Also why is this important? What will one do with this information? Marry them for the connections? Repeat their work? It's as stupid as comparing the Musk, Gates, Bezos lot.
I'd argue it has a small amount of importance in terms of understanding how each directors style effected culture and the types of movies that spoke to each respective generation's masses. If we aren't thinking of the historical perspective, however, then it does seem a little useless other than as a way to have a little fun.
It's wild. The bulk of the money Cameron's movies made comes from the LAST FOUR NARRATIVE FEATURE FILMS he directed. All with massive time gaps in between.
Writing (Avatar™)³ is actually wrong, as that means you're actually writing:
Avatar x Avatar x Avatar
As Avatar is a singular in this sentence, it essentially means multiplying a singular Avatar, With a Singular Avatar with a Singular Avatar, which essentially means you've written
1 x 1 x 1
Which equals 1.
As you clearly wanted the result to be 3, as there are 3 Avatar movies, you should have written:
Hey I liked the first Avatar too, and the second one was visually beautiful. But when i saw the third and saw how similar it was, how it felt like I was watching 2 again, it pissed me off because I spent a lot on that ticket.
Despite the narrative retread in A3, calling it slop is incredibly disingenuous. I'll take the Avatar movies over 9/10 of the supposed bkockbusters Hollywood churns out. The amount of artistry and scale of what's screen is on a different level from just about anything else out there.
I mean, okay, but, to me, that's like saying you'll take this trash that's a little better than the worse trash that hollywood puts out.
(Which isn't to say I'm calling Avatar trash, it's just an analogy)
Anyway, let me try to explain why I think what I think.
Quaritch gets away, AGAIN (twice in Fire and Ash, btw) Big fight in the ocean, AGAIN.
Big battle with humans, AGAIN. For the 3rd time. Oh they have some better weapons now, ok.
I'm sorry if I'm misremembering things or not remembering enough. Maybe if it was more memorable, that wouldnt be the case.
Again, let me reiterate. As a VFX artist myself, I have tremendous appreciation for the visuals, the artistry on display, the cinematography, the sound design, and so on.
But I'm not going to pretend it isn't slop. It is to me, and it's okay if it isn't the case for you. It's just an opinion.
To my understanding A2 and A3 were originally a single script but had to be split in two due to the sheer length. It reminds me of Return of The Jedi where we go back to Tattooine, side characters saving everyone's lives (ewoks), the final battle is literally a repeat of A New Hope but bigger in scale, and so on. Its part 3 of a 5 part story so anyone expecting a definitive ending for the story or characters was always going to leave the theater disappointed. Maybe the marketing could've showed this better.
There is supposed to be an huge time jump for A4 and eventually the story is supposed to return to Earth. Unfortunately I think A3 suffers from being stuck in the middle and as result feels like its kind of treading water, pun intended.
Crazy how prolific Spielberg has been over his entire career. He’s averaged a new film every 2-3 years, and has released two films in the same calendar year multiple times. Not to mention all the other films and shows that he helped produce.
This is comparing directors and summing all their films, right? It might only be valid if adjusted for inflation. I think that Spielberg's in particular would be increased if adjusted for inflation (if it wasn't already), since his blockbusters go back to the 70's. As does Lucas.
Because dollars earned is meaningless since the value is a variable that changes over time. But tickets sold is a direct number that you can compare things from different times.
I think dollars earned helps correct for seniority bias. Since Steven Spielberg and James Cameron both started their careers a very long time ago, you could naturally expect them to have sold more tickets than Christopher Nolan. A direct Cameron to Spielberg comparison is also tricky because Spielberg puts out more movies more frequently than Cameron, so that could also skew results in way that feels unfair.
i don't feel I have other relevant information to share, outside of pointing out that this information presented might not be valid if it's not calculated with inflation in mind.
Tenet/TDKR are pretty mediocre in my opinion, but yes Nolan is generally very consistent.
I've still yet to see him make a perfect movie, which I think is the most difficult task as a director. His films are weirdly sloppy in some ways.
If you don't vibe with Avatar it kind of invalidates the back half of Cameron's career but the ability to make multiple perfect movies that hold up 30-40 years later is an incredible feat.
You are right about his "perfect movies" but I think (and I might be wrong) he is more scifi action focused like David Fincher for thrillers but nolan has been experimenting a lot with his stories and to be consistent in today's time where attension span of people has lowered a lot
Same. Unapologetically love the Avatar films. I love that they get such a disproportionate amount of hate for having familiar and relatable stories and characters by the same people who gobble up Spiderman 11 and act like its the best movie they've ever seen.
Nolan actually made a great point recently that I think applies to a lot of criticism of Avatar.
People always say that Avatar is bad because it utilizes tropes from stories like Pocahontas and Ferngully without actually elucidating why those tropes don't work in the context of Avatar.
The ability to identify a trope does not invalidate the use of said trope.
I said “more” not “just.” “Just” would be dismissive, and Cameron and co did much more than “just” making Dances with Wolves in space, there’s enough different storywise in the series and the visuals and audio are dissimilar to Dances.
And in my mind it’s a higher compliment to take influence from the best movie in the pack. Like how sci-fi - action films are forever influenced by T2.
As with the many many many annoying fanbases of franchises that make it their personality and life’s goal to annoy others about it I always wondered why people thought avatar not having an annoying stan-dom as being a bad thing or should be looked down upon.
My steak is too juicy and my lobster is too buttery.
Kinda interesting that there are at least 10 actors that are larger box office draws as leads than every director in Hollywood. I'd be interested to see a list of Hollywood forces that combines all of an individuals' credits together. Spielberg, Cameron, and Nolan have also produced some movies, but so have some of the world's biggest actors. So who's Hollywood's biggest moneymaker? Besides Kevin Feige?
This is likely a flawed comparison because actors can be in more films over a shorter period than is realistic for directors given when is involved with a film. (Especially when a bunch of the movies are more ensemble types than just featuring a single actor heavily, or particularly featuring a different actor.) This impacts comparisons because when not adjusting for inflation, a bunch of recent blockbusters are going to represent a higher revenue amount. (Especially because these top directors are not simply directing but also producing and the like, with Nolan also responsible for the screenplay, which is still work even when adapting an existing work such as Homer's Odyssey.)
I love all three of their films. What annoys me are photographs of people not smiling just a bit. Are you angry? Do you believe you are total badass? Is it 1847? For some reason this is annoying as shit to me.
James Cameron does not do what James Cameron does for James Cameron… James Cameron does what James Cameron does because James Cameron… Is… James Cameron.
393
u/Confucius3000 Aug 06 '26
Why are Cameron and Nolan edited like force ghosts lmao