# Next movie that can trump Avatar in the Box Office



## Roy (Jul 28, 2010)

Here's my take on it: Batman & Superman movie. Directed or overseen by Nolan. And to make things fair...in eye-popping 3D! IMAX is an obvious. 

P.S. I only add 3D because that's where Avatar made most of it's money. And let's assume that the 3D is actually good. 

Now let's say that the upcoming Superman movie is a huge success. And that it's actually a very good film. That would open the doors for Warner Bros to make a movie between arguably the two most iconic comic book heroes ever. All the original cast from Nolan's Batman franchise is part of the film. Do you think a film like that packs the punch to take on Avatar?


What do you think is a film that is capable of knocking Avatar out of 1st place? I'd like to hear other people's ideas as well.


----------



## Zaru (Jul 28, 2010)

Comic book heroes alone will not top avatar.


----------



## Z (Jul 28, 2010)

It almost made 3 billion.

I really have no idea what's gonna top that.


----------



## martryn (Jul 28, 2010)

> It almost made 3 billion.
> 
> I really have no idea what's gonna top that.



The passage of time.


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Jul 28, 2010)

Titanic: 3D 


I guess any random shit story stuffed into high-end graphics with great 3d visuals has the ability to beat it. Give it a slightly more decent story and it could win.


----------



## Zaru (Jul 28, 2010)

CrazyMoronX said:


> Titanic: 3D
> 
> 
> I guess any random shit story stuffed into high-end graphics with great 3d visuals has the ability to beat it. Give it a slightly more decent story and it could win.



People don't WANT a slightly more decent story. They want EXACTLY that.


----------



## Bart (Jul 28, 2010)

*1.* _Deathly Hallows Part I and II_
*2.* _At Stranger Tides_
*3.* _The Hobbit_
*4.* _Superman_

But yeah Superman does have a massive chance of being capible of it, but it depends on Jonah's directing skills and the story of course.


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Jul 28, 2010)

Zaru said:


> People don't WANT a slightly more decent story. They want EXACTLY that.


  I wish I could say it's not true, for the sake of humanity, but it's true. It's true.


----------



## Superrazien (Jul 28, 2010)

The Avengers.


----------



## Wez ★ (Jul 28, 2010)

God knows, but I look forward to watching whatever does...


----------



## colours (Jul 28, 2010)

Bart said:


> *1.* _Deathly Hallows Part I and II_
> *2.* _At Stranger Tides_
> *3.* _The Hobbit_
> *4.* _Superman_
> ...



i am _so_ looking forward to the hobbit


----------



## Perverted King (Jul 28, 2010)

Definitely The Avengers


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Jul 28, 2010)

I don't think the Avengers will do anywhere near as good, honestly. It'll do well, maybe, but it's just a comic book movie.


----------



## Bart (Jul 28, 2010)

Ooops I forgot to add the ultimate film:

*The Justice League of America!*


----------



## Magnum Miracles (Jul 28, 2010)

CrazyMoronX said:


> Titanic: 3D
> 
> 
> I guess any random shit story stuffed into high-end graphics with great 3d visuals has the ability to beat it. Give it a slightly more decent story and it could win.


Yep,in today's generation, good special effects=great movie. Besides look at Titantic. It was major shit,but still made a lot of money.


----------



## Sasori (Jul 28, 2010)

If they made an amazing movie of the Justice League staying true to their comic book counterparts, it would be epic.

Imagine watching GL in CGI holy fuck, or just watching Flash doing some insane shit FTL.


----------



## Koi (Jul 28, 2010)

How about THE AVENGERS?!


----------



## Yoshi-Paperfold (Jul 28, 2010)

I could definitely see Superman and the Hobbit I & II beating avatar.


----------



## Koi (Jul 28, 2010)

Okay the real answer is the Smurfs movie.


----------



## troublesum-chan (Jul 28, 2010)

in like 12 years its going to cost 3 billion just to see a movie


----------



## Chee (Jul 28, 2010)

Batman 3 really seems like the movie that can do it right now. Mostly because The Dark Knight was the second highest grossing until Alice in Wonderland? came out.

But a lot of people are waiting for Batman 3, more than I think TDK had at 2006.


----------



## Hyouma (Jul 28, 2010)

^Agreed. Batman is a hype thanks to The Dark Knight and a sequel always sells good. A possible hybernation with Superman -when done properly- holds a lot of potential.

Pirates 4 is probably going to be a blockbuster but last I heard there was going to be less Johnny Depp? (maybe I'm not up-to-date anymore) If that's true, it won't make it.

Harry Potter final movie may do well, but if I'd have to guess, it won't make the mark of Avatar either.

The Avengers isn't going to make it imo, Iron Man, Spiderman and the Hulk aren't that popular compared to Batman and Superman. I don't know Captain America yet but I doubt he's going to be that popular in the entire world. 

Now if someone would get the best DC and Marvel heroes together, that'd be something!

The movie I see breaking the record the easiest would of course be *Star Wars 7*.


----------



## Tyrion (Jul 28, 2010)

Deathly Hallows Part 1 and 2


----------



## Narcissus (Jul 28, 2010)

I'm agreeing with the next Batman sequel due to the immense hype. Avatar made so much money (even though it wasn't that deserving) that it is also likely that none of these films will match it.

I think Deathly Hallows has the best chance after Batman simply because of its huge fanbase, and with it being the conclusion of the series and all.


----------



## Tyrion (Jul 29, 2010)

So the new Batman's film is called "The Knight's End"


----------



## Ema Skye (Jul 29, 2010)

Whatever James Cameron's next movie is


----------



## The Potential (Jul 29, 2010)

Hyouma said:


> *Star Wars 7*.



Interesting...


----------



## MartialHorror (Jul 29, 2010)

Nah, imo, TDK 3, while It will do better than TDK, wont beat Avatar.

Nor do I think Batman Vs Superman would work either(it's a retarded pairing anyway). Personally, I dont think any sequel will be the most highest grossing movie of all time.


----------



## Chee (Jul 29, 2010)

MartialHorror said:


> Nah, imo, TDK 3, while It will do better than TDK, wont beat Avatar.
> 
> Nor do I think Batman Vs Superman would work either(it's a retarded pairing anyway). Personally, I dont think any sequel will be the most highest grossing movie of all time.



If 3atman can't beat Avatar, it will definitely beat Titanic.


----------



## MartialHorror (Jul 29, 2010)

Possibly. But remember that TDK had a lot of hype that's hard to beat(Ledger turning in his most memorable performance before his untimely death).

It's been said that the Riddler is the next villain. But how will you top Ledger's Joker?


----------



## Man in Black (Jul 29, 2010)

Batman 3 probably won't even pass TDK, let alone pass Titanic or Avatar.


----------



## Chee (Jul 29, 2010)

I'm just going by how many people are excited for it. Every time a rumor comes out, the internet explodes.

Inception alone is doing good just by The Dark Knight title alone (mixture of Leonardo and action too).


----------



## MartialHorror (Jul 29, 2010)

But internet hype means little. Imo, if "Inception" wasn't a stunning film, it would've done significantly less.

I always think of "Snakes on a Plane". If a movie doesn't satisfy, then the hype won't matter all that much(and "Snakes" almost became a cultural phenomenom before it even came out!).

But above all, I dont think sequels will take the "highest grossing movie" spot. Imo, unless Nolan has a VERY good idea up his sleeve, then Batman 3 is more likely to be slightly disappointing......Good, maybe even great, but TDK is hard to beat.....in quality and numbers.


----------



## Chee (Jul 29, 2010)

Let's say that the movie is good. As good as Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. It would do great in the box office.


----------



## MartialHorror (Jul 29, 2010)

It will. But there is nothing to suggest that it will beat Titanic or TDK.

Why did "Titanic" do well? Was well liked and more importantly, it was a movie that fit perfectly for both genders. Women love big budgeted romances and guys watch it either for dates or to see the ship fall apart.....or both.

But most of all, people constantly wanted to watch it. It was that good of a date movie.

"Avatar" did well because besides being the return of an MIA director, it also invented new, awesome technology and 3D. People wanted to see the biggest budgeted movie of all time that was intentionally meant to be that vast.

Batman 3 will possibly do better than its predecessor, especially if its good. But remember, usually trilogies dont do as well. By this point, only the major fans are interested in watching it(which is usually a lot). Usually the 3rd films dont necessarily make more money, but make it faster. 

Hence, I dont think B3 will do as well as TDK. "The Dark Knight" reinvented a genre. What can a third movie do?


----------



## Ennoea (Jul 29, 2010)

Batman can't beat Avatar, the oversea's audience simply doesn't appreciate it enough. Perhaps a Superman movie could come close but they'd have to make it a seriously mass market product with some slight digs at the US in there, thats how Avatar rolled. All in not so glorius 3D.


----------



## Nightblade (Jul 29, 2010)

I think a new kind of movie can top it. Not Batman or any superhero movie, but something entirely new like Avatar(not in story because it's a rehash of others) was.


----------



## MartialHorror (Jul 29, 2010)

For Superman to do it, they'd need to wait until "Superman Returns" was out of our minds. But then again, I dunno.

