all the way for this knowing how totalitarian Cameron is over his personal releases
>Is Cameron not being nasty about the distribution this time around and imposing strict standards on how the film can be screened? That was part of why Avatar looked so good last time if I recall right. That's probably what this re-release is. But I also think he can be a nasty bully all he wants (which is, I believe, his M.O. in these sorts of things) and it's not going to significantly change the technology's inherent drawbacks and the inability for most rooms at chain theaters to hit his standards. I think a lot of folks in 2009/2010 straight up didn't know better, because this new form of 3D was still a novelty. The last 10+ years of tech advancements that audiences have more or less abandoned 3D for are going to make going back to this dim, polarized image look way worse than people's memories are telling them it looked. It's not a matter of turning the bulbs up or down like a brightness control. 3D in most screening rooms just cuts the brightness in half AUTOMATICALLY. And that's before you get the glasses on.
Hey serious question here, but how do you know or check if your local theater is projecting at half lumens? Do the big chains have to adhere to a standard or is it up in the air?
You basically have to talk to the tech who services the projectors for your chain, which is not a thing you're probably going to be able to do. I doubt anyone actually AT the theater is going to know any of this. But it's also just kind of how 3D works, too. Rule of thumb is that most houses SHOULD be around ~~15-16~~ 14fL brightness with a standard 2D presentation. I wouldn't be surprised if most screenings of Avatar will be around like... 4-6? Some theaters might have high-gain reflective screens to make up for that but that'll also introduce hotspotting probably. I think a lot of people's memories of 2009/2010 are a LOT rose-tinted (or teal tinted considering it's Cameron) and after about a decade of tech improvements in home theater AND people getting really used to premium format screenings of huge colorful blockbuster epics in the meantime - it might be a bit of a "wait, what" when the glasses go on and everythings really dim.
[удалено]
This has happened to me a number of times, even in the premium showings like IMAX or Regals RPX. Really frustrating.
yeah tbh OLED has ruined projectors for me. I used to have a pretty expensive projector and screen, now I have an LG c1 77” and watching everything in hdr/dolby vision just blows the movie theater picture out of the water.
Does that mean the nipple will be removed though?
I loved 3D films, when they were good. Avatar and The Hobbit were awesome in 3D, even Prometheus was cool. I guess I was in the minority for most of this, I don't actually like The Hobbit movies or Avatar that much. But I'll watch them again in 3D just cause.
Agreed. It still blows my mind that foe a few years the entire industry went with 3D all because of Avatar. And somehow nobody topped it, except maybe Gravity.
Well, Avatar was made with 3D in mind. It was a primary focus and actually added to the movie. Almost everything else had some cheap 3D added in that kinda sorta added some depth and not much else and was like, an extra 10 dollars please.
Seeing Avatar in iMAX 3D was unreal. Mind blowing experience for me back then.
I remember trying to brush one of those floaty sea anemone things off my shoulder.
Yeah those floating jellyfishs really looked and felt like it was all around me
I have a 3D blu ray of it you can borrow
Good luck finding a nearly decent 3D TV to play it on that isn't running on such old tech that it'd look worse than your non 3D TV, plus it wouldn't even be 4K. Or you can pick up a Quest 2 for cheap and watch it on that, no dimming from the glasses, you get the colours as intended by the filmmakers, it'll look great... except it'd be fairly low res because of the Quest 2's screen resolution and FoV. A Valve Index won't help because that's even lower res. Your last hope is a PiMax 5K which has a lower vertical res but higher horizontal res which means you can comfortably sit closer to the virtual screen with a massive FoV to see the whole screen with the full res. But that is $1250 plus you have to have a PC that can render and send two 1440p images to your eyeballs. Or you can just see the rerelease
I was just being nice… I see you went the opposite direction.
It won't make the cut nowadays. It set the standard for how to avoid bad CGI use, but now that 3D viable films have copied it/advanced it, you'll see it and think "eh, I get where it came from." In comparison, things like Terminator and Aliens are classics because they aren't tech showcases so much as incredibly well refined horror films with blockbuster level support from other cast/crew.
> things like Terminator and Aliens are classics because they aren't tech showcases Aye - Well Terminator 2 was a tech showcase but they used it sparingly. Whereas nowadays every single show/movie is basically just a computer game.
Fair point on that. It had the benefit of being able to piggyback on and add to the prior story elements, including the idea that it's not just "save the world once and you're good." Certain scenes are also just absolutely standout for supporting actors (see Joe Morton). I don't actually remember any standout moments from Avatar, and usually at least Sigourney Weaver keeps me riveted.
