Does the world need 3 More Avatar Movies?

I don't think so, unless Cameron has something up his sleeve that will make the sequels and prequels so much more visually and dramatically unbelievable than Part I.

Talk amongst yourselves.

Mike

Hey, the world doesn't NEED ANY more movies. Not really, right?

But when I look at all the crap movies that get even crappier sequels (do you have any idea how many Beethoven the slobbering dog movies there are?), I LIKE the idea of a good movie by a good director, an original(ish) story, in a unique world. The first one was nominated for 9 Oscars. It's not like it was...say, Beethoven, or Final Destination.

(Dude, it's FINAL. You can't have FIVE things that are FINAL. Unless you're the end of Return of the King - there were at LEAST five of those.)

I can also only imagine what Cameron has done with technology since 2006 or so when he started Avatar. Of course he STARTED Avatar in 1994, with a planned release of 1999, but the technology to pull off what was in his head just didn't exist. So he invented it. I can only imagine what he's got up his sleeve this time.

It would almost be an insult NOT to do sequels.

Tim Wilson
Vice President, Editor-in-Chief
Creative COW Magazine
Twitter: timdoubleyou

The typos here are most likely because I'm, a) typing this on my phone; and b) an idiot.

[Scott Roberts] " I assume the Avatar sequels will be some of the most "hated out of spite" films of all time."

I don't think so. I really don't.

Using Rotten Tomatoes as a point of reference: Top Critics came in at 92% Fresh, audiences 93%.

(I use Top Critics because any ass-munch suck-up can worm their way onto Rotten Tomatoes. 300 critics actually becomes LESS statistically significant because there are so many quote-trollers who extoll crappy movies to get quoted in their crappy commercials.)

Compare Avatar numbers to a nasty sequel like the fake-ass "Episode 1 (But Not Really)," aka "Are You SURE That This Is A Star Wars Movie???" JAKE LLOYD IS NOT DARTH VADER Episode 1:": Top Critics 67%, audiences 64%. (WTF? Critics liked it better than audiences? Smaller sample size than Avatar, but still.)

I think you guys are way overthinking this. You don't go from 90% favorable and 9 Oscar nominations to "hated on principle." You just don't. I'm genuinely surprised that this is even a consideration for purposes of friendly banter. The world doesn't work like this. There weren't knives out last time, even among the 3D haters, and there won't be next time either. My prediction: the numbers go up. Potentially WAY up.

This is very much how Batman worked. First Nolan pic: 61% Top Critics (!),the second one was 91% critics, 95% audience. Frankly, a lot of that was driven by Heath Ledger, certainly for me -- otherwise, definitely not so fresh.

Then look at the bank: the second one more than doubled - roughly $200m domestic vs. roughly $500m. Avengers looks to be closing in on $650m domestic - Dark Knight HAS to be in that neighborhood, don't you think?

As much as I really, really don't like the Dark Knight movies AT ALL (very nearly hated the first one), I have tickets to an 8 AM (not a typo) showing Friday, and definitely not hating on principle.

Last but not least, I mention this now and again, but using Rotten Tomatoes just because it gathers so much information in one place, and for grins, throwing in Oscars - Cameron is the most beloved and respected director working today, more than Spielberg, more than Scorsese. That's not even counting box office. There's never been a director who has combined bank, critical approval and prestige as chosen by working peers like Cameron, not even close.

AND he's written almost everything he's done as an original script.

AND he spends a lot of time behind the lens.

AND he was one of the editors Titanic and Avatar.

Oh yeah, and the pushing technology thing. (See also The Abyss and T2.)

There's simply nobody in his category. Nobody has ever had knives out for him, not audiences or critics, even when his stuff wasn't especially well-reviewed.

See True Lies...or don't...although once again, his original story and one of the editors. But the people who didn't like it - including me - largely didn't savage him. We saw it as a slump after Aliens, Abyss, Terminator and T2 IN A ROW. Strange Days was kind of weak, but right after that, Titanic, some awesome shorts (including the still awesome Aliens of the Deep), an episode of Dark Angel (although he produced all 42 eps), then Avatar. Not many duds in there.