Superman is iconic, but also hard to take seriously(cheesy). Plus, the Superman movies crashed harder than any sequel other than maybe "Jaws: The Revenge"(which is why people cant take Jaws seriously as much).

"Superman 4" was so inept that it makes "Batman and Robin" look.....okay. So I dont think Superman could do it......at least for a long time.


----------



## Man in Black (Jul 29, 2010)

Superman Returns is such a forgettable movie, I don't think it's in anyone's mind.


----------



## MartialHorror (Jul 29, 2010)

I disgress......to a point. It's pretty forgettable, but most haven't forgotten it was made. They just dont remember.........well, anything other than it being made.

This is why I stress it is unwise to reboot it this early. Too many people will presume it's related to "Superman Returns" and won't be interested because they don't remember/didn't like the first one.


----------



## Chee (Jul 29, 2010)

If Jonathan Nolan directs the Superman movie, I'll be the first to shop Jonah's head on Superman and Chris's head on Batman, brofisting. Literally *bro*fisting.


----------



## C_Akutabi (Jul 29, 2010)

Ema Skye said:


> Whatever James Cameron's next movie is



I was gonna say this 

As for Titanic: You should also keep in mind that it was in theaters for a long time. How many movies are still being screened 10 months after the premier?


----------



## Narcissus (Jul 29, 2010)

How about Avatar 2?


----------



## illmatic (Jul 29, 2010)

$750 mill to beat USA box office

Batman 3 if its shot all in Imax


----------



## Chee (Jul 29, 2010)

All IMAX  Batman 3 would be AMAZING.


----------



## Z (Jul 29, 2010)

There is very little chance Batman 3 is gonna beat The Dark Knight.


----------



## Parallax (Jul 30, 2010)

Yeah it wont, unless two of the main actors suddenly bite it


----------



## mystictrunks (Jul 30, 2010)

James Camereon's "I'm Getting Money Bitches."


----------



## Zen-aku (Jul 30, 2010)

Batman 3 & the Avengers

maybe the harry potter movie finales


----------



## the_notorious_Z.É. (Jul 30, 2010)

Narcissus said:


> How about Avatar 2?



I was just going to say that.


----------



## Bart (Jul 30, 2010)

Chee said:


> If Jonathan Nolan directs the Superman movie, I'll be the first to shop Jonah's head on Superman and Chris's head on Batman, brofisting. Literally *bro*fisting.



Looks like you better get Photoshop ready then


----------



## Dr.Douchebag (Jul 30, 2010)

Dom Cobb said:


> Here's my take on it: Batman & Superman movie. Directed or overseen by Nolan. And to make things fair...in eye-popping 3D! IMAX is an obvious.
> 
> P.S. I only add 3D because that's where Avatar made most of it's money. And let's assume that the 3D is actually good.
> 
> ...



A simple to digest movie.

Simple and predictable plot with amazing graphics and setting , throw in an equally predictable love story and there you go.


----------



## Eunectes (Jul 30, 2010)

Chee said:


> All IMAX  Batman 3 would be AMAZING.


I don,t really care as long as it's not in freaking 3D.


----------



## Yousif77 (Jul 30, 2010)

paranormal activity 2


----------



## MartialHorror (Jul 30, 2010)

I dont think Avatar 2 will beat Avatar, if its made.

Not everyone liked Avatar, so they wouldnt bother seeing it. People who havent seen Avatar wouldn't bother either.

"Lost World" keeps popping up in my head. While a smash hit, it failed to surpass "Jurassic Park"(which was highest grossing movie at the time......although I dont recall if Titanic was out yet).


----------



## nirgilis (Jul 31, 2010)

maybe in 5 years
I don't see anyone matching avatars success anytime soon


----------



## Magnum Miracles (Jul 31, 2010)

Yousif77 said:


> paranormal *crap*tivity 2


Fixed. Seems more appropriate.


----------



## Yoshi-Paperfold (Jul 31, 2010)

Smaug + Gandalf + Gollum + talking wargs and eagles = becoming the top grossing movie of all time. 

That is if it ever gets made.


----------



## Mikaveli (Jul 31, 2010)

Superrazien said:


> The Avengers.



No Comic Book movie is going to gross that much money. 

It's only going to be topped by another pretty film, except in the future it'll be in 4-D. You'll be able to feel a character, it's like you're actually there!

Tickets: $30


----------



## MartialHorror (Jul 31, 2010)

I doubt the Avengers can do it. Personally, I dont think that movie will be very good.

Think about it. Why is Iron Man good? The character.

Why is the Hulk (supposedly) good? The character.

As fun as it will be to see all these characters in a movie, how would you balance the screentime? Who would be the main character and how will you do it so fans of the other characters wont be irked?

Imo, while it might be entertaining, it probably wont be good.


----------



## Nakiami (Jul 31, 2010)

Hyouma said:


> *Star Wars 7*.





Stark042 said:


> Interesting...



Very interesting


----------



## Detective (Jul 31, 2010)

Although it won't knock off Avatar at the Box Office, I hope Tron: Legacy will give it a run for it's money in terms of visuals. Apparently they are using the updated version of the stereoscopic cameras that were customized/created for filming Avatar.


----------



## Divi (Jul 31, 2010)

Breaking Dawn. 

But not really. 

...Did someone say Star Wars.


----------



## Magnum Miracles (Jul 31, 2010)

MartialHorror said:


> I doubt the Avengers can do it. Personally, I dont think that movie will be very good.
> 
> Think about it. Why is Iron Man good? The character.
> 
> ...


Joss Whedon( Buffy: The Vampire Slayer, Angel) and J.J. Abrams (Star Trek) have been confirmed to be the directors of The Avengers. That's why The Avengers has a possibility of being a kick-ass film.


----------



## Judecious (Jul 31, 2010)

i really can't see a movie topping it for a very long time.


----------



## Burke (Aug 1, 2010)

Superrazien said:


> The Avengers.



This, this, and more of this.
As far as hype goes, its been hyped for like 3 years alredy, and will continue to be hyped until 2013(or whenever)

3D + the actors from the respctive movies combined.... >:3


----------



## Mider T (Jan 19, 2016)

Probably The Force Awakens.


----------



## reiatsuflow (Jan 19, 2016)

Shameful bump.

Also because,



> It almost made 3 billion.
> 
> I really have no idea what's gonna top that.



Force awakens won't be topping avatar's international gross, even though it blew it away domestically. That is, assuming TFA doesn't somehow find a way to make another billion dollars more than its current total. Literally. Still a billion dollars behind avatar.


----------



## Mider T (Jan 19, 2016)

Taiwan, Vietnam, Iran, Pakistan are huge untapped markets.

Basically any country that ends with an "ah" sound.


----------



## reiatsuflow (Jan 19, 2016)

> Taiwan, Vietnam, Iran, Pakistan are huge untapped markets.
> 
> Basically any country that ends with an "ah" sound.



I was going to slam canada because it ends in an ah and isn't a huge market for anything but snow before I realized none of your countries actually end with 'ah' sounds. You're playing some sort of jedi mind trick on me, and it's working. I'm already confused, angry, frightened and aroused, like an Inside Out for adolescent boys.


----------



## martryn (Jan 19, 2016)

How the fuck did Avatar gross that much?  3D ticket sales?  IMAX?  i find it hard to believe that more people saw Avatar in theaters as The Force Awakens, but is Star Wars even in 3D?  

Avatar is such a shit film.  It's a good movie if you're just going to sit and watch special effects, but it's such a shitty film otherwise.  The shitty plot.  The shitty acting.  The shitty characterizations.  The shitty environmental message.  Every thing is shit, except for the neato 3D special effects.


----------



## Harbour (Jan 19, 2016)

TFA wont top Avatar worldwide ofc. With god's help it will cross 2billion mark by the end at max.
Also Avatar is the better movie, than TFA of course.


----------



## TetraVaal (Jan 19, 2016)

Always makes me laugh when people shit on Avatar or James Cameron.

Do you want to know why Avatar won't be topped by JJ Abrams' garbage ass Star Wars film? Because he didn't do anything special with it.

People didn't flock to Avatar because of its narrative weight--they flocked to the film because it pushed every single technological limitation in filmmaking at the time.

Do you want to know why General Snork or whatever the fuck Serkis' goofy ass, ebola looking character's name is, was able to be put on screen? Because Cameron and WETA are responsible for virtually most--if not all--of the performance capture technology you see all of these films using today.

He also revolutionized the usage of 3D. While I personally can't stand 3D (shit-tier medium for like 60+ years now, and even VR in its infant stages, is far more immersive) he still made Avatar the first film as a real tool for the medium. He's also responsible for the first major motion picture using this 'new' 3D that allows you to feel like you're looking through a window as opposed to objects coming at you.

Avatar wasn't a particularly good film as far as its storytelling or characters go. But shit, neither is the new Star Wars or the Avengers movies.

Do you want to know what film will top Avatar at the box office? it's simple: Avatar 2.

Why?

