Critics were falling over themselves for the first one’s visual and technical achievements in 2009. The main difference is that while the first led the way in that department (for better or worse), the second has things it can be compared to. Even the first does now. The biggest issue is that, unless the third can actually craft a compelling story, the franchise will have very little if not nothing to contribute anymore.
Anyway, again, I have no plans to see the movie. I go for story, my suspicions have been confirmed that it is basically the first one again (which I did not enjoy), and I already had no interest in paying more for the “spectacle” if it wasn’t. I just wanted to vent about why this franchise gets praised for “style over substance” by many people who look for “substance over style” elsewhere. I think we did a pretty good about discussing it so we can probably move on to movies that are actually worth talking about.
I still don’t get why people who liked Top Gun: Maverick seem to hate this film, they are both technically refined but cripplingly middle-of-the-road films. I can’t say if the avatars share the same plot since I haven’t seen or heard a lot about Avatar 2. That is what I want to complain about, it looks like an obvious double standard to me.
I also have no interest in Top Gun so I can’t say anything but I have been wondering about the double standard for Avatar since I had the misfortune to be dragged to by a friend in 2010.
ME! There was just something about that teaser and I like Margot Robbie
Top Gun: Maverick is a long-await sequel that was basically the main launch of the career of a major actor, and it didn’t come for decades, allowing the nostalgia factor to set in. Avatar is the unwanted, I requested sequel that came for a film not even fifteen years old yet, that wasn’t very well-liked to begin with, and whose cast, even when we’ll-known and well-loved, is hidden behind blue CGI. So while both films might be meh, one is a sequel to a movie people seemed to like (), while the other is not.
I’d rather a hundred Avatars than another Top Gun or other 80s remake. People say a lot about Avatar but Pandora is a richly detailed world in some regards, the actual creature design is lovely and James Cameron actively advances digital filmmaking techniques with each film he makes it seems. They are just let down by standardised plotting, it isn’t egregious to me either because as I said plenty of other films do it and plenty of games do it as well.
I have no interest in seeing the Barbie movie, because I’m pretty sure I know how it’s gonna go. Barbie will start off in a relatively simple life filled with her own glamor, her ability to do anything other than look pretty will be challenged, she’ll go on an adventure that shows off how strong and independent she is, while she shows up Ken at every possible turn to show how much she doesn’t need a man (with no mention of how often she relies on the help of the other women of the Barbieverse instead, which will be numerous), and she’ll come away looking like a Kim Possible action type who can do anything. Seen it before. Over and over again.
I can’t think of a single person who was enthusiastic about Maverick when it was announced especially since news broke in the period where cashing in on the 80s was at its peak.
Tom Cruise became successful after Risky Business, that was three years prior and a much better film than Top Gun.
Also I fucking hate people judging films on whether they are “wanted” or not. A film justifies its existence by the way it is crafted not by its public demand for its existence, I didn’t ask for Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny yet it is my most anticipated blockbuster of next year.
Has anyone in this conversation actually seen Avatar 2? I feel like we are all morons for discussing the merits a film before everyone involved has seen it.
Fun Fact: There isn’t a single picture of Tom Cruise on his Wikipedia page that doesn’t creep me the fuck out. It is like looking at an Ikea store display, you think there is someone there, you know there can be but there just isn’t.
If I had a choice, I’d hope “other” was one. I’ve never had an interest in anything Top Gun and Avatar was painfully dull and not worth regular price of admission let alone the 3D price.
I can agree with this even though he seems to be getting a little high on himself because of it and the “spectacle” alone isn’t worth it to me.
To be fair, it’s Ken; he’s not much of a man and she’s definitely better than him.
No, and I don’t intend to. I’m just going off my opinion of the first and what I’ve seen and heard of the second and the future. Might be moronic but my suspicions feel very much confirmed. Definitely down to move on though.
Maybe you don’t know a lot of people. It’s all I kept hearing about.
I said basically the main launch of his career, not when he became successful. Arnold became successful after The Terminator, but it was Predator that launched him into the status of superstar. Top Gun is thought of as the film that cemented Cruise’s status. Come on, man, pay attention to what I say, not what you think I mean.
Generally, when a sequel is not asked for, it means either the first one was so well made that nobody wants to see it tarnished by a sequel that risks being inferior, or the first one was so meh that nobody cares about seeing anymore. Avatar tends to be part of group 2 whenever someone talks to me about it.
Yeah and basically his career launched when he was in Risky Business and he had received a lot of clout as a handsome up-and-comer after playing Joel. If you have such a hard-on for semantics then you should have said Top Gun cemented his superstar status. Not that it matters because arguing on a semantic level means that the arguer is simply wanting to win, I don’t even want a debate. I just wanted to share an opinion, I am not forcing you to agree with me or not.
So you chew me out for not thinking about what you are saying then immediately form an attempt at a counterpoint by adding a word I didn’t say in there? You literally did the radical opposite of what you told me off for; you got so wrapped up in your personal counterargument you ignored what I meant in what I wrote down. I said films, meaning what I said goes for any sort of film be it something completely original, an adaptation, a sequel, a remake or a reboot across all genres and all franchises. In fact I literally used a sequel in my example and in a franchise that has already had ups and downs in quality over the years, I have seen no less than three Reddit posts defending Crystal Skull this weekend alone so clearly this right for a film to exist is non-linear if it isn’t downright arbitrary as I said it was because films can undergo reappraisal at any time.
But if you wanted to just specify sequels, then it is still a not. You shouldn’t judge the right for a piece of media to exist by if what precedes it is good or not either. There are plenty of franchises that have sequels that are inferior to the original but still retain a level of quality to them and there are sequels that are better than the original. It is the makings of that film that quality justifies their existence not if some arbitrary group of geeks deems it worth on Reddit after the first IGN article on it comes out.
