Avatar

[MetalJunkie]

I was onboard until he mentioned a 4th film. 3 direct sequels of a movie is too many I think.

Unless you can name a film which had three direct sequels where the 4th film was the best one ?

Lethal Weapon 4 ?
Indiana Jones & The Kingdom of The Crystal Skull ?
Rambo ?
Superman IV The Quest For Peace ?

I'm not counting Star Trek IV since The Motion Picture through Voyage Home were all stand alone movies and only had a loose arc from II - IV.

I hope you're not implying Lethal Weapon 4 was bad. I agree, it's not the best one, though.

[Kotowboy]

I only saw it once and wasn't blown away by it. It's definitely the weakest one.

[MiracleSleeper]

James Cameron is going to pull a DT and announce that all four films should be considered as one continuous long epic film.

**cough SDOIT cough**

[Zantera]

I don't mind the idea of making several sequels at the same time if there is an overall plan or idea, and the story needs to be told over X amount of movies. Take Lord of the Rings as a good example. Sure, it was based on a book, but they knew how long the story would be, and they structured it perfectly over 3 movies. Avatar feels more like The Matrix to me. It stands well on its own legs and doesn't need a sequel. Obviously sequels will be made (for money reasons), but actually pulling it off is another thing. My comparison to Matrix is basically that everything the first movie sets up, is resolved in the end. Sure, with Matrix some things are set up for the sequels, but in the sequels they had to add in "new" threats and problems, and some of them felt out of place compared to the original.

It's James Cameron, so quality-wise it will probably still be decent or better, but making three movies at once feels a bit redundant. Especially considering the first one was like 6-7 years ago now. And Avatar 2 isn't until 2015 or 2016 right?

[Chino]

Avatar 2 will be December 2016. I don't know how you can say "It doesn't need a sequel". There are a million questions that could be asked about what happens now. For all we know, the RDA has that moon by the balls. We're lead to believe the humans were on their way home after they were defeated, but for all we know, they might just be heading to another base 1000 miles away. The Na'vi, or at least the ones in the area of the ones we were introduced to, would have no knowledge of this. I guess you could consider the ending to the first film as a resolve, but I don't. I have more questions now than I did before the movie started. I get what you're saying about adding new problems, and I agree, but if the next three movies are being written as an arching trilogy and are being filmed together, I can't imagine much of that story feeling forced. Odds are it's just goin to feel like a nine hour movie.

And most Avatar fans will be happy wherever JC takes the plot. Give me more Pandora. Let me see that ecosystem in full. Show me the oceans, the mountains, the other side of the moon, the other moons, etc. Hell, I'd pay for no story. If JC made a fake Planet Earth series for Pandora, I'd have that on 3D blueray the day it came out.

[Kotowboy]

I trust JC. He's not the type of director to half ass a sequel primarily to cash in.

He is an absolute perfectionist ( at least with visuals and his way of storytelling - let's not get into yet another discussion about the formulaic plot...)

For me at least - the 12 year wait from Titanic to Avatar was absolutely worth the wait upon seeing that movie for the first time.

I'd wait another 12 years to be that entertained again.

[Mister Gold]

I trust JC. He's not the type of director to half ass a sequel primarily to cash in.

He is an absolute perfectionist ( at least with visuals and his way of storytelling - let's not get into yet another discussion about the formulaic plot...)

For me at least - the 12 year wait from Titanic to Avatar was absolutely worth the wait upon seeing that movie for the first time.

I'd wait another 12 years to be that entertained again.

I will definitely agree there. Despite the fact that I'm not the biggest fan of Avatar itself because of its rather generic story, I do agree that Cameron is a visionary and not one to half-ass a sequel. Hell, if he can make a leap in quality with the next Avatar film(s) like he did with T2, I'd be pretty damn happy myself.

Heck, while Aliens was more of an action film than its predecessor, Cameron definitely created a more intellectual and character-driven story with it.

[orcus116]

I don't know how you can say "It doesn't need a sequel".