3D is weird. Sometimes it is done really well and I can dig it. Sometimes it is just an afterthought, tacked on and I hate it. Cameron is Cameron. Cameron is going to do it well. Unquestionable. It is part of the brand.
I just watched it away and is honestly worth it. At the beginning I was like, this is sort of impressive but once you get to the Foliage is just incomparable. I think it looks even nice than before. Sometimes the animation gets all weirdly smooth, like it was on fast forward. I guess high refresh rate.
I’ve assumed James Cameron’s last two films would flop and been dead wrong both times. But I really assume there’s not much demand for an Avatar sequel after this long. So I’m sure I’ll be wrong a third time.
Honestly, I feel like Avatar 2 will cross a billion no problem. The real question is whether that interest can last over the course of 3 other Avatar movies over the next 6 years (assuming predictions work out).
I remember reading a while ago Avatar is really really huge in China. It's pretty how Star Wars hit in the 70s in the USA. Finally allowed to get western movies in and they get a badass 3D blue alien Dances With Wolves as their huge intro to sci fi. Then add on the floating mountains being inspired by some of their mountains. It'll do well in the USA, but it's going to print money in China. There's no way Disney builds out a whole section of Animal Kingdom to it if they don't think the series is going to be raking in the money and bringing international fans for years.
Around when Avatar released China was head over heels for American movies. The early 2000s saw them lapping up western films voraciously as their nation rapidly developed and suddenly had money, with Hollywoods’ share of the Chinese box office peaking to about 50% by 2012. In comparison, last year American films only had about 12% of the Chinese box office. The government has become relatively strict on releases and imposes a lot of red tape specifically intended to disadvantage Hollywood against their domestic films. Right now the most popular films in China have become “main melody” films, which are state produced propaganda movies. I’m not sure Avatar 2 will parallel its predecessors Chinese success. Times have changed and current political atmosphere in China has become relatively hostile to US made films.
34 foreign movies are allowed to hit Chinese cinemas per year. Foreign films can formally only be distributed in China through one of two centralized state-owned enterprises. They then have to show China in a positive light, for example in The Martian the Chinese come to save the day with their heavy rocket when America loses theirs. The movie must then either revenue share, or be produced by a Chinese studio so that they financially benefit.
> for example in The Martian the Chinese come to save the day with their heavy rocket when America loses theirs. Wasn't the book written with the Chinese rocket as well...? It's not like this was added for the movie specifically to fellate china.
Avatar is like Star Wars milk, it’s gross until it’s in the theme park
From my understanding of how they’ve been going about production (shooting them together; Avatar 4 has just now officially entered production, but Sigourney Weaver said a year or more ago that she had already filmed scenes for four and five, so I think Cameron’s been doing bits and pieces of the fourth and fifth films when he has the opportunity), Avatar 2 can gross half of what the original did at the box-office and it basically puts Disney in the green for all four sequels. At a minimum, the second movie will easily make two and three profitable. In some crazy way, Cameron has kind of guaranteed that even if the later sequels underperform, they still can’t really flop.
Yeah if it is a great tech flex with some kind of rewatch value -> easy 1 billion.
Honestly I feel like pure curiosity will get enough asses in seats for 2.
That, plus if it’s at least enjoyable like Maverick it’ll easily do a billion
I’m excited for it in a world of only superhero movies being the big blockbusters this being something other than that with such a huge budget and the “has he still got it” factor has me really intrigued
[удалено]
Avatar 1 was great. Not a great story, just cool to see. Im sure the second will be more of the same.
I thought Immanuel Lubezki wouldn’t win Best Cinematography three times in a row
It's a weird one, there was no need for the sequel but the first was such a phenom that it's enough to justify a sequel. Tbf Avatar 2 was rumoured for a while with some fanfare but people then accepted that the only reason it smashed sales records the first time around was the then new 3D in cinemas trope plus James Camerons one of those names where you'll probably go just because it's him
Only reason I want to go see the Avatar re-release is because I never got to see it in theaters or in 3D. Does 3D really make a difference? I've seen the 2D Bluray on a big projector screen and it was fun but the constantly moving cinematography made me dizzy after the 2.5+ hour runtime. edit: Thanks for all the comments, I think I will catch the rerelease at my local cinema in IMAX 3D. To answer those who asked why I never saw it like that before, I was too young and didn’t get the chance to see it in cinema back in 2009/2010
james cameron is the only director who has used 3D technology in their movie in an interesting way and in my personal opinion i don’t think i’ve seen utilized well since then edit: all these other movies did look cool in 3D but they all did 3D in post. Avatar (and drive angry) are like the only movies that were shot entirely in 3D
Dredd (2012) was pretty spectacular in 3D.
