I've never been good to interpret a movie's success based on its projected openings, lol. Thank you for your replies.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
James Cameron hopes for ‘Avengers’ fatigue: ‘There are other stories to tell’ in sci-fi'
- Thread starter Deleted member 15428
- Start date
I think that's a blessing and a curse for IW as far all time highest worldwide gross. It's the culmination of 10 years worth of films, but it's also the culmination of 10 years worth films which and considering the gap with Avatar I think that limits the ceiling a fair bit. It's more difficult to attract people that haven't engaged with the IP for whatever reason since it's a known quantity. It could very well generate an extra billion in revenue over Avenger 1 the highest grossing MCU film and it still wouldn't have the record.
The reason the sequels are taking so long is because Cameron insists on breaking new ground with every movie he makes. He's not interested in rushing out sequels just to make a buck. Like any artist with integrity, he wants to make the best thing he can make. That takes time and a ton of work.
Angela Bassett in Strange Days is the closest he's come. He didn't direct that one though, only produced and co-wrote.
My qualms with the MCU as a whole is the lack of children and settling down. And I'm with Cameron on that. I like that Tony is getting married. I want him to have a child with Pepper. I want Cap to settle down and find his meaning in something other than fighting. Simply because we have too many men in the world right now willing to go off and die martyr deaths for various worthy causes (in their mind) instead of contributing to society by investing it with new life. I think it's a very unhealthy narrative.
My other complaint is I want the bad guys to be able to win. Watchmen has the bad guy win same with The Dark Knight. And this is something that the MCU has gotten better with. Civil War had Zemo win. If there is no chance for the bad guy to lose (like destroy the world, so where would the sequel be set?) there are no stakes. (Unlike a certain breed of nerds who think death is the only stake that matters.)
Overall I think the MCU has done good job of never maintaining a status quo. Which is something I applaud them for. Shield is gone, same with Tony's house, Asgard, the Avengers are broken up, etc. Lots of stuff that didn't need to happen but did. They need to do more of that stuff.
My other complaint is I want the bad guys to be able to win. Watchmen has the bad guy win same with The Dark Knight. And this is something that the MCU has gotten better with. Civil War had Zemo win. If there is no chance for the bad guy to lose (like destroy the world, so where would the sequel be set?) there are no stakes. (Unlike a certain breed of nerds who think death is the only stake that matters.)
Overall I think the MCU has done good job of never maintaining a status quo. Which is something I applaud them for. Shield is gone, same with Tony's house, Asgard, the Avengers are broken up, etc. Lots of stuff that didn't need to happen but did. They need to do more of that stuff.
Cameron's scriptment is out there
You can find it online and read the whole thing
It's amazingly terrible
Yeah. Look it, it's actually a good read but obviously would have been fucked up and way too edgy for a Spider-Man movie. It's pretty sexist obviously, the way Peter and basically every male character tosses MJ around like an literal object. It's an interesting read though, definitely
First avengers was great. The second was a mess. Same goes for civil war. Justice league... U know how we feel about that one. Batting less than .500, my dude
Yup!, he is just sore that everyone has forgotten about the tall and lanky Smurfs.
I wonder what James Gunn thinks about this take. I don't think he'd disagree that GotG is essentially escapist, but it seems like he put effort into having details that were "scientifically responsible", from referencing actual celestial bodies and their coordinates to details like how Peter was able to survive in space for a short amount of time and how the effects of being in the vacuum of space were portrayed. I mean, Interstellar takes some artistic license with science for the sake of drama and then gets pretty silly by the end, so I don't think it's as clear cut as he makes it.
I get what he is saying, it's sort of like people talking about Star Wars compared to Star Trek when talking about what kind of sci-fi they like, where the former isn't really "sci-fi" in the strict sense. Speaking of which, why does Cameron single out GotG but completely avoid talking about Star Wars? I'm not sure where Avatar falls, but to me, I don't think people care about the science of it since it's more fantasy and is more like GotG and Star Wars in that sense, but I'm sure he's done research to make his worlds plausible in a scientific sense, even if it's all still made up worlds.
Cameron thought about everything on Pandora. He's nuts with the details.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0061..._SY340_FMwebp_QL65&keywords=avatar+movie+book
Remember that post I made earlier in the thread about some older folks not even understanding or caring to understand the nuance of the medium they are adapting and its appeal.
That uh, that's it.
