It is currently Mon Sep 25, 2017 11:44 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 472 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2016 12:59 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 8:11 pm
knives wrote:
Shrew wrote:
But if nothing else, it did give us the lasting cultural gift of "unobtainium".

Which was a joke in sci-fi circles for at least a few years before the movie meaning it just popularized the joke.

It actually goes back further than that; I've heard it used by defense department engineers enough to get a sense that it's been used by the military for quite some time.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2016 1:02 pm 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Cameron should've used "upsidaisium" instead


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:04 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 1:48 pm
domino harvey wrote:
No, see Jai Courtney or Chris Pine (literally the blandest human beings alive). Ferngully is awesome though, why couldn't that be the biggest film of all time?

Yes. As much as I disliked Sam Worthington, who was in every big movie when Avatar came out, Jai Courteney is much worse. And he also seemed to be in a run of movies at the same time too - Jack Reacher, A Good Day To Die Hard.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:04 pm 

Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 2:00 am
I remember Avatar as being one of those films that is only worth watching for the spectacular special effects.
Like the original Star Wars.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2016 5:45 pm 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: Washington
If I recall, my main argument on why Kingsman was better than the last Die Hard movie was because Jai Courtney wasn't in Kingsman.

Yeah, I'm not a fan. His presence makes anything he's in instantly bland (see the Divergent movies, though they didn't need much help).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2016 5:48 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm
I do think he was perfectly okay in the Terminator though I recognize I'm in the minority on everything in that film.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2016 6:33 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:01 pm
Location: Stretford, Manchester
hearthesilence wrote:
Not true - they forced 3D and digital projectors into all theaters, thus gauging most viewer goers at the box office from here on out over a useless, expensive, unwanted gimmick.

Is this even true? Of the three cinemas I frequent now, only one offers 3D. Of the two I frequented a couple of years ago at university, neither did.

HOME in Manchester opened with five screens last year and didn't adopt 3D at all (which is actually a pity as there is some arthouse fare in 3D).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2016 6:43 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC
Just remembered, this was a problem with Godard's Goodbye to Language. They wanted to push for 3D screenings, but the only theaters that would book it in the U.S. were smaller, prestigious theaters who didn't universally adopt 3D the way the multiplexes did. This made up a small percentage of movie theaters in the U.S. though - probably a double-digit number of theaters versus the thousands of theaters that book primarily Hollywood studio films. Are theaters more independent in the UK? Growing up in the suburbs, 99% of theaters were pretty much big-chain multiplexes, usually located in or around malls, all uniformly designed the same way (i.e. now with 3D theaters).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2016 7:23 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:01 pm
Location: Stretford, Manchester
Part of it is that England is much smaller country I guess, so I probably have around 10 cinemas within an hour's drive, even though I live in the rurally and 10+ miles from the nearest.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2016 9:21 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm
TMDaines wrote:
hearthesilence wrote:
Not true - they forced 3D and digital projectors into all theaters, thus gauging most viewer goers at the box office from here on out over a useless, expensive, unwanted gimmick.

Is this even true? Of the three cinemas I frequent now, only one offers 3D. Of the two I frequented a couple of years ago at university, neither did.

HOME in Manchester opened with five screens last year and didn't adopt 3D at all (which is actually a pity as there is some arthouse fare in 3D).

Avatar had nothing to do with the mass migration to digital, which was an industry seachange that was happening anyway (and happened faster than most people expected), but it definitely ushered digital 3D into the mainstream. The format needed a massive film to force adoption, and this was the film. Then lots more films were made / remade to take advantage of that new capacity. That said, the adoption of 3D falls well short of "all cinemas" and huge films still do huge business in 2D (even when there's a 3D option), so I think it still counts as a very large niche.

And what are my lasting impressions of the film? It was terrible and bits of it looked like old Yes album covers (which is obviously a horrible thing, as it reminded me of Yes).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2016 11:33 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC
zedz wrote:
Avatar had nothing to do with the mass migration to digital, which was an industry seachange that was happening anyway (and happened faster than most people expected)...

Because Avatar catalyzed that transition, pushing exhibitors to get off the fence about making that transition in 2009, as one exhibitor put it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2016 11:38 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 9:37 am
I live in a part of New Jersey where there are a dozen theaters within a 30 minute drive and all play almost exclusively digital at this point. One closed a few years ago and it was certainly the type if theater you imagine couldn't afford to convert to digital.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2016 11:39 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
hearthesilence wrote:
zedz wrote:
Avatar had nothing to do with the mass migration to digital, which was an industry seachange that was happening anyway (and happened faster than most people expected)...

Because Avatar catalyzed that transition, pushing exhibitors to get off the fence about making that transition in 2009, as one exhibitor put it.

Something had to. If it wouldn't be that movie, it would be another. Or it would have become incrementally obvious to them to make that transition.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2016 5:36 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm
Avatar: The Jazz Singer of digital.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 08, 2016 10:07 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 7:24 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA
aox wrote:
I don't remember a single scene from the entire film. It certainly didn't have a "Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.", "forget it Jake, it's Chinatown", "May the force be with you", or "Hasta la vista, baby" moment.

Actually...
Image
:lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 15, 2016 12:26 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 5:34 am
Location: Portland, OR
James Cameron now says there will be four (4) Avatar sequels, if that excites you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 15, 2016 12:44 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Hard to tell if this is Cameron gone amuck, Fox's attempt at trying to compete with Star Wars, or both.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 15, 2016 12:40 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:03 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD
flyonthewall2983 wrote:
Hard to tell if this is Cameron gone amuck, Fox's attempt at trying to compete with Star Wars, or both.

Probably both, Fox wanting a big cinematic universe, Cameron happy to spend their money and sprawl out.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 15, 2016 1:11 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Sometimes I look down my street on a dark, quiet weekday evening and 3 or 4 big flatscreen TVs are all displaying well-worn Blu-ray copies of Avatar; my neighbors' whole families curled up by the fire enjoying the most memorable film of the last 50 years. I'm sure these sequels will be greeted with the same inviting warmth that still encircles the original film.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 15, 2016 6:27 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 4:04 pm
This dude is planning and announcing films for 2023??


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 19, 2016 12:11 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
He doesn't want to compete with Star Wars


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 2:20 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 pm
They have fallen behind schedule again and will not be able to make their hoped December 2018 release

Seeing as it was looking like Disney was willing to play nice and let them release in the new best window for a big-budget film without facing Star Wars for one year this is not a good move financially, but if it takes this long it takes this long.

It's just reached total insanity - ten years between movies! I'm still, obviously, rooting for Cameron to show every moron who writes off the movie as this secret failure or something why he is who he is, but it's looking more and more unlikely this will be able to bring out the crowds it'd need to.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 2:27 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT
James Cameron wrote:
What people have to understand is that this is a cadence of releases. So, we're not making Avatar 2, we're making Avatar 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Thread title updated to be appropriately obnoxious


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 2:35 pm 
Dot Com Dom
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
A+


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 2:48 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK
Is a cadence different from a covenant? What about a concordance?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 472 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group




This site is not affiliated with The Criterion Collection