James Cameron now making three Avatar sequels?

The world surely only needs so much Avatar.

I only needed 25 minutes myself, and that was more than enough.

Sheesh. And I was so hoping he'd pick up Prometheans...

Although I enjoyed Avatar I can't really see where they could take the story for one more film, let alone three.

I still have the headache from watching the first. Oh. Thats the 3D is it?

Oh, please God, kill me now :(
Avatar is the most overrated film of the last decade. It was basically Dances with Wolves in space.

They are glorious looking and everything but, 3 fecking more?

it was EXACTLY that. But I still enjoyed it lol.

what's wrong with that? star trek was the ponderosa in space. alien was the boogeyman in space. event horizon was lovecraft in space. movies in space will usually tell familiar stories about people and situations.

we can complain til we're blue in the face(call the pun police), but people were wowed and some very moved by avatar, the same way they were for an equally silly space movie 40 years earlier.

these kinds of tidbits of news are too far in the future to register on my excitement meter. i really liked avatar, but talking about piles of movies that may come out in 3-10 years is too abstract. who knows if i will be alive then? or if financial and energy chaos will make the movie-plex business a thing of the past

Avatar looked fantastic, but terrible story - once you get over the Smurf/Andy Carroll hybrid & colourful trees that pop out the screen, not sure my interest would be held for another 9 hours of it!

Thats depressing. I was hoping he might turn his talent to something cool. It would appear he's intent on turning into George Lucas instead. I enjoyed Avatar but i really don't want any more of it.

I believe it's Prometheuses...

Cameron had an agreement with Fox that if 'Avatar' made more than a billion dollars worldwide, he would do a sequel, so he's honoring that agreement, and whilst making two sequels back-to-back has a certain commercial and financial logic to it, I think THREE sequels is really pushing it, and that's putting it politely... Cameron's ego has basically went supernova since 'Avatar' hit big, and it looks like he's going down the George Lucas route of running a good idea completely into the ground, don't be surprised to see an 'Avatar' animated television show sometime in the future...

Uh, Promethei?

Promiscuous

wow well said.

Dances with Wolves had mechs? Why has anyone told me this before

JAMES CAMERON EATS BABIES! (sorry, just thought I would get that moronic statement in there before someone else does).

What was the good idea...?

Prom Night

Yeah, but at least Star Wars had a strong perpetual story line with equally interesting and contrasting characters. For reasons why Avatar isn't very good, please see the 'Red Letter Media' review.

i wasn't commenting on good or bad in any academic way. we're talking entertainment. Avatar had strong themes that resonated with concerns and anxieties people have today. It had wondrous visuals and comprehensive world-building that provided escape and whimsy for people and stroked their imaginations. Film is first and foremost a visual and emotional medium.

Generally, my sense of what people regard as failings in the film, is that its story was simple, not complex and it wasn't a character study. If I were to play the objective criticism game, I would argue that saying pizza and beer is bad because it isn't successful at being wine and caviar is a non-starter and bad criticism.

Easy Rider, Slackers, Clash of the Titans(1981) and Mad Max are examples of movies that aren't very good, yet are classics because people liked them. I don't know whether Avatar will be a classic, nor whether it's sequels will add to or detract from the "value" it offered audiences--nor do I care.

I'm mostly commenting on the kind of pseudo-critical snobbery that goes on among geeks who don't approve of people liking movies they don't deem up to snuff. Was Avatar up to the same lofty standards as the built-on-cliches of the western in space called Firefly(that is so venerated)? don't know, don't care. I enjoyed both for different reasons I don't see either as a benchmark of story integrity, originality or quality that would demonstrate the other to be rubbish.

Avatar dazzled people. It held them rapt. It compelled them to see it many times. It moved them. It made people momentarily feel child-like wonder. It gave them a brief sensation of a holistic world, and of vindication. It ran them through a full gambit of emotions. It raised (if bluntly) questions that are more digestible with the buffer of sci-fi(as has always been the case with sci-fi). It ignited not just endless talk and discussion in its wake, but a passionate yearning and response to the depiction of a way of life so antithetical to our own. We are in the long tail of the culture of mass production/consumption, and Avatar is one of the kinds of stories that is bound to come up in this moment in history.