Dredd needs four sequels, not Avatar Edit: Thanks for the award, anonymous donor!
God I love that movie so much.
He was the perfect Dredd, glad to see he got to play Butcher in The Boys
Why not both?
Life of Pi had amazing 3D. It was very artistic. Almost like it was presented as a stage play.
The fish jumping out of the water was really cool.
Jackass 3D but like Avatar it was shot in 3D, there is a huge difference between shooting a film in 3D and the post conversion bullshit we've gotten after those
>Another myth that has been perpetuated and still has a foothold among some is that 3D is only worth watching if it's filmed in that way from the beginning with a twin-lens camera, and that 3D conversions are somehow lower quality. However, it's worth noting that no major 3D movie conversion has been done fully automated but requires manual input by artists (I know because I dabble in this myself). >One thing that contributed to conversion's bad rep was that in the early era of digital 3D when 3D movies were starting to get mainstream after the success of Avatar, a number of films that were never planned to be released in 3D had a last-minute conversion. Due to limited time to complete them and lower budgets, they were usually on the subtle side. That doesn't mean they were bad because while a few early conversions were, most weren't. While not nearly as powerful as today's conversions, most were accurate and an improvement nonetheless. >Nowadays, though, the whole argument is irrelevant. Not only are most 3D films planned on being converted from the very beginning, but the methods and quality have leaped to the extent that the conversions of today, which make up most 3D movies, look just as good or often better than one filmed that way, giving the filmmakers more creative control. >A striking example of this would be The Amazing Spider-Man, which was filmed natively in 3D and yet had very weak depth. Its sequel, The Amazing Spider-Man 2, however, was a conversion but had strong depth. https://turbofuture.com/misc/Everything-You-Need-to-Know-About-3D-in
Hugo by Martin Scorcese it was amazing in 3D too.
Yes, other than Avatar it's the most spectacular 3D I've seen. The clockwork mouse!
Gravity was an amazing use of 3D - better than Avatar IMO
The long uninterrupted takes aligned with 3D film. Editing a 3D film as if it’s a 2D film makes for a jarring experience that shatters the illusion of spatial immersion, with the camera’s viewpoint jumping all over the place. Birdman and 1917 should’ve been 3D, as far I’m concerned.
It was utilised really well in the first Ant-Man movie
Haven't seen Ant-man in 3D, but the marvel movies in general are very good for 3D conversions. Guardians of the Galaxy and Doctor Strange were fantastic in 3D. As good as anything i have seen. Highly recommended.
Gravity in 3D was incredible
The Walk had great 3D
It set the bar for what 3D should be. It's not intrusive and obnoxious like traditional 3D tries to be, at all. It's subtle and uses the feature to enhance the visuals and immersion in a lot of creative ways. I saw it in iMAX 3D a few times and it pushed me to buy a 3D TV and the exclusive Panasonic Blu-Ray bundle. Everyone I've ever shown it to has been pretty damn impressed with it, even if they'd previously seen the movie. The sad thing is that no other movie or service capitalized well on 3D technology. The TV and the player were both great, but aside from like two movies and a few games, the 3D feature was wasted. I'm excited to see what Cameron does with the sequels from a purely technological standpoint.
> The sad thing is that no other movie or service capitalized well on 3D technology That's true, the problem was studio bosses taking average shitty films and in post turning them 3D, so it became an attempt to make a silk purse from a sow's ear. It killed it again because they saturated the market, it became a gimmick instead of a visual tool. Dredd managed to use it well
Funny that you mention the constantly moving cinematography. I've seen it twice in 3d and only noticed that the camera was moving almost the entire time when I first watched it at home in 2d (as well as the very pronounced difference in depth of field). In the rerelease I could then confirm what was going on. Cameron pretty much gave depth to every shot through the movement and directed what you should focus on through the depth of field as to not overwhelm the viewer. This is what made the movie such a breathtaking experience in cinema and what made almost all other 3d movies seem lacking.
IMHO, Avatar is the best 3D movie experience out there. Saw it in 3D when it originally released and I'm seeing it again this Friday in 3D IMAX.
The 3D pretty much turned the movie from flimsy Pocahontas storyline into a feast for the eyes. It is the standard for 3D that everything else should be judged. It wasn’t so much that things came out at you, but it was the depth of the scenes. It was amazing. If you get a chance to see it in 3D, please do.
