Avatar Sequel

[JackFetch]

In sequel news, James Cameron told Entertainment Weekly that he was even planning a sequel during production. "I've had a storyline in mind from the start - there are even scenes in 'Avatar' that I kept in because they lead to the sequel," Cameron said. "It just makes sense to think of it as a two or three film arc, in terms of the business plan. The CG plants and trees and creatures and the musculo-skeletal rigging of the main characters — that all takes an enormous amount of time to create. It'd be a waste not to use it again."

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=62405

I like that. It cost so much to do, then lets make a sequel to make it worth doing.

[Dread]

Movie = business plan.

Reason #1 why I hate James Cameron.

[Molly]

Thank you.

Movie = Artistic Statement.

[Chadzilla]

He's talking more like the seasoned Hollywood professional that he is, although that is pure producer talk, not the talk of a writer or director. I do not believe for a minute that he was ever planning for a sequel, as the story is completely self-contained and does not require one. This is a cash cow that I fully expect to be milked dry for years to come. Like I said in Avatar thread, I see a comic book series, a Saturday morning (or Cartoon Network) series, and maybe a Baby Avatar movie all on the way. It is the way the business works.

Cameron's comment makes him sound like George Lucas, or Charles Band, who refers to his movies as "product." Kind of explains why so many Full Moon Pictures are the way they are, right?

[Molly]

Lucas is a different sort, though. He started as the bright-eyed artist with his heart in the right place, but the industry turned him into the money grubbing whore that he is.

[KnightWing]

I do not believe for a minute that he was ever planning for a sequel, as the story is completely self-contained and does not require one.

Actually, he was talking about a trilogy for a long while before Avatar was ever released.

I don't know why people are so down on the guy. I mean, he gave us Terminator 2. And Titanic...

[Molly]

He gave us two good movies and two over-grossing pieces of tripe.

[MaxPower]

What is the big deal? The first one is good, quite good. I'd watch a second one.

There is nothing wrong with planning for sequels on the chance you get a shot at making them. Nolan is definitely making a 3rd Batman movie, he ended the first one with a 'joker' card, doesn't anyone hold that against him?

I just don't see the big fuss. Maybe he just chose his words poorly, but you can't question the mans passion for making films.

[Molly]

Maybe he just chose his words poorly, but you can't question the mans passion for making films money.

Fixed to reflect my major issue with the man as an artist.

[KnightWing]

Maybe he just chose his words poorly, but you can't question the mans passion for making films money.

Fixed to reflect my major issue with the man as an artist.

Funny thing about Cameron: his hands are tied by the studios, most of the time. Most of the stuff he really likes to do is high-budget, so he needs to justify it to the studio by making it immensely profitable. He probably pitched Avatar as a movie franchise just so he could make even one of the films.

[Dread]

Funny thing about Cameron: his hands are tied by the studios, most of the time. Most of the stuff he really likes to do is high-budget, so he needs to justify it to the studio by making it immensely profitable. He probably pitched Avatar as a movie franchise just so he could make even one of the films.

He's been making undersea submarine movies for 10 years. For all intents and purposes he hasn't really been involved with a studio since Titanic.

[KnightWing]

Funny thing about Cameron: his hands are tied by the studios, most of the time. Most of the stuff he really likes to do is high-budget, so he needs to justify it to the studio by making it immensely profitable. He probably pitched Avatar as a movie franchise just so he could make even one of the films.

He's been making undersea submarine movies for 10 years.

I'm talking about movies that are actually released in theaters. Movies, not documentaries.

[Dread]

Exactly. I'm saying he hasn't even made a studio film in 12 years.

The last film he made was the most profitable film of all time. He wouldn't have a problem making a big budget movie. Anything he wants to do, I'm sure is fine.

[KnightWing]

Anything he wants to do, I'm sure is fine.

Not from what I've heard. Despite his record, Fox was pretty stingy with him.

[Missy]

He gave us two good movies and two over-grossing pieces of tripe.

More like four good movies: Aliens, Terminator, Terminator 2, and True Lies. And though I've never seen all of it, a lot of people would toss The Abyss in there, too.

[elnino14]

He gave us two good movies and two over-grossing pieces of tripe.

More like four good movies: Aliens, Terminator, Terminator 2, and True Lies. And though I've never seen all of it, a lot of people would toss The Abyss in there, too.

I wouldn't even toss True Lies in that list, stupid, fun movie, yes. But good, no way.

In all honesty, I saw Avatar like the Abyss...I didn't like the Abyss, I though it was slow and boring but you could see he was playing the special effects, he took everything he learned and made one of the greatest action movies of all time. I think Avatar is going to be similar, it's going to have a split opinion, but his next film is going to take everything he learned from Avatar in terms of special effects and produce something even better. I liked Avatar, I didn't love it, but I did like it. It was a technical innovation and a fun, slightly hackneyed story.

The Guy has made two of the greatest sequels of all time... I mean come on.

[Stavros]

Movie = business plan.

Reason #1 why I hate James Cameron.

Look at it this way.

No Business Plan = No 200 million dollar movies.

For the most part I can live with that but Dark Knight deserved to be made.

[Chadzilla]

He gave us two good movies and two over-grossing pieces of tripe.

More like four good movies: Aliens, Terminator, Terminator 2, and True Lies. And though I've never seen all of it, a lot of people would toss The Abyss in there, too.