Because the combination of increased frame rates in sequences that require it (this will be the next bit of technology filmmakers will jock from Cameron next )--as well as improved performance capture technology, including underwater performance capture technology.

People flock to Cameron's films because he does new shit with everything he puts out.

Motherfuckers like JJ Abrams and Joss Whedon have never accomplished anything that comes even remotely close to pushing the technological limitations of filmmaking like Cameron does.


----------



## reiatsuflow (Jan 19, 2016)

Avatar was better than TFA in basically every way.

If you think otherwise, then you disagree with me.

A crime punishable by nothing.

Yes.


----------



## Catalyst75 (Jan 19, 2016)

Star Wars the Force Awakens has been in theatres for five weeks (the current weeks marks a month).  Avatar's total time in theatres locally *was thirty-four weeks.*  In five weeks, Star Wars the Force Awakens blew right past the domestic record set by Avatar in a 1/7th of the time.

Yes, Avatar may have pushed "technological limitations" in film-making, but it was equally a crutch for the movie - the narrative was only average at best, and dependent upon its visual effects to hypnotize the masses and lure people in.

On the other hand, Star Wars and the Avengers are part of a larger mythos; Avatar 2 is only milking whatever nostalgia is left from the original at this rate.  What Cameron could possibly do to extend the franchise out to three more movies is beyond my comprehension.


----------



## Wan (Jan 19, 2016)

If Star Wars can't do it, nothing can.

Oh and TFA is a much better story than Dances With Smurfycats. Who the f*** is there to care about in that movie


----------



## TetraVaal (Jan 20, 2016)

Star Wars fans are utterly retarded.


----------



## Stunna (Jan 20, 2016)

People make jokes about how no one cares about Avatar anymore, but Tetra's right; both TFA and Avatar are derivative on the narrative front, but the latter is more impressive on a technical level. The only reason TFA would be remembered and Avatar forgotten is because the former has the "Star Wars" slapped on the label. Not because it deserves more acclaim.

TFA was fun and all, but really; do you think people would care about it in 10 years if it didn't have Luke Skywalker and the Millennium Falcon in it?


----------



## Wan (Jan 20, 2016)

Stunna said:


> People make jokes about how no one cares about Avatar anymore, but Tetra's right; both TFA and Avatar are derivative on the narrative front, but the latter is more impressive on a technical level. The only reason TFA would be remembered and Avatar forgotten is because the former has the "Star Wars" slapped on the label. Not because it deserves more acclaim.
> 
> TFA was fun and all, but really; do you think people would care about it in 10 years if it didn't have Luke Skywalker and the Millennium Falcon in it?



Well Luke Skywalker is barely in the movie, so on that front, yes. I think the movie would be remembered even just for the characters. The cast is just great and could carry the movie on their own. Can't say the same for Bland Worthington and co.


----------



## Stunna (Jan 20, 2016)

I didn't mean Luke Skywalker specifically; I was emphasizing the point that TFA "profits" off of coming from a familiar IP and using nostalgic imagery and characters.

And I disagree; there's nothing inherently special about any of TFA's characters. They're likable in large part because of the talent behind them, but they're not exactly iconic.


----------



## Wan (Jan 20, 2016)

Stunna said:


> I didn't mean Luke Skywalker specifically; I was emphasizing the point that TFA "profits" off of coming from a familiar IP and using nostalgic imagery and characters.
> 
> And I disagree; there's nothing inherently special about any of TFA's characters. They're likable in large part because of the talent behind them, but they're not exactly iconic.



Ok, and is that a bad thing? Was the Doctor Who relaunch bad for using the Doctor, the TARDIS, and Daleks?

Only time will tell if TFA's characters are truly iconic, but I think they have the potential to be every bit as iconic as the original cast.


----------



## Stunna (Jan 20, 2016)

Wan said:


> Ok, and is that a bad thing? Was the Doctor Who relaunch bad for using the Doctor, the TARDIS, and Daleks?


That's... not my point. My point is that it's silly to say that Avatar is irrelevant now in comparison when TFA isn't a movie that will possibly stand the test of time by relying on its own two legs. Both movies are derivative, but Avatar has a closer semblance to originality than TFA does, and it definitely contributed more to film as a whole.


----------



## Wan (Jan 20, 2016)

Stunna said:


> That's... not my point. My point is that it's silly to say that Avatar is irrelevant now in comparison when TFA isn't a movie that will possibly stand the test of time by relying on its own two legs. Both movies are derivative, but Avatar has a closer semblance to originality than TFA does, and it definitely contributed more to film as a whole.



Well... sure. I wasn't saying Avatar is irrelevant. Just that TFA is the better movie in my opinion because of the setting, characters, and story.


----------



## reiatsuflow (Jan 20, 2016)

The thing about james cameron is that he's a smart guy. When people compliment his technical abilities and innovations in film, it's not referring to some sort of michael bay mastery of perfume ad lighting. Cameron has invented technology to innovate filmmaking. He's intelligent with science and biology to boot, which informs the designs and formula of his movies more thoroughly than other blockbusters, where technobabble is just freelanced out to some consultant who tells them to describe an energy as quanta instead of particles. Or something.

The setting of avatar had intelligence put into its ecosystem, flora and fauna. SW has enormous creativity with its locations, but it's more fantasy. There can exist a planet that's just snow and just a desert and just a forest. Depending on your sensibility, that doesn't mean much

Cameron knows how to design things that have a relational sense to their environment and themselves. He didn't design the navi the way he did because he thought it looked cool, but because of intelligent reasons; their being humanoid, blue, patterned with phosphorescence, all came to be because of a level of intelligent reasoning that Cameron brings uniquely to projects just because he's so smart. That goes all the way down, including the military equipment. Screenwriters always reference cameron's scripts uniquely, because when he's writing (including avatar), he doesn't just write about 'a bunch of tanks and helicopters', but knows the exact models and equipment specifications.

Granted, I laughed out loud twice in theaters watching avatar when I wasn't supposed to. So there's that.

Otherwise, some posters have their heads up their pooping area, which is not where heads should be. Just because you and your friends keep talking about star wars and comic book characters and haven't mentioned the navi since 2010 doesn't mean the movie is forgotten. Your social circle is not a representative of cultural attentions and iconography. For example, I don't watch most of these CG movies for young audiences. I'll watch anything that's hand drawn, but the CG stuff I opt out of, and I don't have kids. But I remember listening to a friend talking about Frozen when it came out and how he couldn't remember the last time a movie was so celebrated in the culture, referenced everywhere, on television, new media, articles, everything. 

I hadn't seen Frozen then and hadn't noticed a single reference. In my world and attentions, the movie came and went like any other. It's weird. I know.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Jan 20, 2016)

When does 4D get invented?That is probably when.


----------



## Wan (Jan 20, 2016)

reiatsuflow said:


> The thing about james cameron is that he's a smart guy. When people compliment his technical abilities and innovations in film, it's not referring to some sort of michael bay mastery of perfume ad lighting. Cameron has invented technology to innovate filmmaking. He's intelligent with science and biology to boot, which informs the designs and formula of his movies more thoroughly than other blockbusters, where technobabble is just freelanced out to some consultant who tells them to describe an energy as quanta instead of particles. Or something.
> 
> The setting of avatar had intelligence put into its ecosystem, flora and fauna. SW has enormous creativity with its locations, but it's more fantasy. There can exist a planet that's just snow and just a desert and just a forest. Depending on your sensibility, that doesn't mean much
> 
> Cameron knows how to design things that have a relational sense to their environment and themselves. He didn't design the navi the way he did because he thought it looked cool, but because of intelligent reasons; their being humanoid, blue, patterned with phosphorescence, all came to be because of a level of intelligent reasoning that Cameron brings uniquely to projects just because he's so smart. That goes all the way down, including the military equipment. Screenwriters always reference cameron's scripts uniquely, because when he's writing (including avatar), he doesn't just write about 'a bunch of tanks and helicopters', but knows the exact models and equipment specifications.



That's a lot of effort for a setting I don't care about.



> Otherwise, some posters have their heads up their pooping area, which is not where heads should be. Just because you and your friends keep talking about star wars and comic book characters and haven't mentioned the navi since 2010 doesn't mean the movie is forgotten. Your social circle is not a representative of cultural attentions and iconography. For example, I don't watch most of these CG movies for young audiences. I'll watch anything that's hand drawn, but the CG stuff I opt out of, and I don't have kids. But I remember listening to a friend talking about Frozen when it came out and how he couldn't remember the last time a movie was so celebrated in the culture, referenced everywhere, on television, new media, articles, everything.
> 
> I hadn't seen Frozen then and hadn't noticed a single reference. In my world and attentions, the movie came and went like any other. It's weird. I know.



I wasn't talking about cultural impact. As far as that goes though, I doubt Avatar has had more cultural impact than Star Wars, especially in the US/UK.


----------



## Lucaniel (Jan 20, 2016)

Stunna said:


> it definitely contributed more to film as a whole.



what, by starting the 3D "boom"? 

that's not really something that makes it memorable to the layman 

people are gonna be talking about kylo ren for a lot longer than anybody ever talked about stephen lang's evil army guy character


----------



## Rukia (Jan 20, 2016)

Finding Dory is the next contender.


