Could it be Avatar, crossed with The Abyss? James Cameron announced yesterday that a large part of the sequel to the highest-grossing film of all time will take place in the teeming oceans of Pandora. The film-maker also hinted that the third film in his planned series might expand to other planets.
"We created a broad canvas for the environment of film," Cameron told the LA Times' Hero Complex blog. "That's not just on Pandora, but throughout the Alpha Centauri AB system. And we expand out across that system and incorporate more into the story – not necessarily in the second film, but more toward a third film.
"Part of my focus in the second film is in creating a different environment – a different setting within Pandora. And I'm going to be focusing on the ocean on Pandora, which will be equally rich and diverse and crazy and imaginative, but it just won't be a rainforest. I'm not saying we won't see what we've already seen; we'll see more of that as well," he added.
Cameron, who is on a publicity drive for Avatar's DVD release, said the sequel would take less time to shoot. "The challenge on the next Avatar is to do what we did before at half the price and in half the time. Again, that's an impossible goal, we won't accomplish that, but if we can reduce by 25% in both categories, we'll have really accomplished something."
Cameron also told the LA Times that his team was working on an extra six minutes of Avatar footage which would be added to the film for its August re-release at cinemas, something he said was due to overwhelming demand.
"We were sold out of our Imax performances right up to the moment until they were contractually obligated to switch to Alice in Wonderland, so we know we left money on the table there," he said. "It'll be interesting because it'll be on DVD by then, but I think Avatar is kind of a unique category where people are enjoying the unique theatrical experience even though they may have seen it on the small screen. They want to have that immersive, transportive experience."
Meanwhile, in the UK, Avatar's studio 20th Century Fox is erecting a giant, interactive, replica Tree of Souls at Speakers' Corner in London's Hyde Park. The fibre-optic installation, whose lights and colour visitors can control by plugging in their phones and iPods, will be unveiled by actor Stephen Lang (aka villain Colonel Quaritch) and will be live between Saturday and Monday.
Ok anyone else seems this look lame yet the kinda awesome lame?
As long as it involves another human invasion it should be okay... on the other hand, I'd find it difficult to swallow if the humans couldn't come back with something big enough to win with.
Soladrin wrote:Am I the only one who doesn't care?
Nope, I don't really care either. I will probably watch the first one eventually, but I'm not rushing out to see/buy it and I'm not that interested in a second one either.
I found the first lacking an interesting plotline, which was only saved by its special effects. This puts a sequel straight in to a fire to me. How can a sequel be made to a movie without a good storyboard?
Tim the Biovore wrote:I found the first lacking an interesting plotline, which was only saved by its special effects. This puts a sequel straight in to a fire to me. How can a sequel be made to a movie without a good storyboard?
Watch Avatar 2 and learn On the other hand, Twilight kinda already answered your question. Twice
Anyway, ALL avatar had going for it was graphics, that's it, the story sucked, the action was boring, and the tree of souls should'v been nuked to prevent a sequel.
OMG I just realised what the Avatar 2 plot will actually be : When the Titanic sank, it fell through Earth's donkey-cave (some sort of unstable wormhole, as Michio Kaku, scientific advisor for Avatar 2 said). So, when Mother Earth farted, it was sent flying to Pandora, where it came to rest on the bottom of the ocean. 500 years later, a team of avatars are sent to scout the ocean, where they find the body of Leo diCaprio, which is merged with Rob Pattison's DNA to form his avatar.
And guess what the title of the film is : Avatar2/Twilight 3: Twivatar
At least like this we won't have 2 stupid movies to bash, we'll have just one!!!
Fine, it wasn't exactly French impressionist cinema - but if you expected it to be, after all the money spent on it, then you're a fething moron.
It's a popcorn Hollywood blockbuster - try not to be shocked when they aren't particularly original. Or stop watching mass-market Hollywood blockbusters and watch good films instead.
Fine, it wasn't exactly French impressionist cinema - but if you expected it to be, after all the money spent on it, then you're a fething moron.
It's a popcorn Hollywood blockbuster - try not to be shocked when they aren't particularly original. Or stop watching mass-market Hollywood blockbusters and watch good films instead.
You do of course understand that there are more options in cinema then choosing between either braindead entertainment and high art, right? One can dislike a movie for it's own merits, and not because it isn't another film. No one went thinking it was going to be The 400 Blows, but they also weren't expecting a cliche laiden, shoot for the lowest common denominator plot with world class FX either.