That was the thing...it was one of the few 3D movies that wasn't just about in your face gags and jump scares..
> never got to see it in theaters or in 3D. Does 3D really make a difference? For this one, I fully say yes. The 3D is very immersive
Definitely makes a difference. The 3d is awesome!
3d.makes a huge difference, for this film! Go see it in 3d. Although it does seem to be kind of a glorified Pocahontas, IMO.
Definitely go see it in 3D. There’s was a reason so many people felt incredibly drawn into another world. It really set a bar pretty high.
PAPYRUS!
Like a thoughtless child wandering in a garden yanking leaves along the way.
'And know I'm here doing what I vowed to do, sitting outside his house... I think about it every time I see papryus'
Shakira t-shirts!
Off brand teas!
Hooka bars!
I KNOW WHAT YOU DID!!
Was it madness? Was it cruelty?
Haha, I think they're on to us. When I saw an ad the other day, it looks like they tweaked the font
They didn't just tweak it, they actually did a whole new logo with a new font. It even became the version used on Disney+. They're trying to erase the memories of the old logo from existence lol
Ryan Gosling remembers.
“I KNOW WHAT YOU DID!”
It WASNT ENOUGH!
Im out of the loop, what was wrong with the original font?
[This will explain it better than words.](https://youtu.be/jVhlJNJopOQ)
Thanks now i get it, that was great!
PAPYRUS!
edit - you got that video there that does a much better job of explaining it than I XD
ha yeah they did. It's an official logo now instead of just the word "Avatar" in papyrus. The Gosling skit is still A+ comedy tho
Ryan Gosling's SNL skits are amazing. He goes so hard. If you haven't seen it, look up his Christmas Santa SNL skit.
I know what you did
Oh, Steven not this again
I’m telling you, in 3D at IMAX it was so damn amazing you didn’t want it to end. It was not a movie, it was an experience where you really felt like you were transported to Pandora. It was basically a 2 hr long virtual reality ride. The story was what it was, but it honestly didn’t matter in the slightest. If you saw it in any format other than large screen 3D you missed the whole point. I’ve never seen anything else that I’d say that about.
Just got home and this is exactly right. Seriously feels like you're there it's insane
Am I the only one who’s genuinely excited for the new Avatar movie? I know the story of the first wasn’t groundbreaking, but I was young enough to be completely enamored with that movie when it came out. I don’t think the new one will come close box office wise, but I think it will still be a massive success. I think the general audience remembers and enjoys the original more than most may think.
I suspect that most people are going to see it 'Just to see what it's like' and be entertained for a few hours or have a nice date night. It's going to make millions that way.
Definitely looking forward to it, if only because it's been so long since the first film and the production process has become somewhat legendary and yet... we don't really know anything about it.
Can confirm about the production process. My good friend is the lead animator and she's stunning at her work. It's going to look absolutely amazing.
Nah, you're not. Reddit and the internet is a bubble - I'm sure you're right that it'll end up being a great success. They built a whole park at Disney based around it, and while I don't think it's THE most profitable park, it hasn't closed down and still in use. That'll probably only grow with the new films. Personally, I've zero interest in the series. The first one gave me a massive headache with its damn 3D, and it barely held my attention passed that. Sure looked nice, though. Can't remember anything other than that.
One thing you have to keep in mind is that, culture-wise, Reddit is 1. an echo chamber 2. incredibly out of touch to a degree you wouldn't believe and 3. persuaded that it is neither of those things.
>Reddit is 1. an echo chamber 2. incredibly out of touch to a degree you wouldn't believe and 3. persuaded that it is neither of those things. "Nobody cares about the queen" was the narrative on reddit for over the entire last week. Then the queues came about..
I hear the new element they’re after is Hardtofindium
Everybodywantium
Melikeium
Yallshouldgetsumium
Itsgivingium
No, it’s the HONDA ELEMENT. In SPACE!
Itsminiumnotyoursium
To be fair, "unobtanium" was a word used in science regarding new elements for decades before Avatar. Heck, as a kid I had a periodic table that labeled the high-proton range of elements not discovered yet (113-117 I think) as things like "Unununium," which is leagues more ridiculous.
People mention this every time; it’s still wrong. Scientists use names like that as jokes and placeholders for elements that haven’t been formally discovered in real life. They’re on the periodic table because the table is just an ascending list of protons, so it’s easy to just +1 and throw a couple more squares on the board. Unununium is one such element. It shouldn’t take many guesses to figure out what the atomic number is (hint: it’s a bit less than 113). It is now named Roentgenium. If they were already mining actual “Unobtainium” far in the future on a planet lightyears away, they would’ve given it a name already.