I can't speak for Zantera but the story of those characters wrapped clearly themselves up at the end and there really wasn't much else left. I know you're more interested in the Avatar universe so having lots of nuanced questions makes sense but you could really do that with any movie and doesn't necessarily mean that a full sequel is warranted.

[hefdaddy42]

I agree.  If they want to make a sequel or seven, fine, but just based on the story of the first, it doesn't NEED a sequel.  The comparison to The Matrix is an apt one.

[rumborak]

My concern is that the fact there are 3 sequels isn't a function of the script, but rather a function of the revenue the studio sees coming out of it.

[Kotowboy]

My concern is that the fact there are 3 sequels isn't a function of the script, but rather a function of the revenue the studio sees coming out of it.

I'm sure the studio probably wanted three sequels to be out by now too

[rumborak]

I agree.  If they want to make a sequel or seven, fine, but just based on the story of the first, it doesn't NEED a sequel.  The comparison to The Matrix is an apt one.

Let's just hope that's the extent of the analogy, and Cameron doesn't discover the "power" of biblical analogies like the Wachowski's did.

[hefdaddy42]

We'll see.

[Kotowboy]

Jim Cameron is a definite atheist so i highly doubt it.

[gmillerdrake]

If JC made a fake Planet Earth series for Pandora, I'd have that on 3D blueray the day it came out.

That would be pretty cool.

[orcus116]

My concern is that the fact there are 3 sequels isn't a function of the script, but rather a function of the revenue the studio sees coming out of it.

This is probably the entire reason the movies are being made.

[Kotowboy]

Let's not kid ourselves. It's the reason any movie is made.

James Cameron probably had to agree to make three films just to get the first one made.

It's just the way Hollywood apparently operates now.

The Maze Runner just came out and I read on twitter they're already planning the FOURTH fuckin movie.

[BlobVanDam]

Let's not kid ourselves. It's the reason any movie is made.

James Cameron probably had to agree to make three films just to get the first one made.

It's just the way Hollywood apparently operates now.

The Maze Runner just came out and I read on twitter they're already planning the FOURTH fuckin movie.

Hollywood's motto - If it's worth making, it's worth milking.

[Kotowboy]

I think it's funny when people say " Oh - Avatar sequels - yeah no surprises there ! kerching kerching "

It's like - well yeah ? It's a business after all. Businesses tend to like making money.

That's kind of their point.





I wouldn't be surprised if FOX wanted a bona fide Titanic trilogy

[Zantera]

Obviously money plays a big part of it, and if Avatar had bombed at the box office, there's no way they would have gone into production on three sequels. In the case with Avatar, it's probably a combination of them dropping two trucks of cash on James Cameron's front lawn, and Cameron himself being interested, because after all he spent like half his life developing the first Avatar, so of course he would be interested in seeing where he could go next. He has reached that stage where he can do pretty much whatever he wants with it, and the studio trusts him, so why wouldn't he do it?

The story will really be the interesting part of where they take this. Because you can say what you want about the first movie, some people (like myself) thought the clichéd plot and thin characters brought the movie down, others didn't care about it. Say what you want about it, the first movie wasn't a success because of the plot. It was serviceable, but it was all about the visuals. With the sequels, I don't think they can get away as easily, and this time people expect more, considering the success of the first one. And especially considering they are making not one, not two, but THREE sequels all at once, they really need something special plot-wise to keep the steam going for another three movies. If the second one has a really compelling story and sets up a really interesting scenario for the sequels, this new trilogy could be great, but it all depends on Avatar 2.

[hefdaddy42]

I don't think that money is the reason that Cameron wants to make 3 sequels.  I think that money is why the studio will let him make three sequels.

[Zantera]

I don't think that money is the reason that Cameron wants to make 3 sequels.  I think that money is why the studio will let him make three sequels.

That's a good way of putting it.

[Chino]

James Cameron's main motive for this isn't the money. He's far more driven by the fact that he has a platform which allows him to help convince people to take care of this rock.

[BlackInk]

If I had spent as long as JC has developing Pandora I would have wanted to make 20 movies.