Ahtman wrote:No one went thinking it was going to be The 400 Blows, but they also weren't expecting a cliche laiden, shoot for the lowest common denominator plot with world class FX either.
Really? Are you speaking for everyone, or just yourself? It's an American film that cost zillions of dollars - you don't have to be a genius to work out that it might just be a little 'universal' thematically.
By the way, will any of us even care by the time it comes out? Cameron said Avatar took him 12 years to do, and then he's saying his goal is to knock 25% off that time for the sequel. So we have 8 years to wait.
I thought the original was a classic example of form over substance. Sparkly visuals distracted viewers from the fact that this movie was both unoriginal and pants-sh!tingly slowed. It essentially took a huge dump on the entire human race and all our technological accomplishments, prortayed soldiers as a bunch of idiot knuckledraggers, featured "armored" fighting machines whose cockpits could be penetrated by arrows and whose engines could be destroyed by antipersonnel grenades. Lastly, it encouraged a terrifying new breed of furries.
TL;DR: the Colonel was my favorite character and I cheered when the oh-so politically correct cat things got mowed down in droves for being stupid enough to think they could take on a modern military force with sticks and rocks.
Ahtman wrote:No one went thinking it was going to be The 400 Blows, but they also weren't expecting a cliche laiden, shoot for the lowest common denominator plot with world class FX either.
Really? Are you speaking for everyone, or just yourself?
I am no more speaking for everyone then you are. It is a bit disingenuous to complain about someone using broad strokes in response to your own use of them.
I really liked Avatar, but that said, I felt that the story of Pandora was pretty complete. It wrapped up in the typical feel good Hollywood way. My personal hope was that the sequel would take place on a different planet, with a different alien species being "avatar'd," but I guess they already invested so much into Pandora and the Navi that it would be easier to recycle.
Pandora calls for only one thing, orbital bombardments/airstrikes (whatever the army can manage in that time line) to kill all the stuff that tries to look at humans. Then rob the planet of it's richest.
Soladrin wrote:Pandora calls for only one thing, orbital bombardments/airstrikes (whatever the army can manage in that time line) to kill all the stuff that tries to look at humans. Then rob the planet of it's richest.
Orbital bombardments...
...Or Bonbaonbardlements? I mean, if you're going to bring about the Apocalpocalpse, you might as well not skimp out on quality.
Since the first one was essentially Pocahontas in space, the second one may well just use the story of Pocahontas 2: Journey to a New World... just for continuity.
Ahtman wrote:No one went thinking it was going to be The 400 Blows, but they also weren't expecting a cliche laiden, shoot for the lowest common denominator plot with world class FX either.
Really? Are you speaking for everyone, or just yourself?
I am no more speaking for everyone then you are. It is a bit disingenuous to complain about someone using broad strokes in response to your own use of them.
Whu? All I was saying was that a person would have to be fairly stupid (or have little cultural awareness) to expect anything other than what Avatar ultimately was. Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of how Hollywood works (including me, I'm FAR from being an expert!) would realise that a film which had that much money spent on it was always going to be lowest common denominator in terms of plot. The vast majority of American films today are fething awful, precisely for this reason. That's not me being a snooty Brit, it's just a fact. There's just too much at stake for Hollywood to take risks.
Avatar is like a Michael Bay movie...it's got the "Transformers Syndrome"....all CG...and when it's not in 3D...the CG does not really look that spectacular.
IG_urban wrote:Avatar is like a Michael Bay movie...it's got the "Transformers Syndrome"....all CG...and when it's not in 3D...the CG does not really look that spectacular.
Really?
I saw avatar in 2d first, and then got dragged to 3d (they paid for ticket and beers that night though)
Most of the time i forgot it was 3d and didn't even notice the difference.
Ahtman wrote:No one went thinking it was going to be The 400 Blows, but they also weren't expecting a cliche laiden, shoot for the lowest common denominator plot with world class FX either.
Really? Are you speaking for everyone, or just yourself?
I am no more speaking for everyone then you are. It is a bit disingenuous to complain about someone using broad strokes in response to your own use of them.
Whu? All I was saying was that a person would have to be fairly stupid (or have little cultural awareness) to expect anything other than what Avatar ultimately was.
No, what you just said was stupid. You don't realize how overly broad that is, as well as insulting? Going into a movie with no preconceptions does not an idiot make. There have been Hollywood films that were not poorly written. Before it came out the only thing that was certain was that the special effects were going to be top-notch. Just because people don't go into a movie expecting it to be meh doesn't make them idiotic any more then expecting it to be good.