Oh, I would toss The Abyss in there. It's my favorite Cameron movie.

Haven't seen True Lies, though.

And I liked Titanic.

[KnightWing]

Look at it this way.

No Business Plan = No 200 million dollar movies.

This.

[Molly]

I'm fine with that, actually. I've enjoyed my small budget independent, non-studio controlled cinema more than virtually anything that's come out of the Hollywood system in some time.

[elnino14]

He gave us two good movies and two over-grossing pieces of tripe.

More like four good movies: Aliens, Terminator, Terminator 2, and True Lies. And though I've never seen all of it, a lot of people would toss The Abyss in there, too.

Oh, I would toss The Abyss in there. It's my favorite Cameron movie.

Haven't seen True Lies, though.

And I liked Titanic.

Don't be ashamed, I thought the second half of Titanic is absolutely awesome. Of course that's the part where almost everybody dies, but still.

[Stavros]

I'm fine with that, actually. I've enjoyed my small budget independent, non-studio controlled cinema more than virtually anything that's come out of the Hollywood system in some time.

You have a valid position there. I just looked at the 10 most expensive films of all time as of last year, and I could have done without almost all of them- Waterworld, Titanic, King Kong, Pirates of the Caribbean 3. Even the ones I don't mind like Superman Returns and Quantum of Solace don't come close to justifying that money. Only one on there that I'd deem to be truly a good film is Spider-man 2.

I suppose that's my point. I might not like that obscene amounts of money are spent on shitty Transformers movies or whatever other bollocks is pumped out, but I do like the fact that they can be made because it means that every so often a film that couldn't have been made for less than a staggering amount comes along and really is worth my time, like Dark Knight or Avatar.

[Molly]

The problem is, that that kind of money almost always comes with strings attached, and as a rule, studio heads are businessmen, not film makers. That doesn't work for me. Sam Raimi did his best stuff for 750 grand in a cabin in the woods. George Lucas was far, far more competent before people started throwing money at his feet. James Cameron was a creative visionary with Terminator.

I'm not just saying that the Hollywood system makes bad movies, I'm saying that it ruins good artists, too.

[Dread]

I'm not just saying that the Hollywood system makes bad movies, I'm saying that it ruins good artists, too.

There is no argument for this post 1982-ish. QFT

[Chadzilla]

I have heard numerous theories and apologetics about the destructive power of money, success, etc, in Hollywood; each one tailored to a particular viewpoint or critical theory. I also have a friend that has worked in the industry and, after leaving it, actually made his own low-budget horror film (called In Search of Lovecraft). So I have heard a lot of different opinions on the matter. What does that mean? Time to pontificate! Yay!

The other day I was reading the Dellamorte Does Box Office prediction article over at CHUD (which is, quite possibly, the only article at the sight that can be considered required weekly reading for Industry geeks) and the subject was Peter Jackson and just how wretched the word of mouth is for The Lovely Bones. One critic has even gone so far as to call it the worst film ever to be made by an Oscar winner. Ouch!

The reason for this is that Jackson’s film is almost entirely about the tech; the eye popping special effects. Dellamorte made some rather interesting points about, and comparisons between, Jackson and other “gifted” directors that have gone big and disappeared into tech obsessions. He pointed out how, as their careers grind on, each seemed to lose touch with their storytelling ability and instead become obsessed with the tech. (Aside: character actor Tom Atkins told an interviewer that John Carpenter did not talk, or give direction, to him when filming The Fog, that Carpenter was focused almost entirely on “the toys.”) Whether or not Jackson has reached that point remains to be seen, but he is far from being finished as a director.

Those comments nudged a left field memory about some comments that I have heard about young (or simply inexperienced) directors. On the commentary track for the film Shock Waves (still the best Nazi zombie movie ever made, as far as I am concerned) director Ken Wiederhorn continually apologized for all the technical mistakes that he made in the film, despite the fact that those doing the commentary with him kept pointing out to him that it was those very same mistakes that made the film so unique. Which reminded me of a comment about why the films of young and “gifted” directors films are so unique looking, while many of their later films appear so pedestrian in comparison. When they are just starting out they don’t know what they are doing, so there are countless “lucky” mistakes in the framing of scenes and blocking, etc. As they make films, the truly gifted learn and grow, but their films become more polished and neat in the process. (Some, like Uwe Boll never seem to learn, or suffer from some wretched form of developmental talent delay.) They grow “slick” and appear to lose their artistic “character.” Whether or not this is true, I don’t know, but there does seem to be some factual evidence to back it up.

Other reasons that directors might become obsessed with the tech could be 1) that they are geeks at heart and who wouldn’t love a blank check in order to play with the coolest electric train set (or video game) on the planet? 2) Film making is a long, boring process (especially if you are making an action or effects heavy picture) and fiddling with the tech is a great way to keep yourself preoccupied, especially if you don’t work with actors all that well. (Cameron and Lucas both are well known for not dealing with their actors all that well; Lucas doesn’t talk to them, while some of Cameron’s abusive techniques have become the stuff of Hollywood legend.) Sure, Lucas talks about doing this small, money losing art house pictures, but he clearly has no intention at making them, as he is going to making money off of Star Wars forever. But it should be noted that each and every one of the prequels was made with his own money, making them the most expensive independent films of all time.

What that has to do with the Avatar sequel, I don’t know. I just get distracted by the shiny.