*Spoiler*: __ 



Just kidding.  That movie looks like shit.


----------



## Stunna (Jan 20, 2016)

Lucaniel said:


> what, by starting the 3D "boom"?
> 
> that's not really something that makes it memorable to the layman
> 
> people are gonna be talking about kylo ren for a lot longer than anybody ever talked about stephen lang's evil army guy character


well, a lot of important film stuff isn't memorable to the layman

as has been previously noted, Avatar utilized innovative motion cap and other visual effect tech that I'd wager has had an impact on how movies have been produced since


----------



## Lucaniel (Jan 20, 2016)

Stunna said:


> *well, a lot of important film stuff isn't memorable to the layman*
> 
> as has been previously noted, Avatar utilized innovative motion cap and other visual effect tech that I'd wager has had an impact on how movies have been produced since



yes

are we not talking about the layman? 

i thought this entire debate was about which will live on to be more significant and well-liked and remembered in the collective memory of american/western culture


----------



## Stunna (Jan 20, 2016)

I... I don't think I was


----------



## Lucaniel (Jan 20, 2016)

well this is where i got that impression


Stunna said:


> People make jokes about how no one cares about Avatar anymore, but Tetra's right; both TFA and Avatar are derivative on the narrative front, but the latter is more impressive on a technical level. The only reason TFA would be remembered and Avatar forgotten is because the former has the "Star Wars" slapped on the label. Not because it deserves more acclaim.
> 
> TFA was fun and all, but really; do you think people would care about it in 10 years if it didn't have Luke Skywalker and the Millennium Falcon in it?



no-one cares, remembered, forgotten, "people", etc.


----------



## Wan (Jan 20, 2016)

Stunna said:


> well, a lot of important film stuff isn't memorable to the layman
> 
> as has been previously noted, Avatar utilized innovative motion cap and other visual effect tech that I'd wager has had an impact on how movies have been produced since



Avatar's motion capture was itself inspired by stuff like Smeagol from Lord of the Rings, tho


----------



## Mider T (Jan 21, 2016)

Avatar was inspired by Andy Serkis?


----------



## Stunna (Jan 21, 2016)

inspiration does not negate the presence of innovation


----------



## martryn (Jan 21, 2016)

You want to know what movie pushed the boundaries of technology?  Tron.  And no one gives a shit about Tron.  Just like no one should give a shit about Avatar, which only made money because the fucking reason to see it was to buy an inflated 3D ticket.


----------



## Stunna (Jan 21, 2016)

well, no, people do give a shit about Tron

just not the layman


----------



## Lucaniel (Jan 21, 2016)

Stunna said:


> well, no, people do give a shit about Tron
> 
> just not the layman



depends on the generation of the layman

i think tron is a name a lot of people would recognise, as "that movie"

"that movie that looks like a rave and it's in a computer?"

or something


----------



## Suigetsu (Jan 21, 2016)

Z said:


> It almost made 3 billion.
> 
> I really have no idea what's gonna top that.



AVATAR 2 or ALITA "if it was being made by Jim Cam ofc"

Cant beat the Jimbo!


----------



## reiatsuflow (Jan 21, 2016)

Every time somebody brings up Alita it hurts allover. He abandoned Alita for more Avatar. I was so bummed about that.



> On the other hand, Star Wars and the Avengers are part of a larger mythos; Avatar 2 is only milking whatever nostalgia is left from the original at this rate. What Cameron could possibly do to extend the franchise out to three more movies is beyond my comprehension.



Cameron explained why he's making more avatar. I'm sure he has plenty of reasons, but he gave a few.

One, it took a lot of effort and money to make the technology to create that world, and he figured it a waste of money to just abandon them and move along. I said it before, but he literally invented new filmmaking technology.

Secondly, it takes a lot of effort, luck and dice rolls to make an original property that succeeds as well as avatar does, and it gives him more freedom and financing for experimenting in future avatar movies than a new and untested property would.

Lastly, I guess he's a fan of the environment and (still) interested in communicating environmental themes to audiences, and said he realized the avatar universe basically allowed him to communicate anything and everything he could ever want to about the environment - including the ocean, which is a focus of the sequel. Not for nothing, but to tack on another 'literally', avatar's success literally prompted, funded and brought attention to some environmental issues in the world, including having several sites named after fictional sites in the movie. So you can see where he's coming from.

In other words, perfectly reasonable and measured answers to why make avatar 2.


----------



## Suigetsu (Jan 21, 2016)

reiatsuflow said:


> Every time somebody brings up Alita it hurts allover. He abandoned Alita for more Avatar. I was so bummed about that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And besides.
Link removed


----------



## TetraVaal (Jan 22, 2016)

reiatsuflow said:


> The thing about james cameron is that he's a smart guy. When people compliment his technical abilities and innovations in film, it's not referring to some sort of michael bay mastery of perfume ad lighting. Cameron has invented technology to innovate filmmaking. He's intelligent with science and biology to boot, which informs the designs and formula of his movies more thoroughly than other blockbusters, where technobabble is just freelanced out to some consultant who tells them to describe an energy as quanta instead of particles. Or something.
> 
> The setting of avatar had intelligence put into its ecosystem, flora and fauna. SW has enormous creativity with its locations, but it's more fantasy. There can exist a planet that's just snow and just a desert and just a forest. Depending on your sensibility, that doesn't mean much
> 
> ...



This person gets it.

Why? 

Because they know film.

I don't care how bad or cheesy Avatar was, James Cameron is still a filmmaker. An artist. A creator. And most importantly, an innovator.

Star Wars is nothing but a brand.

I could direct the next Star Wars, and include a pink Darth Vader, and the film would still gross over $1.5 billion and sell a shit load of merchandise.

It's just a brand.

James Cameron, as a creator, is bigger--and better--than said brand.


----------



## Wan (Jan 22, 2016)

TetraVaal said:


> This person gets it.
> 
> Why?
> 
> ...


Pfffffft. Arrogance. You go ahead and submit your resume to Disney and see what response you get, m'kay?


----------



## Catalyst75 (Jan 23, 2016)

TetraVaal said:


> This person gets it.
> 
> Why?
> 
> ...



If Star Wars is a brand, *then Avatar is a fad.*  It was the movie that mastered the art of 3D, and was the trend-setter for the 3D movies that we now have today.  If it were not for the 3D, I doubt that Avatar would have done as well as it did, because people wanted to see "the next big thing".  Once the trend gets going and loses its luster, the trend-setter starts losing the mysticism it once had.  Now, all the big time movies air in IMAX and in 3D, the price tags of which Avatar would not have had if not for it being pushed for 3D.

They pushed Avatar 2 back into 2018 *because they did not want to open against Star Wars Episode VIII*.  It is no coincidence that they did that a day or so after Episode VIII was moved back to December 2017.

The Force Awakens completely bulldozed Avatar's domestic record in *four weeks*, a record that accounts for Avatar's unnaturally long 34 weeks in theaters, and it is still widening the gap.

The reason for this is that Star Wars, quite frankly, is a legacy spanning generations.  The first Star Wars movie came out almost 39 years ago, and the trilogy of movies it was part of immortalized a universe, and the Force, for those who saw it first, and those who would be born in the years afterwards.  

Even if the Prequel trilogies were not to everyone's personal tastes, they were still responsible for introducing a new generation to Star Wars, a generation who would go on to discover the original trilogy for themselves, and the splendor that led to it becoming such a beloved franchise in the first place.  

If Star Wars was "just a brand", then how the hell is "The Force Awakens" doing as well as it is?  You cannot get that good without something special behind the movie, something that can hardly be duplicated by exploiting the opportunity for trend-setting a new fad.  "The Force Awakens"  is the long-awaited continuation of the mythos of Star Wars.  People have waited for this film for decades, and we are finally seeing that dream come to fruition.  

Avatar?  Its story is one that has been done so many times before.  

Let me count the ways: a group of Human explorers travel to a new world of wonder and seemingly magic; the main protagonist becomes immersed in this new world and eventually falls in love with one of the natives, whose people and culture are shown to be overall better, benevolent, mystical and more in-tune with nature than the explorers.  Eventually, tensions boil over to conflict and war as the explorers begin to attack the natives for their lands, and the protagonists sides with the native people to drive off the oppressive explorers.  

That is Avatar in a nutshell. 

It is not an idea built for long-term sustainability, either.  Honestly, the first Avatar was a stand-alone movie at best; I have no idea how Cameron can pull off a sequel, *much less three of them,* regardless of his record.  

On the other hand, Star Wars was meant to go further beyond the Original Trilogy from the beginning.  The Originals, the Prequels, and now "The Force Awakens" are intertwined with one another in a way that you would be hard pressed to find any other franchise capable of doing. 

You can put all the technical details, innovations and artistry into a story that you want, but if the story is not one that captivates the imaginations of the audiences, then the actual work will have  a hard time remaining relevant. or retaining impact.  The original Star Wars, and now "The Force Awaken", delivered both in spades.  

That is something Avatar never gave me.