IG_urban wrote:Avatar is like a Michael Bay movie...it's got the "Transformers Syndrome"....all CG...and when it's not in 3D...the CG does not really look that spectacular.
Really?
I saw avatar in 2d first, and then got dragged to 3d (they paid for ticket and beers that night though)
Most of the time i forgot it was 3d and didn't even notice the difference.
cool story. the CG still isn't that spectacular...not worth 12 fething years.
Automatically Appended Next Post: District 9s cg was WAAAAYYYY better.
Ahtman wrote:No one went thinking it was going to be The 400 Blows, but they also weren't expecting a cliche laiden, shoot for the lowest common denominator plot with world class FX either.
Really? Are you speaking for everyone, or just yourself?
I am no more speaking for everyone then you are. It is a bit disingenuous to complain about someone using broad strokes in response to your own use of them.
Whu? All I was saying was that a person would have to be fairly stupid (or have little cultural awareness) to expect anything other than what Avatar ultimately was.
No, what you just said was stupid. You don't realize how overly broad that is, as well as insulting? Going into a movie with no preconceptions does not an idiot make.
No, but it does a fething liar make. Are you seriously claiming that you had literally ZERO in the way of pre-conceived ideas about what Avatar might be like? Have you actually SEEN any mega-budget Hollywood films? Was this your first? I have no problem insulting you (in a round about way...) if you're going to make ridiculous statements. Even if it were true that you weren't bringing any prejudices with you (subconciously or not), which it just isn't by the way, your reaction to this film was a little OTT. It really isn't all THAT bad as these sorts of things go - I have seen much, much worse.
There have been Hollywood films that were not poorly written.
Kindly quote me if I said that all Hollywood films are poorly written.
Before it came out the only thing that was certain was that the special effects were going to be top-notch.
And that James Cameron was directing. And that it had a massive budget. And that Sam 'Mahogany' Worthington was in it.
Just because people don't go into a movie expecting it to be meh doesn't make them idiotic any more then expecting it to be good.
Well, when they display the levels of rage towards the film that you do, you have to wonder... again, it's like you've never seen a Hollywood blockbuster, and you're just learning what everyone else has known for years.
Albatross wrote:Well, when they display the levels of rage towards the film that you do, you have to wonder... again, it's like you've never seen a Hollywood blockbuster, and you're just learning what everyone else has known for years.
When I said it was terrible without having seen it, everyone declared my opinion to be unfounded; I just can't win!
Commander Endova wrote:I really liked Avatar, but that said, I felt that the story of Pandora was pretty complete. It wrapped up in the typical feel good Hollywood way. My personal hope was that the sequel would take place on a different planet, with a different alien species being "avatar'd," but I guess they already invested so much into Pandora and the Navi that it would be easier to recycle.
Yeah, they wouldn't abandon it as long as they can profit from creeps who actually believe they're Na'vi.
IG_urban wrote:Avatar is like a Michael Bay movie...it's got the "Transformers Syndrome"....all CG...and when it's not in 3D...the CG does not really look that spectacular.
Really?
I saw avatar in 2d first, and then got dragged to 3d (they paid for ticket and beers that night though)
Most of the time i forgot it was 3d and didn't even notice the difference.
Same. i noticed a few diffrences like holo displays and ashes from the tree. but that is really it.
IG_urban wrote:Avatar is like a Michael Bay movie...it's got the "Transformers Syndrome"....all CG...and when it's not in 3D...the CG does not really look that spectacular.
Really?
I saw avatar in 2d first, and then got dragged to 3d (they paid for ticket and beers that night though)
Most of the time i forgot it was 3d and didn't even notice the difference.
Same. i noticed a few diffrences like holo displays and ashes from the tree. but that is really it.
IG_urban wrote:Avatar is like a Michael Bay movie...it's got the "Transformers Syndrome"....all CG...and when it's not in 3D...the CG does not really look that spectacular.
Really?
I saw avatar in 2d first, and then got dragged to 3d (they paid for ticket and beers that night though)
Most of the time i forgot it was 3d and didn't even notice the difference.
Same. i noticed a few diffrences like holo displays and ashes from the tree. but that is really it.
you clearly don't have an eye for it, then.
I'm sure glad I didn't pay for it, it didn't improve the "experience"(as dumb gaks seem like to call movies these days) for me. All it did was give me an occasional twitch cause I thought some dust or grit was drifting slowly into my eye.
Frazzled wrote:On the positive Iron Man II and Ridley Scott's Robin Hood are within 30 days of liftoff.