To disregard all of the above as irrelevant in an argument about the quality and value of a film, suggests a lack of understanding concerning the purpose of film.

does seem a bit of a stretch, eh? I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt though.

I thought all the obvious attempts by Cameron to provoke such “thoughts” about the environmental issues we are faced with today were very on the nose and incredibly simplistic.

To be honest I can't really speak with regards to the endless ignition of endless talk and discussion that this film has “allegedly” created, but personally I think you are way out. Perhaps these discussions took place in your immediate social vicinity, but it never happened in mine. The only consensus this film has managed to garner is the fact that it divides opinion. Some people love it, some people hate it. Personally I haven’t heard one decent argument by anyone to why Avatar is a good film, let alone a classic piece of cinema. Yes, taste is subjective, but when people manage to articulate and clarify a movies failings with such ease, as they do with Avatar, then its failings must be quite obvious for all to see, and they should be listened to. For example, the later Star Wars trilogy receives far less acclaim than its predecessors, and rightly so. Now, anyone trying to claim that the ‘Phantom Menace’ is a better movie than ‘The Empire Strikes Back’ is simply displaying their own voice for personal preference. It is not a careful and considered critique.

By all means I am willing to listen to any considered, coherent, and well thought out argument to why a film like ‘Avatar’ is considered a “great” movie, but I have yet to actually hear one.
You can have your own personal opinion, and by all means, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Just don’t get annoyed when that film starts to get a drubbing by the overwhelming consensus of sensible critique, aimed at the obvious failings within the movie’s structure, dialogue and lack of characterisation.

i don't know what rock you lived under to not notice anyone talking about it--though you did notice that opinions were divided, the sort of thing that gets noticed in discussions. aside from people talking, which they did and you know it--it was a major event film, it was a landmark of film whether you liked it or not, so I simply won't accept some mumbly dissembling that your friends weren't talking about it. my friends don't talk about soccer, but I don't mistake us for a representative sample. when i refer to discussion, i also mean in the media, in newspapers, in
magazines, on websites, and concerning websites, I also include the
discussions that go on in forum comments.

I get that you don't like the film and couldn't get past its flaws, cipher type characters were too over the top and that a theme of feeling something for the environment, for an ecological connection is obviously at the bottom of the very long list of themes and ideas in films that cause people to feel or reflect. that's fine, a huge number of people experienced the movie differently than you did. I know people that hated the star wars movies, the original ones. those people do not represent the impact those films had.

outside of the classroom, films don't need decent arguments. people just watch them. going by box office and disc sales, an awful lot of people were watching the film. and before you leap, i'mnot suggesting that numbers distinguish quality. i am making the point i was making, that Avatar was valuable to people.

I actually went to the trouble of saying i dont know if avatar will be a classic; i guess its not surprising that you havent heard any arguments for, since you weren't reading, simply skimming ahead to the nice juicy spot where you could rant about how awful the movie was and how "everyone" knows it. It's a bit early days to use the word classic. Dumbo, that's a classic. Toystory 3, who knows, time will answer.

I already provided you with the argument "for" the film. it's not that you haven't heard the argument. its that you have decided it is irrelevant to the discussion. it's that you won't acknowledge the argument. I provided you with a "considered, coherent, and well thought out argument". you just aren't interested.

to be precise, you are exactly the kind of person who it is pointless to engage in dialogue. I provided a thoughtful reflection on the film's reception and impact, chose my language to reflect what i wanted to say, gave examples and comparisons. I made a point of differentiating that from academic masturbation or angry geek snobbery. I talked about some things it brought to the table and the way audiences responded.

