Almost like WB figured the audience for a biopic about the creator of nuclear weapons doesn’t have a huge crossover with the audience for a live action Barbie movie…
3 Likes
Well, I wasn’t consulted. Bah.
6 Likes
2 Likes
Easy choice for me. I can easily see Cillian Murphy as Oppenheimer, but Margot Robbie looks nothing like Klaus Barbie.
8 Likes
When will it stream, is what I need to know.
Oh…
1 Like
I like that blurb below the headline. It’s “among the most anticipated movies of the past decade.”
I must ask, is it really? And if so, by who? Surely nobody has been waiting with bated breath for the past decade, or whatever it’s been, for the sequel to Cameron’s 3D animated version of Dances With Wolves.
4 Likes
Well, it seems like the studio’s been saying “it’s on the way” for 10 years, if that’s the same thing.
Given I still haven’t been tempted to see the first one, my anticipation level is considerably lower than fever pitch.
2 Likes
Adam B. Vary is a senior entertainment writer covering the business of genre storytelling and fandom across movies, television and streaming platforms. He joined Variety in 2019, after seven years at BuzzFeed News…
You won’t believe no.7!!
…you would, however, believe this article was written by someone who spent that long at a click bait site. Hyperbole over facts at every turn.
2 Likes
I find it hilarious that the first AVATAR will now again be forced into theaters, in a “restored” version.
Yeah, apparently the original version needed to be restored after all the subsequent home video editions with more material, better sound and picture. It will now have… an even better sound and picture.
But wait for the sequel which will… have an even BETTER sound and picture. And it will appear, as they say, in so many different formats that no cinema on earth will ever allow to show any other movie for the following six months. Because the real goal for Ego-Cameron is to be King of the Box Office-World again, shoving both films to the top and showing that puny Spider-Man what real power is.
So, let’s get excited for more blue CGI-creations in even deeper blue CGI-water.
2 Likes
“in case you Luddite’s didn’t appreciate what I spent huge amounts of money on enough in the last 2 hours, my “characters” will now find an excuse to take another lap of my beautiful creation! AND IT WILL STAY IN THE CINEMA UNTIL I HAVE THE MOST PROFITABLE MOVIE OF ALL TIME!!!”
Avatar was in the cinema for almost 8 months to make sure it was no.1 - then got rereleased when a film dared overtake it. Amazing that Cameron’s ego doesn’t have its own credit.
2 Likes
I loved Cameron’s first and second TERMINATOR. I loved ALIENS. I loved THE ABYSS.
Everything after that - I just did not understand why audiences flocked to it. Spectacular action in TRUE LIES? When? Fantastic special effects in TITANIC? You mean the obvious bad CGI? Or the fact that people thought the love story was moving? And AVATAR - okay, the first 15 minutes I was impressed by the 3D. But after that I paid attention to the story and was so bored.
This is what happens when a director gets too much praise and way to much money.
2 Likes
Imagine if AVATAR 2 fails. 5 and 6 may be scrapped. But they still have 3 and 4.
The Wachowskis will sigh and say: Yep, Jim, we’ve been there.
1 Like
I admit I’m way out of touch with the current zeitgeist, but I just don’t perceive a global fascination with Avatar or even any particular lingering fondness for it. If anything, I think it exemplified the concept of “event cinema,” something you had to go see because everyone else was going to see it, and you didn’t want to be left out of water cooler conversations. Outside that moment in time, it had no importance or appeal. But then, I thought that about Titanic, too…
Anyway, I know a guy who brings up Jaws every chance he gets, I know people who quote dialog from The Big Lebowski and I know people who can’t bring themselves to turn the channel whenever Shawshank Redemption is on TV – which is every damned week – even though they’ve seen it a thousand times. I also know at least two of those properties continue to generate tie-in merchandise even years after their release and despite the fact that they don’t seem much like “toys and games” material. But I know absolutely no one – not a single person – who rewatches “Avatar” excessively, brings it up in conversation or hangs the poster in their home or office, and I don’t think I’ve seen any related merchandise in recent years. It does not seem to me to be a film that engenders much attachment or devotion. So why someone decided it needs multiple sequels – and why the article upthread says it’s highly anticipated – I have no earthly idea.
When it came out, I gather the appeal was that the effects were astonishing (I still haven’t seen it. My wife did and got motion sickness), but surely after more than a decade of Marvel movies and the like, that bar is a lot higher to get over, now? There’s hardly a movie released that is NOT 90% CGI these days, so unless this one has characters that leave the screen and feed you your popcorn by hand, I can’t imagine it wowing anyone.
It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out, but it’ll be from a distance. I’m not interested in Avatar films, even if Cameron cranks them out til he’s blue in the face.
6 Likes
Paramount seemingly still bad at telling their actors when they’ll be needed.
2 Likes
So weird.
Why are studios who rely on certain brand titles so bad at making them happen?
Becasue they deposed the moguls and got rid of seven-year contracts for actors, directors, writers, and craftspeople.
Bring back Jack Warner, Darryl F. Zanuck, and Harry Cohen!
4 Likes
1 Like
Looks like any animated film now that the main character is also just a CGI creature.
Why go to the trouble and do this with actors when Pixar does this all the time?
Oh, and of course it goes for the Vin Diesel-motivation „Family…“
5 Likes
3 Likes