Potential spoilers for the film, but uh it seems obvious how the dead characters will return...
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Potential spoilers for the film, but uh it seems obvious how the dead characters will return...
While he was he best part of the first film, a half decent villain. This is just stupid. Give us something new.
Stephen Lang return...
This picture looks kind of terrible...
https://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/ent/see-stephen-langs-return-in-avatar-2.html
Haha...
...
And here's an explanation of how Sigourney Weaver is returning given that her character in the first film died...
https://gizmodo.com/sigourney-weaver-avatar-2-character-kiri-navi-teenager-1849134593/amp
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Stephen Lang return...This picture looks kind of terrible...
https://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/ent/see-stephen-langs-return-in-avatar-2.html
Picture looks good to me, Stop looking at it on a phone.
James Cameron might not direct Avatar 4 & 5
Originally posted by Kazenji
James Cameron might not direct Avatar 4 & 5
Because at the current release rate he'd be 93 and 106 years old.
This just in: James Cameron is kind of an idiot...
https://screenrant.com/avatar-2-movie-runtime-james-cameron-defense-bad/amp/
The Batman was 3 hours long and was much worse for it, honestly.
Can't say movie running time bothers me so long as the pacing is right.
There's plenty 3+ hour movies that flew by. Wolf of Wall Street, The Green Mile, Schindler's List, Endgame...the list goes on
And there's plenty sub 3 hours movies that I felt every minute of. Prisoners being the one that always comes to mind because God damn that film was visually, tonally and thematically bleak.
Did you read what he said, though?
Right, he could have said something about the pacing, and "this is the ride I think audiences will want to go on," etc, because that's the sort of thing he's usually said when explaining his extended cuts. But instead he sounds like a crotchety old man fundamentally misunderstanding the difference between going to a theater and binging TV shows at home.
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
This just in: James Cameron is kind of an idiot...https://screenrant.com/avatar-2-movie-runtime-james-cameron-defense-bad/amp/
The Batman was 3 hours long and was much worse for it, honestly.
Completely disagree with The Batman, I liked every minute of it and i didn't feel bored with it.
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
This just in: James Cameron is kind of an idiot...https://screenrant.com/avatar-2-movie-runtime-james-cameron-defense-bad/amp/
The Batman was 3 hours long and was much worse for it, honestly.
How long is it, exactly?
The running time of the original was 162 minutes. Which is long, yes, but not that uncommon.
Is the sequel meant to be longer than 3 hours or what?
I don't know the exact length. I think I just read somewhere it's nearly 3 hours.
The exact length isn't really the point. The point is James Cameron's odd response:
"I don't want anybody whining about length when they sit and binge-watch [television] for eight hours ... Here's the big social paradigm shift that has to happen: it's okay to get up and go pee."
The subtext that I hear is, "eh, it's okay if you miss a scene here or there... it's not that immersive or engaging. You probably won't miss anything major. I'm a dummy that doesn't understand that people pause the TV at home." If it's okay to miss something here or there, then why not cut the length down a little for the theatrical release, and do your extended cut later? I'm pretty sure that's what he did with the first one.
I guess it's Cameron's way of admitting that the movies exist for the visuals. And to be fair, that's pretty much my main interest in them...
https://collider.com/avatar-2-way-of-water-image-underwater-navi/
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
I don't know the exact length. I think I just read somewhere it's nearly 3 hours.The exact length isn't really the point. The point is James Cameron's odd response:
"I don't want anybody whining about length when they sit and binge-watch [television] for eight hours ... Here's the big social paradigm shift that has to happen: it's okay to get up and go pee."
The subtext that I hear is, "eh, it's okay if you miss a scene here or there... it's not that immersive or engaging. You probably won't miss anything major. I'm a dummy that doesn't understand that people pause the TV at home." If it's okay to miss something here or there, then why not cut the length down a little for the theatrical release, and do your extended cut later? I'm pretty sure that's what he did with the first one.
Maybe.
But the first one was nearly 3 hours as well, so this one has to have some real pacing problem if he gets so overly defensive over it, as you say.
Or perhaps it's no big deal, we'll see.
---
We shouldn't overanalyze stuff like this, tbh. What's the point.