Besides, watery stuff is Cameron's long suit. Nobody does it better, and to me, all the best animation in Avatar was the most ocean-like: the plants that contracted when touched, the sprites -- a whole lot of it was inspired by Cameron's aquatic experience. (Hey, and didn't Steve Ziszou look almost as much like Cameron as Cousteau?)

Watch. the Avatar saga is gonna have a Batman-style trajectory, which he already pulled off with Terminator. The man knows how to sequelize his own stuff.

Slam slam slam slam slam dunk.

Tim Wilson
Vice President, Editor-in-Chief
Creative COW Magazine
Twitter: timdoubleyou

The typos here are most likely because I'm, a) typing this on my phone; and b) an idiot.

Wow, you people are the most cynical bastards I've ever encountered. LOL

To rhetorically re-ask the original question, how is that the biggest movie in the history of the world, developed by one of the most original filmmakers working, who has only made AWESOME sequels that in virtually every way surpassed the original (imo anyway) DOESN'T merit a sequel or three?

Not a comic book or toy in sight. It will (presumably) be from an original script by a guy who knows how to tell a story, with a track record of upping the cinematic technology ante every time he steps out of his bedroom slippers. It really is insane to me that we're talking about this that it's not at least INTERESTING news, even if you have low expectations, a la me and Dark Knight, where my expectations are very nearly flatlined. Nolan has the goods though, so I'm at least interested, and I'm not willing to believe that anybody reading this doesn't think that Cameron has what it takes to make something that will once again raise the bar...even if you personally aren't going to go see it.

So yes, being direct. Big budget genre pic notwithstanding, this is EXACTLY the kind of movie the world needs more of. Exactly the kind of movie whose absence is frequently lamented here: strong visions from auteurs who aren't adapting stuff that's a) already been adapted before, b) sequel to such, c) probably didn't need adapting in the first place, d) a cynical product grab, or e) all of the above.

(re tie-ins: I was intrigued to note that Avatar licensed more BOOKS than video games and action figures combined.)

re: True Lies, I was living in the Florida Keys when they shot it, and it was pretty slick to watch a harrier crunch a sheriff's car. (The sheriff was a friend of ours.) Just before the movie opened, they did a free showing in our tiny local theater and made a contribution to the local children's shelter to back it up. So I liked the stuff in the Keys. :-)

My point was just that this is the LOWEST regarded of his movies when measured via critical or audience response at the time. And overall, it was pretty damn good. I'd take that as the least successful movie on my resume.

But in any case, another argument that he has the goods, and every single movie in his filmography makes it at least a little bit of a reason to NOT think any new one is a priori a useless thing -- especially when he stuck the landing last time.

I guess I don't mean to be as much as Avatar booster -- although I really liked it a lot -- as much as an anti-cynical guy. Rare, I know, and maybe a little out of character, but still...

Did I miss the link where Cameron even says this is happening?

Don't read into my thread title that I do not want any sequels. I loved the 3D Avatar experience because:

It was something new. 3D was used conservatively.

It had elements we love about Jim Cameron: Aliens, sci-fi gun ships, explosions, Sigourney Weaver (who looks pretty good for a woman of 83), a mechanized fighting apparatus, and basically the same story as in all of his movies except Titanic and The Abyss (bad guys vs good guys with a lot of shooting and stuff blowing up).

I will see the sequels assuming Cameron does something else new. If it is simply going back to the pot for more money then forget it (ie, Jurassic Park 2, E.T.: The Reckoning, Witness II: Revenge of the Silo People, etc.).

Seriously, I hope that whatever he makes continues to blow us away.

And I agree, Sam Worthington is sort of unremarkable. Just saw him in "Man on a Ledge" and you could have replaced him with any other young actor - he really doesn't bring much to the role. Same with Terminator 7 - could have been anyone.

Ok, off to drink coffee for the Dark Knight marathon tonight.

Mike

You use 3D where appropriate. It is generally not needed and can be a distraction. I saw TRON in 3D IMAX. It needed neither 3D nor IMAX. It possibly didn't need to be made at all. But that's another story.

I was pleased to hear that Nolan would simply use good old fashioned 2D for his movies.

Mike

PS - I opted to not do the Batman marathon. Need to work tomorrow!