Funny, you don't look blueish. James Cameron to Make Three Avatar Sequels*

The reason for all this self-indulgent nonsense? Quite simply, no-one can tell Cameron 'no'. He's in a position to dictate exactly what he wants to do, and when, where and how.

Although some might suggest such hubris is eerily reminiscent of Michael Cimino and Heaven's Gate, I'd argue that Cameron has cleverly pitched his sequels to roughly coincide with developments in film (and home video) technologies. As with the first Avatar film, I'd suggest he sees the series as a franchise that can coincide with (or even debut) each new generation in visual technology with each new film. 3D? 4K? 8K? Headset-free VR? 3D holography? Each film is likely being pitched to sell a format, and not simply as a movie per se. Because if the sequels are anything like the original, they're going to be absolutely dire.

 

I have watched the original movie a couple of times over the summer. I thought maybe I'd missed out on how great it was if there are all these sequels in the pipeline. I'm still not feelin' it. It's not the worst thing I've ever seen, but my desire to see any further development of the franchise is zero.

 

I honestly don't see how the movies will be successful, but I also never count out Cameron. Pretty much everyone thought "Titanic" would be a huge flop, and "Avatar" far exceeded expectations, too, so it's a mistake to assume with him...

 

Unlike Michael Cimino, James Cameron has an uncanny command of nuts-and-bolts movie storytelling. Long as his movies often are, they are incredibly tight, and they play audience emotions like a fiddle.

I get that people don't like the original Avatar movie. The visual design of the movie is somewhat silly, and the dialogue is on the nose. But it's a good (if familiar) story, well-told.

People are entitled not to like things they don't like, but to say that Avatar was "dire" when it pulls of successfully all the things people complain big-budget movies DON'T do these days, is to protest too much. It's not cool to like Avatar, but it's also b.s. to pretend it sucks.

 

I'll take that bet in reverse....too much work has gone into these movies already for them to suck, I can't see it happening.

 

That doesn't make sense. Putting work into a movie doesn't mean it's going to be good or that audiences are going to want to see it. Plenty of terrible movies had a lot of work put into them.

 

not like this and they weren't made by Cameron or his team...his track record speaks for itself

 

That doesn't mean these can't possibly bomb under the circumstances.

 

This reminds me that I need to re-watch Avatar because I can't remember anything about it other than there were blue people and a tree. By the time these sequels roll around I'll probably have forgotten it again.

 

You might as well hold off on re-watching it then and save yourself the 3 hours now!

 

I'd recommend Director's cut if you feel the need.

I think Cameron's forgetting about the first one also, almost all of the important humans characters who died are coming back in the sequels...

 

I think it's wise never to underestimate Jim Cameron. He's proven people wrong before.

My bet is that the first sequel will do very well, but 3 more... I think that's kinda pushing it.

And I see Colin beat me to it. 20 years ago, I said, Titanic is going to be a huge flop. It cost too much, it went way overschedule, it's a downer movie, everybody dies in the end, it's a historical costume drama (which audiences think are boring), and everybody's seen this story way too many times. No way can it make money. And... I was completely wrong. It was a very entertaining film that made a fortune. It was corny, it was predictable, but it was fun, romantic, and interesting in ways I never expected it to be. The visual effects helped quite a bit.

Don't get e wrong: it's a corny, silly movie with a lot of cliched characters (especially the villains). But it works for what Cameron was trying to do. After Titanic, I said, "people better not underestimate this guy."

 

The Heaven's Gate/Cimino reference was referring more to the situation where the studio heads simply felt unable to reign the production in, leading to disaster.

Cameron is clearly an accomplished filmmaker, with (quite rightly) some classic films to his name. But Avatar simply isn't one of them: it's wantonly overcooked cliche with pretty visuals, and a prime example of big-budget lowest common denominator pap. And I don't say that to be 'cool' - I say that because that's the film I saw at the cinema.

 

I think it was the audience connection with Kate and Leo that made it such a hit, actually. I don't view "Titanic" as an "effects movie" - unlike "Avatar", where the visuals were a big selling point,

"Titanic" had "quiet visual effects" - it used a lot but only to create a sense of a real environment, not to make some fantasy whoopi-woo.