I’m cautiously optimistic over Iron Man II, and have an almost complete disinterest in Robin Hood. I just can’t see the fun in Ridley Scott taking the Robin Hood story way too seriously. His track record after Blackhawk Down has been pretty woeful – Kingdom of Heaven, Body of Lies, and A Good Year were bad movies. Matchstick Men and American Gangster were reasonable but completely forgettable – so the guy is looking at 0/5 for the decade.
There’s a very high chance Robin Hood will suck, and suck badly.
Albatross wrote:I'll tell you what I saw recently and liked: Shutter Island.
I thought it was really good.
Yeah? I thought it was alright. It was obviously skilfully made and performed, but do you really think there was enough in the script? Most everyone I know seemed to guess what was going to happen, and were kind of waiting for a real twist that never came.
It was redeemed by a very cool final couple of minutes but I’m sure that was enough. It certainly wasn’t The Departed.
I watched it a couple nights ago... Fething terrible. The humour wasn't funny, the dialogue sounds like it was cut from a badly written sci-fi novel, I still don't understand why the blue people made stuff glow when they stepped on it, the story was literally Pocahantas in Space (And I'm guessing AII will be the Little Mermaid ), and I spent the whole film wondering how James Cameron - of all people - could come up with a name as stupid as "Unobtainium" for an element. Really the only thing this movie had going for it was the 3D. And I didn't even get 3D. In fact, I was actually so bored after the first hour that I actually got up and started painting the Honoured Imperium set I had picked up the same day. I only looked up at the TV when it sounded like some big scene was about to go down.
All told, a big 0/5 stars. I love sci fi, but there was just absolutely nothing in this film for me.
metallifan wrote:and I spent the whole film wondering how James Cameron - of all people - could come up with a name as stupid as "Unobtainium" for an element.
He didn’t come up with it, it’s a fairly classic name used in science fiction for any property with impossible properties, it is used more often in summaries and discussion of works than in the books themselves, but it is does make its way into works from time to time. I think it was first used to describe the material coating the flying saucers in HG Wells' War of the Worlds.
sebster wrote:Yeah? I thought it was alright. It was obviously skilfully made and performed, but do you really think there was enough in the script? Most everyone I know seemed to guess what was going to happen, and were kind of waiting for a real twist that never came.
It was redeemed by a very cool final couple of minutes but I’m sure that was enough. It certainly wasn’t The Departed.
Yeah, I liked it. I totally know what you mean about the twist, though... although, I'll admit I was looking for a 'double twist', if you follow. I can't say too much here, obviously - some people may not have seen it.
But all in all, yeah, it was good - very nicely shot, good acting all round (Ben Kingsley in particular), and some interesting ideas. I loved the way the atmosphere was built - I didn't know anything about the film before I saw it, and thought it was going to turn out to be some sort of supernatural horror, especially given the soundtrack. VERY Kubrick.
Was there much in the script? Did there need to be? I dunno, for me it was all about the atmosphere. Very unsettling.
Will it change the world? No. Did I enjoy it after 2 bottles of cheap wine? Yes.
Albatross wrote:Will it change the world? No. Did I enjoy it after 2 bottles of cheap wine? Yes.
That's entertainment!
That's about it, yeah. Great mood, strong performances (it's so good to see Kingsley working in a-list films again after a long time in the wilderness) built around a decent if unremarkable script (though the last two minutes were pretty interesting). Might have suffered in my eyes just because its Scorcese, and so you expect a lot.
metallifan wrote:and I spent the whole film wondering how James Cameron - of all people - could come up with a name as stupid as "Unobtainium" for an element.
As Sebster said, the name's been around for a while. However, unlike what Sebster said, it's not just used when talking about fiction. It's also used in engineering and thought experiments.
Platuan4th wrote:As Sebster said, the name's been around for a while. However, unlike what Sebster said, it's not just used when talking about fiction. It's also used in engineering and thought experiments.
Albatross wrote:Will it change the world? No. Did I enjoy it after 2 bottles of cheap wine? Yes.
That's entertainment!
That's about it, yeah. Great mood, strong performances (it's so good to see Kingsley working in a-list films again after a long time in the wilderness) built around a decent if unremarkable script (though the last two minutes were pretty interesting). Might have suffered in my eyes just because its Scorcese, and so you expect a lot.
Strange as it may sound, I didn't realise it was a Scorsese film until the end credits! I think this might have helped, actually...
I didn't really know anything about the film before I saw it, I only knew that DiCaprio was in it. Which wasn't quite enough to put me off.