I know that, but being all about the details doesn't necessarily mean being "scientifically responsible" as he says. Like James Gunn has lots of logic to his world building and why things are the way they are, but I don't know if he goes as far as making everything stand up to scientific scrutiny, at least in terms of plausibility. I'm sure James Cameron is the type to be way more obsessive in his details, and he has the time and money to be that way, but at the end of the day, it's still all made up stuff and Avatar is a film where those background details don't matter to the core of the films any significant science-fiction sense.
Oh, I totally get it and Cameron wasn't dogging out Gunn or GOTG. He just obsesses over the details and whatever else.
I feel like some people are intentionally ignoring what he said or warping it to something else, especially when it comes to what he says about Avatar.
He clearly says that he's thought about making the stories of Avatar quite different, using examples of The Godfather and such , which is a VASTLY different "story" than the first Avatar.
His entire point is not retreading the same basic story formula over and over, which is what a lot of comic book movies do, bad guy shows up, wants to "Take over the world/galaxy," heroes band together, they lose the first fight, then all band together and win, rinse and repeat over the course of most comic book movies. Of course there's smaller elements that are different for each one but the overall framework of their narrative is largely the same basic thing retold over and over.
He also said that he likes the avengers movies/superhero movies, just that he's tired of them dominating the box office, which they largely do for the most part (minus DC lmao).
He's not wrong, the movies that do extremely well ARE taking money and eyes away from other movies, it's simply the nature of the movie business. When a studio is greenlighting a project they are looking at it's box office potential and it's competition.
Do you think the studios are jumping at the bit to make another Blade Runner after 2049's box office? Now what are the chances that they make another superhero movie after Black Panther and the upcoming Avengers? FARRRRRR greater than BR2049.
When the audience tires of superhero movies (and they will eventually) those people will start seeing other movies and it'll give rise to more potential profits for other movies with different narratives to tell.
He clearly says that he's thought about making the stories of Avatar quite different, using examples of The Godfather and such , which is a VASTLY different "story" than the first Avatar.
His entire point is not retreading the same basic story formula over and over, which is what a lot of comic book movies do, bad guy shows up, wants to "Take over the world/galaxy," heroes band together, they lose the first fight, then all band together and win, rinse and repeat over the course of most comic book movies. Of course there's smaller elements that are different for each one but the overall framework of their narrative is largely the same basic thing retold over and over.
He also said that he likes the avengers movies/superhero movies, just that he's tired of them dominating the box office, which they largely do for the most part (minus DC lmao).
He's not wrong, the movies that do extremely well ARE taking money and eyes away from other movies, it's simply the nature of the movie business. When a studio is greenlighting a project they are looking at it's box office potential and it's competition.
Do you think the studios are jumping at the bit to make another Blade Runner after 2049's box office? Now what are the chances that they make another superhero movie after Black Panther and the upcoming Avengers? FARRRRRR greater than BR2049.
When the audience tires of superhero movies (and they will eventually) those people will start seeing other movies and it'll give rise to more potential profits for other movies with different narratives to tell.
I don't think this is necessarily true. I think a portion of the audience will just stop going to the theatre period. There's too much competition in the entertainment field these days.
The second superhero movies I'm interested in stop being made, that means I consume less movies in general and go to the theatres less. I'll just video game more or watch more TV.
Nah we get like 3 Marvel films a year it's really not that oppressive. The problem is that they are so well done and exciting that other filmmakers have to step up their game to make an equal or better action movie product. Here's hoping they can rise to the challenge and not pray for fatigue to set in because they might not even be relevant filmmakers by the time that happens.
Ultimately Marvel has been around for many decades creating really cool story lines and only in the last 15 years have they been able to be told properly. Add in the awesome diversity direction the MCU has been taking recently and you have very broad appeal. I mean the most recent MCU outing of Black Panther is breaking record all over the place so if Cameron hopes for fatigue to help his Avatar films then he will be waiting a long time.
My first thought. Its not like marvel films are preventing other sci-fi films from being made.
Which is why he announced he's making Avatar 2, 3, 4, & 5 all at the same time?
"I swear to god, I wouldn't want offensive amounts of money if it meant lowering myself to play a beloved comic character in the biggest movie phenomena since Star Wars"
This one of the few directors where this argument really doesn't wash.
Inarritu first, Kristen Dunst later and now James Cameron...all the forgotten of Hollywood complaining about MCU.
If they are forgotten, maybe, their career isn't as extraordibary as they want to believe.
Cameron was great, and he was about to direct a Spider-Man movie with Leo DiCaprio before Raimi. Now he is just a Mr. Nobody.
If they are forgotten, maybe, their career isn't as extraordibary as they want to believe.
Cameron was great, and he was about to direct a Spider-Man movie with Leo DiCaprio before Raimi. Now he is just a Mr. Nobody.