As for the movie's success, I still remember how a friend of mine cackled when he predicted it'd bomb. After all, "Titanic" cost a then-stunning $200 million, which meant it needed to make roughly $500 million to break even.

No way that would happen, right?

 

Personal opinions about the film's creative merits aside, the Cimino comparison seems iffy because Cameron's movies make tons of money, whereas Cimino helped kill off a studio!

 

There were some huge effects here and there, like the "King of the World!" scene.

What made the movie work (in one sentence or less): I hadn't considered that Cameron would use a "doughnut" sequence that started with the modern world and then flashed back to 1912. That managed to relate what happened many years ago to today and put it in a context that people could relate it to. And of course, showing the Titanic disaster through the eyes of two attractive young people makes it much more dramatic and entertaining. This was a great approach that really clicked with audiences.

I think it's a really silly movie, but it is a lot of "popcorn fun" on that level. I don't expect any less from the Avatar sequels.

 

Avatar, for instance.

 

Well at least Avatar made money and coasted by on the effects... but that only really works once with audiences before they say "Okay, there's sizzle but where's the steak?".

 

Gee, I thought the visual design of the movie was among the best things about it.

I remember the reviews actually being fairly positive. 84% on Rotten Tomatoes:

Avatar Rating on Rotten Tomatoes

It's fair to say the movie got some mixed reviews, and many people noted that the villain (once again) was a caricature, and the story was a thin retelling of the problem of Native Americans having their land stolen by settlers equipped with better weapons/technology. Quite a few people called it "Dancing with Smurfs."

 

But Cimino was revered following The Deer Hunter, which was a great commercial and critical success. Obviously Cameron has a much longer track record of success, but the comparison still holds: the Avatar sequels, if shot back-to-back for reportedly $1 billion (which pointedly does not factor in 'prints and advertising' for each release), could certainly seriously damage investors/studio/money men if they flop. Applying the accepted equation for box office success, that price tag of $1 billion will need to reap $3 billion to see profit (not including presumably large ad costs, as noted). And that's riding on an extremely positive projection for the franchise beginning (at the earliest) in 2020 and ending in 2025.

That's a huge roll of the dice, even if Cameron's box office track record is (mostly) stellar. One might argue that Disney's purchase of Lucasfilm for $4.6 billion is somewhat comparable as a similar investment in an uncertain cinematic future, but Avatar simply doesn't have the ancillary markets, persistently rabid fan base and sheer cultural clout that Star Wars has, and thus has far fewer avenues to recoup its investment if the theatrical releases significantly under-perform.

 

Will they come out in my lifetime?, this guy is slow as molasses when it come to moviemaking.

 

I had an interesting reaction to Avatar. I thought it was really well made, its run time seemed to fly by fairly quickly, but as I watched it I would think, "Well that's goofy." And those moments were cumulative. So, even though I was satisfied enough as I watched the credits, I haven't really watched it all the way through since as it grates on my nerves. Never bothered to pick up the blu-ray.

 

I skipped it when it came out in theaters as it didn't grab me. I heard a lot of people talking about it both online and in person. And all they really ever talked about was how visually stunning it was. When asked about the story they would only say "it was okay'. So when it finally came out on bluray I rented it only to have to spend 2 days watching it because I fell asleep half way through the first viewing. I really loved everything else Cameron has done but this one just seemed like he was only concerned with visuals. And now the characters and story were secondary. And there are a number of actors in this film I really like. It just bored me to tears. I really wonder if all of those people that saw this for its visuals will go back to the theaters to see parts 2 through 5 or whatever the final number is.

 

I know that "Titanic" used a lot of effects - my point is that they weren't "obvious" effects. It's not like the movie featured exploding planets or breakdancing robots - unlike "Avatar", there was little/nothing that the audience clearly viewed as "effects".

Little-known fact: they shot the entirety of "Cast Away" in Tom Hanks' living room - effects made it look like he was on an island!

 

"Avatar" got an Oscar nom for Best Picture - the notion that it was poorly received as anything other than an "effects movie" is wrong.

Whatever flaws it may have, audiences really enjoyed it, and not just for the visuals. No movie makes that much money unless audiences connect with its story/characters - there've been plenty of movies with dazzling effects that flopped...