[Chino]

  Yeah, seriously. These films should be way cheaper to make. The majority of Avatar's budget, outside of marketing, was the R&D costs for the technology. Now that that's already established, it should definitely lighten the financial burden. However, JC has stated he wants to push it further. In the first Avatar, the systems would fail once they started tracking 15 faces/bodies at once. It made scenes with a lot of Na'vi very complicated. I read in an interview that he believes he'll be able to film (record) upwards of 60 Na'vi characters at a time. So who knows. Maybe they won't be cheaper.

Even if you didn't like Avatar, I still recommend "the making of" to people. What JC did in an empty studio is nothing short of amazing. The technology is awesome, and it really makes you realize that a lot more had to go into the movie besides CGI. It's really cool seeing how they captured everything and had a mock up world that came through the virtual camera lenses with the actors in their Na'vi forms.

Also, James Cameron is supposedly filming the sequels at 60FPS and in 4K.

[Kotowboy]

I don't think that money is the reason that Cameron wants to make 3 sequels.  I think that money is why the studio will let him make three sequels.

Yes and no. Everything is a TRILOGY these days.  The nu trek cast allegedly had to sign on for three films before 2009 would get made.


Like I said before. Maze Runner has just come out and they're already planning the 4th film.

[Kotowboy]

If anyone can make a film LOOK great it's Jim Cameron. Plus they're always ENTERTAINING. And that's the main reason I pay £15 to go to the cinema. I want to be ENTERTAINED. I don't pay that much money for an amazing plot and nothing else. And I liked HFR so I'm looking forward to the sequels.

[Chino]

If anyone can make a film LOOK great it's Jim Cameron. Plus they're always ENTERTAINING. And that's the main reason I pay £15 to go to the cinema. I want to be ENTERTAINED. I don't pay that much money for an amazing plot and nothing else. And I liked HFR so I'm looking forward to the sequels.

I say this all the time. It takes a lot to get me to drop $10.00+ for a ticket in a movie theater. I'm sure movies like The Butler are great, but the experience and feeling of the movie will be exactly the same regardless of where I see it. To get my ass in a theater seat, I need something like Avatar.

[Kotowboy]

I enjoy the whole experience and then nitpick much later.

How terrible to be telling yourself you won't enjoy it before it's even begun.

I always go in with an open mind. Sometimes I'm pleasantly surprised - Robocop 2014

- and sometimes not - Die Hard 5 , Total Recall remake.

But I akways go in WANTING to like a film.

[hefdaddy42]

Well, yeah.  Why would you go to a movie you don't think you would like?

[Zantera]

People complain about ticket prices, personally I've never gotten that argument, and I'm unemployed and get limited money. If there's a movie coming out that I'm interested in, I will see it. When I have a job, I would have no problem going to the cinema every weekend to be honest, even if it involved seeing a lot of movies I'm just casually interested in.

IMO the experience is always worth it. To me, it makes no difference if it's dumb action schlock or a well written mystery drama. Movie enjoyment overall is more than just visuals. Avatar looked great at the cinema, but I've seen worse looking movies that stayed with me much longer.

[Chino]

People complain about ticket prices, personally I've never gotten that argument, and I'm unemployed and get limited money. If there's a movie coming out that I'm interested in, I will see it. When I have a job, I would have no problem going to the cinema every weekend to be honest, even if it involved seeing a lot of movies I'm just casually interested in.

IMO the experience is always worth it. To me, it makes no difference if it's dumb action schlock or a well written mystery drama. Movie enjoyment overall is more than just visuals. Avatar looked great at the cinema, but I've seen worse looking movies that stayed with me much longer.

My argument is that those worse looking movies will be on Netflix in about 4 months... which you'll get more than a month of for what a single movie ticket costs.

[Kotowboy]

Well, yeah.  Why would you go to a movie you don't think you would like?

Me and my brother do. We go on 2 for 1 days just for fun.

But it still applies I think. We were both surprised by Robocop.

We may expect it to be bad but won't tell ourselves it was crap

just because we expected it to be.

I'm probably not explaining myself very well.

[hefdaddy42]

That's fuckin' weird.

[Kotowboy]

That's fuckin' weird.

And this is a problem, becauuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuussssssssssseeeeeeeeeeeeeee ?