your reply was a longish 'it sucked, thats all there is to it, but you are allowed to like ti because there is no accounting for taste'. I didn't actually hear you say why the movie was so awful, why people hated it. i didn't hear you reflect on how strange it was that despite it being an awful movie and people hating it, they just kept returning to see it again, and then went on to purchase a copy for home. I didn't hear you respond to any of my points. you forgot to include any content, its not much basis to go about demanding comprehensive arguments from people, especially after they have done just that.

was there a reason you commented and tried to engage in conversation, or is it a reflex that when you see the word avatar that you have a tourette kind of tick that compels you to say it sucks and everyone knows it?

double post

There was no attempt at conversation, I just didn't agree with your original comparison to Star Wars. Also, yes I do understand your point, I just don’t think it carries any weight.

With regards to Avatar, I tend to find myself agreeing with the general consensus that it’s not a well made movie. Also, I tend to find the kind of people who love this movie, tend to stick their fingers in their ears when you criticise the failures within its story structure, “on the nose” dialogue and complete lack of depth to any of the main characters. They simply claim that because of its broad appeal and Box Office superiority, that it must be a “great” movie. (Although you do acknowledge that Box Office is not in alignment with actual quality).

I tend to find that Avatar fans will always mention how much money it earned, and that how amazing the special effects are. Some will even go on about its hackneyed “environmental message”, a message that James Cameron beats you around the head with (the “art of subtly” is not something James Cameron’s has ever heard of, it seems).

My own critique is that the main villain of this movie is very two dimensional, it was just one of the many reasons why I found myself incredibly bored by Avatar. The main “bad guy" is simply a racist who hates the aliens, and believes that they should be wiped of the face of the planet. Why? Couldn’t James be bothered to create any background to this hatred? I guess not. James Cameron simply wanted to create a “Bad Guy” and just by having him say racist things we can come to the very easy conclusion that he is the bad guy. Job done! Perhaps if Mr Cameron had watched Die Hard, then he would have learned how to write a well rounded, creative, three dimensional villain.

hi there! i would like to introduce you to the english language. when a volley of communication goes back and forth between two people, where they acknowledge each other and what each says, we english speaking people call that a conversation. cool, eh? Aloha!

"I just don’t think it carries any weight". I had noticed that. I find this all the time. you see it with the climate change dodos. no interest in anything observable, very invested in a stance.

Could you direct me toward some sign of the "general consensus" regarding Avatar? There are a great many things to legitimately niggle about concerning Avatar, "well made" isn't one of them.

quoting box office can be tiring. i was simply trying to gently draw your attention to the, perhaps controversial idea, that there were a few people who felt gangbusters about the movie; nothing more.

your main critique is that in a fantasy movie, a sci-fi movie, the "badguy" was portrayed as definitely bad. um, ok. i hear you. this may have been a downside in the purposes of Stalag 17, rocky 4 and The Lord of the Rings. I do appreciate you explaining to me why this movie, so pleasing to many, offended you so much. I really do understand how when watching a story that is couched in the language of an allegory or fable that it can be really disappointing when the villain does indeed wear a hat that says 'villain'. Oh, and I see your point via Die Hard, the villain in die hard was really a nuanced, contexted villain and we explore how he became that way and why he wanted his particular goals. The sheer breadth of his characterization called to mind the agents of claw who oppose inspector gadget.

Nah, that would be starring Lindsey Lohan...

Hmm, you got a point there...

oh drat, once again sarcasm fails.

oh, and just for the record, since a i love seeing movies, i necessarily hold off from judging them against other things. so you can spout wheezy all you want about intelligence, most of the movies that everyone loves aren't actually smart. this includes the movies that you love. it is a visual and emotional medium. if you hate that, then cool, but don't expect anyone to coddle your complaints.

By the way, I got the sarcasm. My response was in response to the obvious sarasm, but I guess you missed that. All in all, I guess I hit the nail on the head with the "Fair Trade", "Bicycle Bore/Wanker" comments...

Dances with Smurfs