Avatar...Your Opinion?

[Equiliari]

Like how Back To The Future III didn't involve the future at all? Just 1885, 1955, and 1985?

What are they trying to do in Back to the future III?
Thats right... get back to the future! :P

[//MavericK\\]

What are they trying to do in Back to the future III?
Thats right... get back to the future! :P

My sentiments exactly. From the perspective of all those people in the past, Doc and Marty are time travelers from a future 1985.

What I think is funny is that younger kids born in the last few years are going to be confused after watching these movies. From their perspective, the whole things takes place in the past, except for the little trip to 2015.

And with 2015 only a few short years away, their really gonna be left scratching their little heads.

"Mommy, where are all the flying cars?"

[dynamiK-]

Umm... Not making a sequel would be a huge waste of money.

Why? It's simple... They spent years and thousands and thousands of dollars to make the movie possible. Now they have the equipment and concept ready to go, so there won't be nearly the same upfront cost.

Not to mention, they just made record money on the movie. Even if the new one is a bust they will most likely near $1 billion (if not go over).

[Quirel]

Umm... Not making a sequel would be a huge waste of money.

Why? It's simple... They spent years and thousands and thousands of dollars to make the movie possible. Now they have the equipment and concept ready to go, so there won't be nearly the same upfront cost.

Not to mention, they just made record money on the movie. Even if the new one is a bust they will most likely near $1 billion (if not go over).

We're talking about a D-9 sequel, not an Avatar sequel.

[//MavericK\\]

What Quirel said.

And the diabolic forces of the Cameron Empire have spoken.

Avatar will have a sequel. Maybe more than one.

[DemolitionSquid]

Avatar was written as a trilogy. Because trilogies are so original.

[//MavericK\\]

Avatar was written as a trilogy. Because trilogies are so original.

Avatar was written as a trilogy because the masses and the movie industry demand stories that take a long time to end. When I think of a film trilogy, any trilogy...all that really means is that the story that the creator wanted to tell was just way to big to shoe-horn into one movie and the studio producing it wanted to make a crap load of money. So yeah, the trilogy mechanic is not original, but it does seem to be just the right amount, without being too much or too little. Unless it's a certain prequel trilogy...barf.

[Roland]

Avatar will have a sequel.

Mother of God...

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/me...ndonThread.gif

[//MavericK\\]

Mother of God...

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/me...ndonThread.gif

That's hilarious. Seriously.

[Eligor]

The really depressing thought is that there are movies that get far less attention than they deserve (such as for example Terry Gilliam's "Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus" which should have easily won an academy award as the best movie of the year). So perhaps rather than complaining about movies getting too much attention we should promote those that get too little (I am by the way in no way unhappy about "Avatar"'s success, it is a miracle it did that well; the sad thing is that there are movies at least as good that pass largely unnoticed).