Now to save us another hour of debating films I am simply going to advise you to cool off or jump to the part where you realise you are being combative again then end the argument.
To get things back on track I am simply going to mention you can get Inland Empire on Criterion. I haven’t watched it but I forgot what film thread I was on.
Dude, you’ve been combative, hotheaded, and snappy for nearly the full time you’ve been posting in this thread today. I’ve kept cool the whole time. You’ve been the one coming off like a snobbish film critic from your first response to me, then going into the things you “fucking hate” about what people think about wanted films and how journalism needs standards again and so on. I think this whole thing is bothering you more than me. I’ve got no desire to provoke you on this topic further, since it’s not a topic I’m particularly invested in, but consider some of your responses from earlier and perhaps not let this get you this worked up.
It isn’t snobbish to expect better standards from film journalists but yes that first comment might have been unduly profane and I did indeed leave a “fucking” when talking about films “being wanted” initially, I sometimes do that a lot when writing, it doesn’t mean I am angry, it means I feel strongly about something and that I didn’t reread what I wrote before sending…
Other than that there is perhaps some grain of truth in what you are saying. I am fully aware that my last post was stupendously blunt and more than a little terse, I know that would go nowhere pleasant for either of us if we allow it to continue.
It also isn’t snobbish to want people to be more open-minded about what films are coming out and it certainly isn’t snobbish to want people to be less uncompromising on when a film has a right to exist or that we should demand more from people covering films professionally.
I feel like you may have unintentionally written this in a way that sounds extremely patronising you most likely didn’t mean it though. For what it is worth, I am sorry I was starting to become an ass. You are taking the out for once and I am able to see that I was going to make it a whole thing just like that fucking island debate I had a few weeks ago. Actually you were there for that, so you might remember what I am talking about, I don’t want that.
Plus with three days left til I am back at work with a day before Christmas eve and I will spend it being chewed out by unhappy vacationers. I have to enjoy them and it means I can’t spend it arguing with people.
Hey, let’s face it: you and I both go from insufferable to asshole at the drop of a hat when we get wound up, and it’s tough for either of us to step back once it gets going. I don’t begrudge you that. We good.
I was gonna point out why are you comparing two movies of which one (or both?) you haven´t even seen, but you´ve already done it yourself, so…
Ok, I´m gonna plead guilty on that actually. I definitely got enthusiastic about it after the first trailer and it was the only movie I highly anticipated over the past few years and couldn´t wait to see it in the cinema. I just wanted them to make an entertaining flick with great aviation scenes but without the crappy romance of the original, and they definitely succeedded in that.
I didn´t intend on going to see Avatar 2, but I might reconsider, just to experience the visuals on the big screen (TV won´t do it justice probably). I went to see the first one back in the day due to the überhype. First and only time I saw a film in 3D. Not only were the glassess pretty uncomfortable, but I also fell asleep during it, so that´s that, lol.
Added the first four Indy Adventures to my ever expanding library of movies. The 4K’s are really well done. Crystal Skull is a little jarring to watch especially during a specific already jarring scene involving monkeys… it’s still very much jarring.
top gun maverick: mediocre fan service schlock where the stakes dwindle as the film goes on. the utterly discombobulating third act appears to be either from another movie entirely or maverick’s fantasy death dream. not my bag.
the batman: irritating two note main theme and inappropriate use of nirvana aside, this was as close to a movie version of the long halloween as you could hope. enjoyed the detective work and how everyone was freaked out by the nutcase in the bat suit. hands down my favourite depiction of catwoman. overall, a confused liberal power fantasy but i want to see more!
dune: a billion times better than the book. it looks like 60s sci-fi book covers made real. can’t wait to see walken as the emperor of the galaxy.
Glass Onion… totally worths a second viewing.
We no longer follow a family (Knives Out) this time but a band of ultra-rich bound by a secret pact…
The first part of the movie is very mastered and rhythmic, the second one explains the first one from a different angle and the third part offers an explosive conclusion.
A tycoon (interpreted by Edward Norton) invites his friends from politics, tech companies and show business during the weekend on his Greek island to solve the mystery of his fake murder until… a real murder takes place. But it was without counting on the greatest detective, played by Daniel Craig, who is less physical than a James Bond but more insightful.
Lot of twists guaranteed! A humor that works, a very studied staging and an eye-catching plastic!
Rian Johnson invented a modern genre of murder mystery which brings together big headliners in a kind of crazy party. A concept that can be declined as many times.
I recommand it!
I loved the first Knives Out, and this sequel is still great fun, but I felt it wasn’t quite as good as the original.
PROS:
I enjoyed the contrast in setting: a sunny springtime Greek island with a modern mansion compared to the first film’s autumnal Massachusetts forest with a gothic manor. Lovely scenery.
Benoit Blanc is a great character, and his outfits are chef’s kiss.
Some great funny moments. The scene where Blanc solves the murder mystery game that should have taken the entire weekend, before it had even started, is wonderful.
CONS:
The ensemble cast of dickish friends weren’t as good as the Thrombey family. Miles Bron isn’t particulary intimidating or interesting.
The twin twist and extended flashback sequence in the middle of the movie dragged on and on and on. And on. It should have just played out chronologically.
The murder mystery element wasn’t as strong as it was in the first film. The ending was a bit underwhelming and silly.
Still, a fun movie! I eagerly await Knives Out 3.
Also, the Glass Onion island would make a great Hitman level…
), while the other is not.
Might be moronic but my suspicions feel very much confirmed. Definitely down to move on though.
a real murder takes place. 
But it was without counting on the greatest detective, played by Daniel Craig, who is less physical than a James Bond but more insightful. 
which brings together big headliners in a kind of crazy party. A concept that can be declined as many times.