----------



## TetraVaal (Jan 23, 2016)

>Says Avatar is a story done a thousand times before

>Jar Jar Abrams recycles A New Hope for The Force Awakens.

Also, the rest of your bible's worth of a post only validates my prior posts.

Star Wars _is_ a brand. That's why I said I could direct a Star Wars films and it would still make a shit load of money. It doesn't matter.

I couldn't care less about who makes what and the time span in which they do it. The fact of the matter is is that James Cameron continually pushes the technological limitations in filmmaking to a degree that no current Star Wars director is doing.

You call the 3D component a fad, yet if it weren't for Avatar you wouldn't have General Snorkle or Maz Kanata.

You also wouldn't have Ultron, the current Hulk, the current Planet of the Apes movies, etc.

That's called longevity. Innovation. Boundary pushing.

Star Wars will continue to make billions and billions of dollars, but James Cameron is still bigger than it. And I'm not talking in financial terms; I'm talking about the way he pushes the entire filmmaking medium.

The Force Awakens, for every dollar it earns, still couldn't get the steam off my piss.

Jar Jar Abrams, Rian Johnson, Colin Treverrow, etc. will never, EVER be as remotely close as cutting edge as James Cameron.


----------



## Harbour (Jan 23, 2016)

There will be no such a movie to trump Avatar in pure numbers untill inflation huge growth.


----------



## Wan (Jan 23, 2016)

TetraVaal said:


> >Says Avatar is a story done a thousand times before
> 
> >Jar Jar Abrams recycles A New Hope for The Force Awakens.
> 
> ...



Snoke is literally played by the same actor as Smeagol. TFA's motion capture owes much more to Lord of the Rings than it does Avatar. It was used for a couple key characters, not something the whole film relied on like Avatar.

Look, Cameron is a phenomenal director. But innovation and technical acumen isn't everything. Avatar isn't even Cameron's best movie. I'll take a great story and characters over spectacle that I feel no connection with.


----------



## Catalyst75 (Jan 23, 2016)

Harbour said:


> There will be no such a movie to trump Avatar in pure numbers untill inflation huge growth.



Actually, that film has long existed in "Gone With the Wind".  Adjusting for inflation, no one has come even close to beating "Gone With the Wind".



TetraVaal said:


> >Says Avatar is a story done a thousand times before
> 
> >Jar Jar Abrams recycles A New Hope for The Force Awakens.
> 
> ...



How eloquent, how civilized, how polite, how humble.    Propping up James Cameron on a pedestal while insulting another individual; demeaning the franchise by saying that *you* could direct a Star Wars movies and still make money while continuing to call it "just a brand".  

As for the similarities "The Force Awakens" would have with "A New Hope", that is most likely because "The Force Awakens" is carrying on the Star Wars tradition of being part of a "ring composition" - an ancient poetry technique you find in works like "The Iliad", "The Odyssey", and even the Bible itself.  

It is part of a pattern of story-telling where parallels and symmetry between the parts of the story *are intended.*  It is poetry:

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWvoFE7W288[/YOUTUBE]



> I couldn't care less about who makes what and the time span in which they do it. The fact of the matter is is that James Cameron continually pushes the technological limitations in filmmaking to a degree that no current Star Wars director is doing.
> 
> You call the 3D component a fad, yet if it weren't for Avatar you wouldn't have General Snorkle or Maz Kanata.
> 
> ...





You are seriously over-estimating the influence Avatar has.  As Wan pointed out, the motion capture technologies used for characters like Kanata and Snoke owes its existence to _*Peter Jackson and "The Lord of the Rings"*_, not Avatar.  The Motion Capture technologies first used by Peter Jackson for Gollum are the true fore-runners for the characters you mentioned above, and even the Na'vi.  

If you knew anything about The Force Awakens, you would also know that *PRACTICAL EFFECTS* were used throughout the film over computer-generated images.  The intent was to be as aesthetically close to the Original Trilogy, while still incorporating modern techniques.  In a time and age where CGI has become so wide-spread that it supersedes practical effects, it says a lot to back to the foundations of film-making - to use practical effects throughout your film - and not be dependent on CGI or any of the others technologies that make film-making "easier".



> Star Wars will continue to make billions and billions of dollars, but James Cameron is still bigger than it. And I'm not talking in financial terms; I'm talking about the way he pushes the entire filmmaking medium.
> 
> The Force Awakens, for every dollar it earns, still couldn't get the steam off my piss.
> 
> Jar Jar Abrams, Rian Johnson, Colin Treverrow, etc. will never, EVER be as remotely close as cutting edge as James Cameron.



I'll refer you to what I said at the beginning.

"The Force Awakens" by J.J. Abrams carries on with the same "ring-composition" style of story-telling that George Lucas first began and brought to realization with the Prequel Trilogy connecting with the Original Trilogy.  Even if the Prequel trilogy had its faults, there is no denying that it is an important part of the composition of the story which Lucas intended to tell.

James Cameron is an innovator, but Star Wars as a whole is artistry and poetry.  It is a mythos in the same veins as the ancient stories of "The Iliad" and "The Odyssey", even with the faults existing within the story as a whole, and even if new story-tellers have to come to continue the story after the old one leaves.

For Star Wars, it is not about being "cutting-edge", but about following in the foot-steps of a style of story-telling that first came into being thousands of years ago.


----------



## reiatsuflow (Jan 23, 2016)

So I take it star wars is one of catalyst's favorite franchises, and if you start a sentence with _This is better than star wars because_, you're not going to get anywhere with him.

Sort of like me with alvin and the chipmunks.


----------



## Suigetsu (Jan 23, 2016)

Jim cam is an artist! He takes risks to make something new! Powerful high budget movies with heart, brain and a message.
Avatar is a movie dedicated to nature and to the folk that had been conquered.

You dont get to see that kind of stuff no more. This days high budget means "turn off your brain duhhh, shit with no sence, no substance and no creativity"

THIS IS A FACT.

Besides, you cant beat the jimbo.


----------



## Catalyst75 (Jan 23, 2016)

reiatsuflow said:


> So I take it star wars is one of catalyst's favorite franchises, and if you start a sentence with _This is better than star wars because_, you're not going to get anywhere with him.
> 
> *Sort of like me with alvin and the chipmunks*.



"WOOLY BULLY!!  WOOLY BULLY!"

Sorry, but I could not resist. 

Yes, I do love the Star Wars franchise, but the idea of the "ring composition" was one I recently discovered.  

Here is the link:


----------



## reiatsuflow (Jan 23, 2016)

Star wars could have used more arnold schwarzenegger, but so could cameron's filmography.

"Game ovah, mahn! Game ovah!"


----------



## Harbour (Jan 23, 2016)

> Actually, that film has long existed in "Gone With the Wind". Adjusting for inflation, no one has come even close to beating "Gone With the Wind".


I know, but the topic is "next movie".


----------



## TetraVaal (Jan 24, 2016)

Wan said:


> Snoke is literally played by the same actor as Smeagol. TFA's motion capture owes much more to Lord of the Rings than it does Avatar. It was used for a couple key characters, not something the whole film relied on like Avatar.
> 
> Look, Cameron is a phenomenal director. But innovation and technical acumen isn't everything. Avatar isn't even Cameron's best movie. I'll take a great story and characters over spectacle that I feel no connection with.



There's a huge difference between motion-capture and performance-capture.

Both the technological--and especially the software--components used in LOTR was nowhere near as evolved or groundbreaking as what Cameron and WETA designed for Avatar.

So, again, you can thank Cameron for those two characters in The Force Awakens.



reiatsuflow said:


> So I take it star wars is one of catalyst's favorite franchises, and if you start a sentence with _This is better than star wars because_, you're not going to get anywhere with him.
> 
> Sort of like me with alvin and the chipmunks.



No shit.

That video he posted was laughably bad.

Star Wars, the original trilogy that Lucas directed is without a doubt a seminal piece of work.

But now? Give me a fucking break. It is a brand. As evident by Jar Jar Abrams being the 'next man up' for Disney and its merchandise pushing bullshit at the expense of a singular film.

I'll take District 9, Elysium, Chappie, Avatar, Ex Machina, Fury Road, Dredd, etc. and any other recent sci-fi outings over this lame ass, Marvel-ized Star Wars trash that Disney is producing.

And just to reiterate: James Cameron >>> The entire fucking BRAND of Star Wars.

At least he's still an artist.

God damn fuck boys.


----------



## Wan (Jan 24, 2016)

TetraVaal said:


> There's a huge difference between motion-capture and performance-capture.
> 
> Both the technological--and especially the software--components used in LOTR was nowhere near as evolved or groundbreaking as what Cameron and WETA designed for Avatar.
> 
> So, again, you can thank Cameron for those two characters in The Force Awakens.



Really now. I'm sure that Avatar's technology was more advanced. But more groundbreaking? No. LOTR was groundbreaking with Smeagol, Avatar then came along and took the technology LOTR pioneered and advanced it. Maz and Snoke would likely not exist as motion capture characters if not for Smeagol. They would still exist if Avatar did not.

