Avatar 2

I should buy a lotto ticket tonight...

Visually I agree the finale in Avatar 2 was great, however it contained an enormous plot hole that took away some of the enjoyment for me - where the hell the island tribe went to. They were a key part of the battle and then just totally conveniently disappeared without any sort of attempt at an explanation. It wasn't as if there wasn't plenty of fat in the movie that they could have cut if necessary to give 30 seconds to make the finale make sense.

I dont think the lesson is to be less risk averse. MCU's worst movies for most have been when they've given directors more freedom, e.g., Eternals and Thor 3. The problem for superhero movies is that for the most part the audience knows the main characters wont be dying, while in Avatar everyone was fair game, given most of the audience came out not knowing the name of most characters.

Interesting choice for the tweet to include two shots from Endgame as an example of a film with lack of emotion. During my packed screening of Avatar 2 I didn't hear a single crowd reaction and no videos have popped up of them either. However every Endgame screening I went to plus numerous videos online included real raw emotion from the audience - be it happiness or sadness. Similarly with the finale of Infinity War, the other shots in the tweet, I heard far more audience reactions.

Again, no arguments that visually Avatar 2 easily beats MCU movies but it isn't too surprising given he has been working on it for 13 years and had a far larger budget for CGI. The two franchises are really apples and oranges so there isn't really that much to be gained by trying to play them against each other.

It would be a ridiculous thing to end up on the cutting room floor, especially given the huge amount of fat in the movie elsewhere (albeit very pretty looking fat).

The ring of fire makes no sense either, they've shown how deep the characters can dive and how the creatures can get somewhat airborne. Even afterwards when they escaped the fire there was still no tribe waiting for them - they just totally vanished.

Can only think that Cameron couldn't make it work cleanly logically without impacting a bunch of other scenes and emotional beats that would hurt later movies, like the tribe saving the daughter heading back home and then leaving the Sully's to fend for themselves.

Rather than having to explain in a way that doesn't really stand up, like having a shot the tribe outside of the fire trying to get in, Cameron just hoped the audience would ignore it. Not like he doesnt have some priors - say a door that could easily fit two people.

I'm not arguing it isn't successful - it clearly is.

A successful movie however doesn't mean there isn't flaws - not to drag up MCU again, but the success of Endgame didn't mean it had perfect CGI or issues with plot etc.

Success just means people want to see it, it doesn't tell us why or even how good the movie is.

I've seen plenty of movies recently with much better and unique plots, better, more interesting characters, far tighter editing, or were simply more fun than Avatar 2 but I haven't told my friends if they want to see them they must do it in the cinema but I have in this case (on top of that to spend more and go to the best screen they can get to). That isn't because Avatar 2 doesn't have issues but because it is stunning and I think the falloff in quality and the other issues far more noticeable when it is on the small screen. Add to that to how little competition it has in the cinema right now, the poor weather, and it is a perfect storm from it to do huge numbers.

With a far shorter break before the next movie, it'll be interesting to see if the novelty factor potentially drops off. I'd hope for a big improvement on other areas or I feel it will struggle. To be fair, I had no faith in this one doing well so what do I know.

Legitimate wonder for sure. But all films require the viewer to suspend belief in a variety of ways - and I can't say I gave these factors much thought until they were mentioned here. Like with the other Na'vi warriors, I just assumed the area of the battle scene was very large, and we were just staying focused on one area featuring the main characters.

I mean, it's quite easy to split hairs like this. Do I actually care whether or not Jack could have theoretically fit on the door with Rose? Not at all. In my view, to focus on a detail like this is to miss the point. It's relatively unimportant.

Cameron's films have always been much more about capturing broad emotional strokes and relatable themes than cerebral intricacy (like Christopher Nolan, for example). It is what it is, and I'm here for it!

I didn't notice human characters looking awkward here, whereas I did with the first film.

I was at Cineworld IMAX and I think the fact that I couldn't determine if it was HFR or not suggests that it wasn't - or at least not the predominant variable frame rate format. I would usually be quite sensitive to visual elements and I couldn't spot any changes.

I know what you mean though, it was so clear and immersive it seemed like *something* had been done to improve the experience. I really didn't notice frame rate judder as I have in the past with 3D films.

It's likely this is due to Cameron's experience capturing 3D motion. But I also genuinely wonder if there are different formats out there for testing purposes. I really have no idea what format that was in, and Cineworld are unable to clarify, but I was very glad it was the format I watched it in. Zero complaints.

I was left wondering if they ever did mine the unobtanium deposit under the Home Tree, since unobtanium was never mentioned (all that ridiculing of the name 11 years ago clearly had an effect).

Seen it in IMAX 3D and was blown away. This and the original Avatar captured my imagination more than any other movie while at the pictures.

In a generation of utter pretentious filmmaking, it's great to know that we have at least one director who delivers a no frills blast of a movie.