CaptainAmerica
Well-Known Member
This one is so much better. Like... orders of magnitude better.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Avatar (the movie) and its Sequels
- Thread starter MisterPenguin
- Start date
Jedijax719
Well-Known Member
You've GOT to be friggin' kidding me! You cannot honestly say that Avatar's success is remotely story related. It's 100% visual. End of story. TGM, allegedly, is for story as well as visuals. I personally didn't see it in the story, but I know that most did so I will give TGM that. Avatar? Nope. No way. I'm sure the story was "okay" but you cannot say that any other film with the same story without the visuals would have been successful.
CaptainAmerica
Well-Known Member
Just admit you haven't seen it.
Jedijax719
Well-Known Member
I haven't. But that still doesn't change the fact that this movie is a visual event not seen since, well, the first one. All Avatars will be visual masterpieces. And I don't think anyone will deny that being the reason for their monumental success. You don't see critics raving about how the story is a masterpiece and the story is what sells the movie. I'm sure it is a decent story, but not one that would pull in the money without the visual feats Cameron has mastered.
I wonder what it would have been like if message boards had been around when movies went from black and white to color and silent to sound.
Movies with sound destroy what I imagined the characters sound like. Let me fill that in my own mind which is 100% better than what some actor can do!!
Color is so distracting. And if they don't get the colors right, it's the worse. Technicolor is just too saturated!!!
CaptainAmerica
Well-Known Member
As I said, "lol."
Of course it is. I never claimed otherwise.
Ah yes, everything is monocausal. There must be one single thing that is THE reason for something.
It wouldn't gross $2 billion without the spectacle, but it also wouldn't gross $2 billion with ONLY spectacle. If it was gorgeous but sucked, it would have flopped.
Jedijax719
Well-Known Member
Not so sure about that. The first Avatar made nearly $3 billion on spectacle alone. The story was a rehash and the characters (except for Grace) were blank slates with zero personality and zero relatability.
But if there's something that movies like Avatars and TGM shows us (or rather movie studios), it's what is needed for movie success. If studio execs understood this and realized they need to do certain things to give audiences an experience worth paying for, theaters could become revitalized. Look at what virtual experiences did for theme park rides.
But if there's something that movies like Avatars and TGM shows us (or rather movie studios), it's what is needed for movie success. If studio execs understood this and realized they need to do certain things to give audiences an experience worth paying for, theaters could become revitalized. Look at what virtual experiences did for theme park rides.
CaptainAmerica
Well-Known Member
Simple stories are not bad stories. From Achilles to the Hare to Gilgamesh to Job to Juliet to Dorian Gray to Gatsby to Sherlock Holmes to Belle to Aladdin to Hulk Hogan. Simple, allegorical stories resonate with us for a reason. They tickle something deep down in our lizard brains. Family, nature, good versus evil, love, betrayal, greed, ambition, sex. It doesn't have to be rocket science. Heck, the movie is freaking called "Avatar." Cameron is basically bashing you over the head with "these characters are meant to be archetypes."
If I wanted to absorb a complex story I would read a book.
Ghost93
Well-Known Member
I think Jake Sully being kind of a blank slate in the first Avatar worked for the first movie because he sort of served as an audience stand in.
I do, however, believe all of the characters were more fleshed out in The Way of Water and that the family dynamics have really resonated with people who like the movie.
Disney Analyst
Well-Known Member
‘Avatar: The Way Of Water’ Scores Monday January Record With $21M+, 4-Day Rises To $88M, Looks To Best Blumhouse’s ‘M3GAN’ Opening – Tuesday AM Update
'Avatar: The Way Of Water' To Cross $440M At New Year's Weekend Box Office
deadline.com
CaptainAmerica
Well-Known Member
‘Avatar: The Way Of Water’ Scores Monday January Record With $21M+, 4-Day Rises To $88M, Looks To Best Blumhouse’s ‘M3GAN’ Opening – Tuesday AM Update
'Avatar: The Way Of Water' To Cross $440M At New Year's Weekend Box Officedeadline.com
Phroobar
Well-Known Member
That is the same argument for Disneyland. No other theme park can compare because of the technological and visual experience it monopolizes. Just look what passes for dark rides elsewhere. Disneyland raises an unfair bar that only a few parks world wide are just now starting to reach or surpass.
Jedijax719
Well-Known Member
Well, you definitely aren't wrong. (DL and other WD parks).
Wendy Pleakley
Well-Known Member
Most people seem to be in agreement that this movie is primarily about the spectacle and presentation, with story and character being far less important in terms of the film's success.
I'm surprised that the initial critical reaction was that the story is so much better this time around because I didn't see that at all. Maybe after a second viewing. It's basically a rehash of the first. Remember the humans who came to Pandora to mine minerals at the expense of the planet and people? They're back and they're...doing the same thing. They're also killing animals this time. Does that constitute a major new story development? Not really.
Remember the central conflict between the hero and villain? It's literally the exact same conflict.
The first movie had more of a story to develop. The character who is thrust into this strange world he wasn't prepared for. The dilemma of doing his job to get his legs back, only to have conflict with that as he learned about the world and the people. The sequel doesn't really have much development or new story to tell.
Don't get me wrong. While the story is simple this movie held my attention more than most movies, which are shorter. Everything is good. It's just not a story or characters I think about after it ends. The least appealing stuff, like teenagers doing annoying teenager things comes and goes so quickly that you don't have a chance to get annoyed or bored. The movie moves along to the next set piece before you know it.
CaptainAmerica
Well-Known Member
Plot and story are not the same thing. The Way of Water is not about Humans versus Na'vi. That's what happens. What it's about is fatherhood. And motherhood. And nature. And coming-of-age. And spirituality. Only one of those is overlap from the original.
Ghost93
Well-Known Member
It has a similar conflict but the way the story plays out is pretty different. Saying Avatar: The Way of Water is the same story as the first movie is like saying Aliens is the same movie as Alien or that Terminator 2 is the same movie as the Terminator. Sure, they share some similarities, but it's the variances that make the sequels interesting!
Avatar: The Way of Water is about family, where the first one was about romance and a colonizer "going Native". The sequel is an ensemble among all of the Sully family, where the first movie really just has one protagonist — Jake Sully. Quaritch is a more complex character in the sequel with him now being trapped in the body of what he hates and him having to wrestle with his feelings for his son Spider.
The sequel also seems to be setting up a more spiritual/mystical conflict with the mystery around Kiri's powers, her parentage and her connection with Eywa.