And what's with calling JJ "Jar Jar Abrams"? The play on his initials is good for a smirk maybe... once. Incessantly referring to him like that makes it look like you have an obsessive hate boner for him. Not a good look, man.



> God damn fuck boys.



It's really ironic that you say that while furiously sucking on Cameron's dick.


----------



## Velocity (Jan 24, 2016)

Actually, the real irony is that Jar Jar Binks pioneered the motion capture technology used in Lord of the Rings and Avatar. The actor who played Jar Jar is actually pretty upset about that - says he was doing it years before Andy Serkis, that he and Lucas were super excited to be doing something so revolutionary and that he's constantly annoyed people think Serkis started it all. So, really, you can actually thank George Lucas for those fancy characters in The Force Awakens.

The more you know.


----------



## Catalyst75 (Jan 24, 2016)

Clay said:


> Actually, the real irony is that Jar Jar Binks pioneered the motion capture technology used in Lord of the Rings and Avatar. The actor who played Jar Jar is actually pretty upset about that - says he was doing it years before Andy Serkis, that he and Lucas were super excited to be doing something so revolutionary and that he's constantly annoyed people think Serkis started it all. So, really, you can actually thank George Lucas for those fancy characters in The Force Awakens.
> 
> The more you know.



That is true, though I think people pick Serkis over Ahmed because people first look at the quality of the acting first, and the technology behind it after.  People did not like Jar Jar (even if he's supposed to be the every man thrown into the extraordinary), but they _loved_ Gollum, and that is why Gollum and Andy Serkis is more recognized.

But it is true that one of motion capture's fore-runners was, in fact, Jar Jar Binks and George Lucas.  The fore-runners are the ones who popularize a specific method of film-making; everyone who comes afterwards simply put on the polish as new technologies come along to help improve the method.  

I am not entirely certain if this is the case, but I would assume that characters like the Geonosians, Poggle the Lesser, Kaminoans and even Dex were also motion-capture as well.


----------



## Lucaniel (Jan 24, 2016)

> As for the similarities "The Force Awakens" would have with "A New Hope", that is most likely because "The Force Awakens" is carrying on the Star Wars tradition of being part of a "ring composition" - an ancient poetry technique you find in works like "The Iliad", "The Odyssey", and even the Bible itself.
> 
> It is part of a pattern of story-telling where parallels and symmetry between the parts of the story are intended. It is poetry:
> 
> Star Wars Poetry



oh god hahahahaha


----------



## TetraVaal (Jan 25, 2016)

Wan said:


> Really now. I'm sure that Avatar's technology was more advanced. But more groundbreaking? No. LOTR was groundbreaking with Smeagol, Avatar then came along and took the technology LOTR pioneered and advanced it. Maz and Snoke would likely not exist as motion capture characters if not for Smeagol. They would still exist if Avatar did not.
> 
> And what's with calling JJ "Jar Jar Abrams"? The play on his initials is good for a smirk maybe... once. Incessantly referring to him like that makes it look like you have an obsessive hate boner for him. Not a good look, man.
> 
> It's really ironic that you say that while furiously sucking on Cameron's dick.



At least I'm sucking the dick of a filmmaker whose influence will be felt for the rest of the existence of the cinematic medium.

Abrams is a director for hire; Cameron is an actual artist.

Also, the tech you're referring to is just standard motion-capture, which brings me to the point below...



Clay said:


> Actually, the real irony is that Jar Jar Binks pioneered the motion capture technology used in Lord of the Rings and Avatar. The actor who played Jar Jar is actually pretty upset about that - says he was doing it years before Andy Serkis, that he and Lucas were super excited to be doing something so revolutionary and that he's constantly annoyed people think Serkis started it all. So, really, you can actually thank George Lucas for those fancy characters in The Force Awakens.
> 
> The more you know.



While that's true, the technology in Avatar was really where this all broke through. Motion-capture had existed before, as evident with video games, prior films like the Star Wars prequels and LOTR--but what was done on Avatar was not only entirely new technology, but new software, coding, etc. on top of all that, the breakthrough with simul-cam motion-capture.

No matter how these are 'not so knowledgeable'--to put it kindly--posters in here want to try and say otherwise, Avatar did more for the technological advancement of not just filmmaking--but video games and even VR as well--than either the Star Wars prequels or LOTR.

If people want to know where Avatar's influence will be felt, just wait until you see what Kevin Margo (_an unfamiliar name, for now_) will be doing in the future. Everything he's done with his short film 'Construct'--as well as future projects--he credits the technological exploration of that to Camero and Avatar.



Lucaniel said:


> oh god hahahahaha



I had the same reaction.

Fucking Star Wars fans are the worst.


----------



## Wan (Jan 25, 2016)

TetraVaal said:


> At least I'm sucking the dick of a filmmaker whose influence will be felt for the rest of the existence of the cinematic medium.
> 
> Abrams is a director for hire; Cameron is an actual artist.







> While that's true, the technology in Avatar was really where this all broke through. Motion-capture had existed before, as evident with video games, prior films like the Star Wars prequels and LOTR--but what was done on Avatar was not only entirely new technology, but new software, coding, etc. on top of all that, the breakthrough with simul-cam motion-capture.



Yes...and all this technology was created by actual programmers, software developers,engineers, etc.  James Cameron did not single handedly shit out this new motion capture technology as his wonderful gift to the film industry.



> No matter how these are 'not so knowledgeable'--to put it kindly--posters in here want to try and say otherwise, Avatar did more for the technological advancement of not just filmmaking--but video games and even VR as well--than either the Star Wars prequels or LOTR.



Because you say so?  How about you actually back up what you're saying with a source, rather than just continuing to talk out of your ass before presenting it to James Cameron?



> I had the same reaction.
> 
> Fucking Star Wars fans are the worst.



You're giving me the same impression about James Cameron fans.


----------



## TetraVaal (Jan 25, 2016)

Just because Cameron didn't code it himself doesn't mean he isn't the one who pioneered it. 

Back up what I'm saying? I just did, with the example of Kevin Margo.

Oh, now that I remember, are you familiar with ILMxLAB? No, you're not. You'll google it and pretend that you were, since you're a Star Wars fantard and all. But that whole virtual entertainment that they're dabbling with... yeah, all possible because of what Cameron was able to achieve and bring to other creators following the success of Avatar.

Oh, and one more thing: Gareth Edwards, the director of Rogue One, used some of the tech that ILMxLAB had to previs some sequences he is going to shoot in that film.

Know where that all started? That's right, with James Cameron on Avatar.


----------



## Wan (Jan 25, 2016)

TetraVaal said:


> Just because Cameron didn't code it himself doesn't mean he isn't the one who pioneered it.



It means he's not the actual creator of it.



> Back up what I'm saying? I just did, with the example of Kevin Margo.



I said "source".  As in "links".  As in not continuing to talk out of your ass, which is all it looks like you're doing.



> Oh, now that I remember, are you familiar with ILMxLAB? No, you're not. You'll google it and pretend that you were, since you're a Star Wars fantard and all. But that whole virtual entertainment that they're dabbling with... yeah, all possible because of what Cameron was able to achieve and bring to other creators following the success of Avatar.
> 
> Oh, and one more thing: Gareth Edwards, the director of Rogue One, used some of the tech that ILMxLAB had to previs some sequences he is going to shoot in that film.
> 
> Know where that all started? That's right, with James Cameron on Avatar.



...and?  Avatar could be the most glorious, revolutionary tech demo that ever existed or ever will exist.  That doesn't save it from having an unoriginal, preachy story, bland characters, and an uninteresting setting.


----------



## Stunna (Jan 25, 2016)

It... doesn't matter if Cameron created it or not. Do you not give credit to people who improve automobiles, computers, medical equipment, airplanes, and more, despite not being the people who originally came up with the ideas?

And literally no one has tried to defend Avatar from a narrative stance, so there's no point in bringing that back up.


----------



## Suigetsu (Jan 25, 2016)

Stunna said:


> It... doesn't matter if Cameron created it or not. Do you not give credit to people who improve automobiles, computers, medical equipment, airplanes, and more, despite not being the people who originally came up with the ideas?
> 
> And literally no one has tried to defend Avatar from a narrative stance, so there's no point in bringing that back up.



I do stunna! I do defend Avatar!
I think it's narrative works.

Believe it or not I was one of those people that never watched pocahontas nor dance with wolves nor any of those movies. Instead I grew with the tales of Hernan Cortez, the conquest of Mexico and La Malinche!

It really did not occur to me that Avatar was that similar to pocahontas until later on but it really did not bother me. The writting was smart and well written and none of the characters where stupid or evil hurr durr, it was really natural.

Now most americans will not really understand why latin americans loved this movie so much, it is because in this version the mexicans win back against hernan cortez! The people from nature wins against greed and reminds us that we are still a part of nature despite being so advanced and shit, we just have to tap it back.

It is also a parody of how everyone takes care more of an alternate life "like some folk on the forums here or even on an MMOrpg or a videogame instead of their real lifes.

