I do though, because that's the context in which I made my statement in the first place. And nothing I said could ever be reasonably interpreted into "no one much cares about films after they come out". That's ridiculous. If you want to insist that your tangent was justified because you read a post as written or whatever you can, but that's not what I meant so you can stop rebutting an argument I didn't want to make and have disavowed already.
It's not a tangent. It's a direct reply to your position in context.
Here's what you said.
Which movies get talked about with such great frequency many years after their release, and where? Excluding of course neverending franchises where the mere idea of the franchise is what's talked about rather than any individual movie within it?
Like really, this isn't a thing.
First you ask if [thing you don't believe happens] happens.
Then you say [thing doesn't happen].
Thing in this case is movies being talked about after they come out, as a response to the idea that Avatar doesn't get talked about much (which you have interpreted as an attack on it). You then implicitly assert that no one talks about movies after they come out. The logical consequence of this assertion being true is that if no one talks about any film after it comes out because this doesn't reflect its quality, then it doesn't matter if no talks about avatar and that this doesn't reflect its quality. This line of argument is clear from the post you were replying to, what you've said before it, and what you've talked about since.
Your post, here, clearly asserts by implication that films don't get talked about much after they come out.
I gave many examples of places and times where they do get talked about. You chose to focus on just film schools to the exclusion of all the other examples I save (incidentally, I noted that this might happen).
So it's clear that it wasn't a tangent, and in any case if it was, I didn't start it.
The point, though, is why this matters. And it matters because for whatever reason, people here (including you) seem to be using whether or not Avatar got talked about much after it came out as some means by which to assess its general worthiness. Some people seem to think that because they didn't see it being talked about much, it wasn't worthy. You oppose this idea by stating that few films receive this reception and therefore bring into question this judgement about Avatar, because if many films aren't talked about much, then surely that means Avatar isn't bad by this metric.
I am explaining this to make it clear to you that I understand your position and the context, so that you will trust what I say next.
What I am trying to get through to you is that the metric is worthless. Who cares if people didn't talk about it? Who cares if people don't think it was culturally worthy? Who cares if it doesn't have a fandom or a brand? These don't determine how good something is artistically or how much you enjoyed it.
There is no point contesting the metric "if fandom or brand then good?" because it is a garbage way to measure things and any prominent cultural commentator using that metric about Avatar is being an idiot who can be ignored on the subject; likewise anyone who agrees with them.
Avatar rules, and if you, Vympel, like it, you have every right to ignore people who say it doesn't matter because lack of Fandom Impact or Brand Recognition or whatever.