Blue On Blue
Whether or not George Lucas makes more Star Wars, it appears James Cameron will make Avatar 2 and Avatar 3. Sounds like a bad idea.
Oh, I know they'll make money, but a setting is not a story. I'd rather he use his imagination to come up with something entirely original. I realize he returned to Terminator, but that was a case of getting a chance to do it with a big budget.
The studio is thrilled, of course:
"AVATAR is not only the highest grossing movie of all time, it is a created universe based on the singular imagination and daring of James Cameron, who also raised the consciousness of people worldwide to some of the greatest issues facing our planet."
The scariest part of this statement is that they think Avatar has something to do with the real world.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:15 AM
4 Comments:
"...something entirely original."
You've written some pretty funny posts in the past, but nothing made me laugh more than this!
I gave in to the sense that Avatar was a "not-to-be-missed" event, and paid good money to see it - in 3D at that! Even though I was leery based on what I had read about it, the film still failed to meet my lowered expectations, and I will not pay for 2 or 3 unless I hear of something really special or different in these productions.
By contrast to DG, there have been some folks treated for clinical depression because they had to accept that they could never live on the Avatar world. (Yes, I'm supposing those folks already had a rather tentative hold on our world.) I saw it, loved it as a technical exercise, and found the story no more or less trivial than most in the genre. I'd certainly see #2, and would also see #3 unless #2 sucked very hard.
I'll admit that I appreciated the visual spectacle of Avatar. I didn't particularly enjoy it because I didn't like the 3-D effect, and without the glasses everything was blurry. But I have seen stills, and it is a beautiful concept.
P.S. The only 3D I've ever liked was at Universal Studios (the Terminator Ride). That was incredible, but the glasses were much heftier than the flimsy things you get at a moviehouse, and the theater was specially built to show just that show. I liked the effect because the film did not force you to look at the 3D object - you could look elsewhere on the screen and other things were still in focus. In Avatar, and every other 3-D I've seen, the director forces you to look at the foreground object in the scene by blurring the background. It's not realistic at all.
Post a Comment
<< Home