In conclusion, it's not about if the cake was an original recipee or not but how well you cook it and tastes. And so far Avatar it's on a whole new level of lemon pie! Many have tried with ferngully, pocahontas and the new cgi crap wave, all of em end up tasting like walmart.

But avatar was a really well cooked lemon pie, fresh, well made with love and care and expertly done with a different vision etc.

In a few words. AVATAR rocks! Perfect homage to the conquest of Mexico.



Wan said:


> ...and?  Avatar could be the most glorious, revolutionary tech demo that ever existed or ever will exist.  That doesn't save it from having an unoriginal, preachy story, bland characters, and an uninteresting setting.



You are talking about the avatar show of your gif right? That one is as uninteresting as a potatoe. Cause Jimbo's AVATAR is interesting everywhere you decide to look at!

Come on I wanna hear it from you guys! Say it with me!


*Spoiler*: __ 



CANT BEAT THE JIMBO!


----------



## Lucaniel (Jan 25, 2016)

Stunna said:


> It... doesn't matter if Cameron created it or not. Do you not give credit to people who improve automobiles, computers, medical equipment, airplanes, and more, despite not being the people who originally came up with the ideas?
> 
> And literally no one has tried to defend Avatar from a narrative stance, so there's no point in bringing that back up.



do we know who improved any of those? 

the only one i know is computers: bill gates

oh i guess henry ford for cars


----------



## TetraVaal (Jan 25, 2016)

Wan said:


> It means he's not the actual creator of it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



>Who cares? It was his idea. The coders and developers and engineers deserve all the credit in the world for realizing his vision. But at the end of the day, that's what it was; his vision. His ideas. His creations. He also had the vernacular required to help them realize exactly what he wanted. 

>Fuck your source. That's what Google exists for, you bellend.

>Yes, because The Force Awakens was so original, unique and unheard of. It was the most original sci-fi narrative of the year... except it wasn't.

It wasn't Ex Machina.

It wasn't Fury Road.

It wasn't even Chappie.

There was nothing remotely unique, original or unconventional about TFA. It was as 'paint by numbers' as you could possibly fucking get. Shit, at least Avatar had a villain that was fucking awesome to watch. Your precious Star Wars douchery had some fucking 1970s emo John Travolta castoff acting like a belligerent jackass throughout the entire film.

Oh, that's right, it's 'poetic.'


----------



## Wan (Jan 25, 2016)

I'm done being trolled by TetraVaal.


----------



## reiatsuflow (Jan 25, 2016)

> I do stunna! I do defend Avatar!
> I think it's narrative works.



And when you're comparing it to TFA, the criticisms about its formulaic story only makes so much sense, and boils down to people with different sensibilities. When you're watching a movie that's not engaging you, you're being dulled by it, and you're just going to be paying attention to the broad strokes. Your interpretation of the movie is going to be dull. My interpretation of TFA is dull. The only name I know is Kylo Ren. That's just because I wasn't engaged.

You can watch a three hour sci fi epic with futuristic military equipment, a moon planet with humanoid tribes of giant aliens and rain forest beasts, a paraplegic getting to transfer his consciousness into an engineered new alien body and re-experience what it means to live, romance between different cultures, species, interconnected hair braid sex, a workable fantasy language, and you just see, _Hey, Dances With Wolves had a white guy falling in love with a native too_ You're not watching an eight foot tall phosphorescent alien falling in love with a paraplegic human embodying a synthetic bio-version of her species, but instead a female 'native' type having a romance with a colonialist imperial male type, and _Hey, I saw that romance in some other movie._ Because you aren't engaged, and your interpretations of what's happening are dull and generalized. Dances with wolves didn't end with a planetary battle between a military jettisoned from a ruined earth against the native alien species, humanoids and animals alike teaming up to defend their home. But dances with wolves did end with an imperial power reckoning against the virtues or strength of native people. And in your brain that's the same thing, because your brain is dulled and unengaged. That's what happens.

Again, I accidentally laughed out loud a few times in the theaters during serious scenes in avatar. It happened. But avatar still had tons of original ideas that cameron managed to structure in a way that could communicate clearly with people, and that's talent. If you want to see what happens when a creative and imaginative filmmaker makes an alien world without the talent to communicate well to audiences, go watch jupiter ascending. That's what avatar could have been. Your understanding of avatar's originality is actually being diluted by cameron's talent in communicating his original concepts so well that they seem familiar. Avatar has so many weird concepts. It's a future movie where a marine in a wheelchair gets to embody a healthy, giant alien body on a vibrant and wild alien moon. There's all those ideas about interconnectivity in there, and the aliens become intimate with themselves and their environment - both plants and animals, with weird tentacle braids in their hair. There are so many trippy-weird concepts in there. That cameron made those concepts so understandable and mainstream is because of his talent in communication, not a lack of it.

Imagine a really smart guy explaining capitalism to you so well that it all sounds familiar and digestible, and then you walk out going, _Psh, that wasn't so complicated! How stupid!_


----------



## Suigetsu (Jan 26, 2016)

Wan said:


> I'm done being trolled by TetraVaal.



He is not trolling, he is telling facts.
Problem is you have been surrounded by mediocre media so much that you automatically call what's not mediocre into mediocre while nurturing yourself with souless and bad written cash grabs that end up targeting fedora, such as AVatar korra and shit.
Worst written show ever.

Besides, you cant beat 
*Spoiler*: __ 



THE JIMBO!


----------



## Wan (Jan 26, 2016)

Suigetsu said:


> He is not trolling, he is telling facts.
> Problem is you have been surrounded by mediocre media so much that you automatically call what's not mediocre into mediocre while nurturing yourself with souless and bad written cash grabs that end up targeting fedora, such as AVatar korra and shit.
> Worst written show ever.
> 
> ...



Are you _trying_ to get a neg from me or something?


----------



## Suigetsu (Jan 26, 2016)

Wan said:


> Are you _trying_ to get a neg from me or something?



No dude, it's just that I cannot decide wether you are trying to troll me by baiting me or if you really are that naive on the subject of matter. 

Since you like Avatar the show then that must mean you must be the former -naive on the subject. Since you overlook a lot of faults and failures on a show and seem to be proud of it despite them having em.


----------



## Wan (Jan 27, 2016)

Suigetsu said:


> No dude, it's just that I cannot decide wether you are trying to troll me by baiting me or if you really are that naive on the subject of matter.
> 
> Since you like Avatar the show then that must mean you must be the former -naive on the subject. Since you overlook a lot of faults and failures on a show and seem to be proud of it despite them having em.



That'd be a yes


----------



## Catalyst75 (Jan 27, 2016)

Suigetsu said:


> He is not trolling, he is telling facts.
> Problem is you have been surrounded by mediocre media so much that you automatically call what's not mediocre into mediocre while nurturing yourself with souless and bad written cash grabs that end up targeting fedora, *such as AVatar korra and shi*t.
> Worst written show ever.



  

I honestly do not know what to make of this.  

Your sense of taste must be *dead* if you're calling Avatar: The Last Airbender and Legend of Korra "the worst written show ever".



> Since you overlook a lot of faults and failures on a show and seem to be proud of it despite them having em.



How about look at the Cameron's Avatar with those same words in mind, instead of lashing out at everything else and petitioning for James Cameron to be elevated to Godhood?  Although Avatar was dressed with all manners of innovations and special effects, *the script of the movie never grabbed my attention at all*, it uses a number of over-used tropes, *and I did not find myself engaged with any of the characters*.  That is a very bad thing when it comes to any form of story-telling.


----------



## Wan (Jan 27, 2016)

What's weird is that he called Legend of Korra a "cash grab" -- it really didn't make a whole lot of money. Meanwhile I'm struggling to think of a reason to make an Avatar 2 other than to make money.

I don't think he's serious though, just trolling and trying to aggravate me by going after the show in my set even though it has nothing to do with the thread.


----------



## Catalyst75 (Jan 27, 2016)

Wan said:


> What's weird is that he called Legend of Korra a "cash grab" -- it really didn't make a whole lot of money. Meanwhile I'm struggling to think of a reason to make an Avatar 2 other than to make money.
> 
> I don't think he's serious though, just trolling and trying to aggravate me by going after the show in my set even though it has nothing to do with the thread.



I can't think of anything, either.  

The way the original Avatar ended was the way a stand-alone story would end - all of the internal plot threads resolved, the main conflict finished, and the main protagonists permanently becomes a Na'vi.

They are starting to publish an Avatar comic book series, most likely as a means to promote the upcoming film.  That said, I wouldn't be surprised if all the "hooks" for the sequel end up derived from the comics.


----------



## Suigetsu (Jan 27, 2016)

Catalyst75 said:


> I honestly do not know what to make of this.
> 
> Your sense of taste must be *dead* if you're calling Avatar: The Last Airbender and Legend of Korra "the worst written show ever".


Sorry dude but after claiming all the love that you have for TFA then you lost all credibility to me. And yes Korra is a very bad written show but if that dont stop you from liking it then more power to you.