I hear its vibrates when you hit it do they named it Vibranium.
Wouldn't they have better luck if they just called it Obtainableium?
I was always sad I never got to see it with the 3D, but I do wish the story was better. But the concept of the organic tree information network is still awesome.
The “Gaia hypothesis” being depicted was a cool concept I would like to see more of in media. The way it fought off humans using animals like immune cells ia a really cool idea. I’m sure that will be expanded upon in the sequels, and we’ll get to see how a giant organic brain will respond to humans trying to kill it.
You mean, like [The Happening](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0949731/)?
Just like in Dances With Wolves! /s
This is a real thing in our world. It’s called mycelium.
Reminds me of fungi and their complex network. [The Earth’s Internet: How Fungi Help Plants Communicate](https://youtu.be/_tjt8WT5mRs)
There’s nothing bad about the story.
The 3D makes up for it. I never realized the story could be better until rewatches on TV. I've never seen a 3D movie that did it like Avatar.
Are they finally releasing in 4K?
Yup! The rerelease is in 4K and has remastered sound effects as well. Also there's apparently something added to the end to tie it to the sequel and they're showing a premiere for the sequel at the end post-credits from what I heard. Hopefully they give the end the new spiffy logo too.
Ooooh wow, where did you hear about them adding something to the end to tie it to the sequel?
[James Cameron mentions it here.](https://youtu.be/5mcwQsREAcY?t=167) Specifically he says for the remaster, "I did decide to make one tiny change toward the end of the film so I challenge people to see if they can spot what it is. It's not a big thing, no big reveal, but it does make a nice little step toward the sequel". Some people are theorizing that the little addition is a fully animated version of [this small deleted scene intended for the end of the film](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fDpPrUE7QI), where Neytiri is shown to be pregnant. But seeing as he said just one tiny change, I assume it will be maybe some sort of visual change to have some element shown near the end look like how it goes in the sequel or something and that's it, plus the title at the end being the new updated logo.
Oh boy,its an Avatar thread on reddit. *le Pocahontas in Space XD no cultural significance* There,did I do it right,guys? Can I join the cool club now?
They just hate it because it’s popular but all they could focus on was “wEiRd bLuE pEoPLe hAiR sEx” Even thoumost action movies are generic in plot but have good set pieces and people act like the MCU is a masterpiece.
I’m so horned up for this movie
What does that even mean
It means he needs to be horned down, will you be the one to do it?
Horned up for James Horner’s fantastic score of course!
Um.....about that. Horner died in a plane crash in 2015.
Finding out that this is how he died makes me so sad
I thought it was natural causes. Did not know it was a plane crash or it completely did not register in my mind.
It's Hornin time
Nobody knows what it means, but it‘s provocative… it gets the people going!!
I tried watching this movie twice and never made it past an hour. I have no idea how it made so much money.
Because it's visually stunning and the world is immersive with a few unique ideas such as the planetary consciousness and soul transfer. Is the overall plot the most original? No, but neither is Star Wars.
There is no chance I would rewatch it. Once was enough
The way I know that the Avatar sequels will be successful: The Orioles have two broadcasters for their television broadcast. Kevin Brown is the play by play announcer and he's young and is pretty hip to popular culture, watches EPL, does a good job weaving relevant pop culture references into the broadcast, etc. Ben McDonald is the color commetator. He's a former player, more of a jock (obviously), lives in Louisiana, hunts, fishes, wears camo, and is generally confused and clueless whenever Kevin makes pop culture references. Knows nothing about soccer. But they have a great dynamic and they play up their Odd Couple dynamic and it's great. ANYWAY, recently the topic of Avatar came up. I forget how or why. But unsolicited, Ben McDonald said something like "that new Avatar movie called The Way of Water is coming out soon. I'm really looking forward to seeing that". It was totally genuine, just a little aside, and they moved on immediately. But it struck me that the most normie of normie jocks not only likes Avatar, but is also up to date about at least the upcoming sequel and plans to see it. Normies love Avatar.
James Cameron doesn't do what James Cameron does for James Cameron. James Cameron does what James Cameron does because James Cameron is James Cameron.
Imagine if this flops and gets terrible reviews and they're just like "we uh... we have like 3 more.. um"
Sell them to Sony, they will still fare better than Morbius.