> Or maybe your's is the one that suck.
> How about look at the Cameron's Avatar with those same words in mind, instead of lashing out at everything else and petitioning for James Cameron to be elevated to Godhood?  Although Avatar was dressed with all manners of innovations and special effects, *the script of the movie never grabbed my attention at all*, it uses a number of over-used tropes, *and I did not find myself engaged with any of the characters*.  That is a very bad thing when it comes to any form of story-telling.


>Doesnt like the story of avatar but drolls over TFA despite being a blatant copy past.
You see know? this is why I cant take you on serious conversations anymore.

James Cameron is an artist and has saved cinema in many ocassions, I am not petitioning anything. He already did all of that by himself.

He used to be a truck driver with no career when he was 27 that survived on Mcdonald coupons and now look at him now. He has self integrity when making movies. He gave tribute to the conquered cultures by making Avatar.

My taste is very well refined good sir, it is yours that has never been good. Then again you think TFA is original.



Wan said:


> What's weird is that he called Legend of Korra a "cash grab" -- it really didn't make a whole lot of money. Meanwhile I'm struggling to think of a reason to make an Avatar 2 other than to make money.
> 
> I don't think he's serious though, just trolling and trying to aggravate me by going after the show in my set even though it has nothing to do with the thread.



Korra was intended to be but it failed miserably cause it's baddly written, leaks and SJW pandering.

Jim Cam is doing more Avatar because he thinks it can actually give a message to people to connect more to it's planet and other ecological messages. They are doing this park at disney and now has this awesome show!
Yes I would prefer him doing Battle Angel movies instead but we only have one Jim. :/


----------



## Catalyst75 (Jan 27, 2016)

Suigetsu said:


> Sorry dude but after claiming all the love that you have for TFA then you lost all credibility to me. And yes Korra is a very bad written show but if that dont stop you from liking it then more power to you.



Did you ever watch the entire series?  

Yes, the production was troubled due to Nickelodeon screwing with it multiple times, but Legend of Korra still succeeded in spades with Books 3 and 4.

Not to mention the fact that the series ended *with a canon romantic relationship between two women being confirmed.*  On top of Korra successfully talking down Kuvira from continuing her conquest by empathizing with her, rather than simply taking her out with brute force or stripping her of her bending.  



> >Doesnt like the story of avatar but drolls over TFA despite being a blatant copy past.
> You see know? this is why I cant take you on serious conversations anymore.
> 
> James Cameron is an artist and has saved cinema in many ocassions, I am not petitioning anything. He already did all of that by himself.
> ...



Well, you are praising him as if he was the Jesus Christ of cinema, and using the same breath to slam anything else that is not him while you are at it.

I am not denying James Cameron's skill as a filmmaker, but I am protesting how much you are over-selling the man.  Yes, he is an innovator at the technological aspects of film-making, but I did not find myself that invested in the script for Avatar.  

The fact that you're lambasting other shows and directors while you exalt Cameron does not sit well with me, either.  

BTW, you missed something:

_Cameron quit his job as a truck driver to enter the film industry *after seeing Star Wars in 1977*._



> Korra was intended to be but it failed miserably cause it's baddly written, leaks *and SWJ pandering*.





What.  

Are you telling me that one of the reasons why you hate Legend of Korra...*Is because it confirmed a romantic relationship between two women?*

And you think that is *pandering?* 

...I have words I want to say, but saying them would get this post removed for bad language.

I won't reply to the last part, because I can respect James Cameron for the intent behind why he is producing more Avatar films, even if I question how he could do so after the ending of the first one.


----------



## Wan (Jan 27, 2016)

Catalyst75 said:


> Did you ever watch the entire series?
> 
> Yes, the production was troubled due to Nickelodeon screwing with it multiple times, but Legend of Korra still succeeded in spades with Books 3 and 4.
> 
> Not to mention the fact that the series ended *with a canon romantic relationship between two women being confirmed.*  On top of Korra successfully talking down Kuvira from continuing her conquest by empathizing with her, rather than simply taking her out with brute force or stripping her of her bending.



Book 4 was Korra's weakest season actually, in my opinion.  The ending focusing on a "romantic relationship" out of nowhere being one of the cons to it.

Korra empathizing with Kuvira was a great scene, though it bears mentioning that at that point, Kuvira's conquest was already over with the Colossus being blown to scrap.  The climactic moment is when Korra uses her power as the Avatar to _save_ Kuvira from her own spirit cannon.


----------



## Cromer (Jan 27, 2016)

The past few pages of this thread have been _hilarious_. Please, do carry on with this circular argument, I wanna see who breaks first.


----------



## Freechoice (Jan 27, 2016)

The next pioneer of mainstream cinematography or some other relevant visual spectacle. 

While the 3d technology used in Avatar exist for a respectable time before it was released, it was... if i remember correctly the first to bring it to the wider audience and that was the primary reason it made so much.

Not because of the story or anything.

So whatever movie does the same thing.

I highly doubt any normal movie will surpass it.


Gone with the wind is the highest grossing film of all time by the way, inflation adjusted.


----------



## Catalyst75 (Jan 27, 2016)

lol said:


> The next pioneer of mainstream cinematography or some other relevant visual spectacle.
> 
> While the 3d technology used in Avatar exist for a respectable time before it was released, it was... if i remember correctly the first to bring it to the wider audience and that was the primary reason it made so much.
> 
> ...



Pretty much.  Before Avatar made 3D accessible to a much wider audience (it was the first film filmed completely in 3D, IIRC), movies that used 3D were far and few between, or only used them as part of a gimmick (Spy Kids 3D, anyone?)  Avatar was the first film to take the concept of 3D, refine it, and have the film built around it for when it went into theaters.  It was the first IMAX 3D film ever released, and the price tag associated with IMAX 3D films is much bigger than normal cinema.


----------



## Suigetsu (Jan 28, 2016)

Catalyst75 said:


> Did you ever watch the entire series?


Yes I did, very bad writting.



> Not to mention the fact that the series ended *with a canon romantic relationship between two women being confirmed.[/*


*
I know one of the developers confirmed it on tiwtter or something because the series was already canceled and tumblerinas flocked over it. So I see it as some sort of fan service pandering and shit. Because it is.




			Well, you are praising him as if he was the Jesus Christ of cinema, and using the same breath to slam anything else that is not him while you are at it.

I am not denying James Cameron's skill as a filmmaker, but I am protesting how much you are over-selling the man.  Yes, he is an innovator at the technological aspects of film-making, but I did not find myself that invested in the script for Avatar.
		
Click to expand...

But ofcourse! He is the epitome of our times on how a good filmmaker can still be an artist and create buck at the same time.
In these times where you get hacks, and hype trains all over the place, James cameron sits at the top.
It's too bad I dont have them WEMB's those are very funny and would suit the moment.



			The fact that you're lambasting other shows and directors while you exalt Cameron does not sit well with me, either.  

BTW, you missed something:

Cameron quit his job as a truck driver to enter the film industry after seeing Star Wars in 1977.

Click to expand...

I lambast other shows for being mediocre because how come a guy that used to be a truck driver is able to make super awesome shit while these other goons with all these resources cant?

BTW he quit his job when he saw an add about Roger Cornman looking for people to build sets. I know his biography daugh 





			Are you telling me that one of the reasons why you hate Legend of Korra...Is because it confirmed a romantic relationship between two women?

Click to expand...

No I dont hate it because of that, I hate it because of it's shitty writting. I bet your ass they didnt plan that shit, they just went with it cause the show had gone to hell and they may just as well keep the tumblerinas and sjw happy and thus pander to them with a "yes sure they are canon" and then all the nerds and manchildren where happy "cause I bet your ass the main audience "little kids" didnt give a shit about that.





			...I have words I want to say, but saying them would get this post removed for bad language.
		
Click to expand...

Bohoo cry me a river. Korra was a god awful character and everyone in that show was written terribly.
Ironically Asami just happened to be, so be grateful for that.




			I won't reply to the last part, because I can respect James Cameron for the intent behind why he is producing more Avatar films, even if I question how he could do so after the ending of the first one.
		
Click to expand...

I agree, the first one had perfect closure, and I still want muh battle angel alita directed by him.

And with this I sign off:
[YOUTUBE]hddYB-FbD5M[/YOUTUBE]*


----------



## reiatsuflow (Jan 28, 2016)

Let's not start bashing korra. Okay, the romance at the end was probably one of the most pandering switcharoos I have ever seen in the history of the day that it aired, but it had some great storyboarding and animation.



> Cameron quit his job as a truck driver to enter the film industry after seeing Star Wars in 1977.



That was your mic drop moment. Should have stopped 

Lucas, obviously, having pioneered plenty of technology and innovation in film himself.


----------



## Suigetsu (Jan 29, 2016)

reiatsuflow said:


> That was your mic drop moment. Should have stopped
> .



And that proved what? TFA is not Lucas nor had anything to do with him.


----------



## reiatsuflow (Jan 29, 2016)

> And that proved what? TFA is not Lucas nor had anything to do with him.



Well, if he had dropped the mic then and there, he wouldn't stick around to answer your followup. That's why you drop the mic. You drop the mic, leave the stage, and then when somebody in the audience is like, "Wait, what?" it doesn't matter. You're gone.

Awesome.


----------

