Avatar Sequels Back-to-Back?

[darth los]

Ok? Who are these people who don't believe there will be a sequel to this thing? The question is will shooting it back to back hurt or help the flm. What effect to you guys think that had on the LOTR films? I still can't figure out why this film made as much money as it did. I mean it was good but no where near what it was hyped up to be. http://movies.ign.com/articles/111/1111058p1.html

[EvilNed]

Avatar was a pretty shitty movie to begin with, so my interest is very, very zero.

[Neil]

He recently shot some additional footage for the deleted scenes on the upcoming Avatar special edition DVD/Blu-ray release. Cameron is able to do this because he'd already "banked" performance-capture footage of the cast that was shot years ago. YES! Hopefully we'll get some more meat on the Avatar bones to beef up the characters/story/environment a bit As for two more Avatar films (back to back), I'm up for that. I really enjoyed the first one, even with its simplistic story... So if the next two can carry on in the same vein I'm more than happy to see them

[Danny]

Avatar was a pretty shitty movie to begin with, so my interest is very, very zero. This, unless your easily placable by shiny plants the first was a shit film. i challenge anyone to adequately defend its plot, acting, music or direction without using the phrase "b-but he made terminator 2!" i will bet good money the terms 'jaded' or 'popcorn flick' are the only defense for this ungodly waste of time and money. Honestly i think this is a bad idea for cameron regardless. The novelty of 3d has worn off. i read a few articles lately about how any films 3d equivalent has made less money than the last 3d film in the cinema. Like a set and steady decline. We've seen it, gone "huh, neat" and now dont want to wear stupid glasses to have a portion of the film blurred and the creators true vision of the film distorted by them adding a fucking bouncing ball at the screen or some such bollocks.

[Neil]

This, unless your easily placable by shiny plants the first was a shit film. i challenge anyone to adequately defend its plot, acting, music or direction without using the phrase "b-but he made terminator 2!" i will bet good money the terms 'jaded' or 'popcorn flick' are the only defense for this ungodly waste of time and money. Honestly i think this is a bad idea for cameron regardless. The novelty of 3d has worn off. i read a few articles lately about how any films 3d equivalent has made less money than the last 3d film in the cinema. Like a set and steady decline. We've seen it, gone "huh, neat" and now dont want to wear stupid glasses to have a portion of the film blurred and the creators true vision of the film distorted by them adding a fucking bouncing ball at the screen or some such bollocks. I was happy with the film The story was extremely linear and fairly simplistic, and although I would have prefered more depth in that department, I do think people tend to give it a hard time unfairly. What the film did achieve rather well was to drop us into an alien world that felt as though some layers of depth had been put into it. It was like a BBC wildlife documentary on a different planet ps: As for a 3D gimick, my other half sat there and watched it at home in 2D, and she enjoyed it, and in a couple of places (just like me) was taken aback by parts (strengths) in the film. I'm still on the fence whether it adds something to films or not. Was it the best film ever? Of course not. But it was a pretty solid, and in places original, scifi flick. It seems people fall into the habit of feeling they need to knock something harder, if it's more successful. And Cameron is about as successful as it comes, so people are knocking far harder than seems fair!

[Tricky]

I was happy with the film The story was extremely linear and fairly simplistic, and although I would have prefered more depth in that department, I do think people tend to give it a hard time unfairly. What the film did achieve rather well was to drop us into an alien world that felt as though some layers of depth had been put into it. It was like a BBC wildlife documentary on a different planet ps: As for a 3D gimick, my other half sat there and watched it at home in 2D, and she enjoyed it, and in a couple of places (just like me) was taken aback by parts (strengths) in the film. I'm still on the fence whether it adds something to films or not. Was it the best film ever? Of course not. But it was a pretty solid, and in places original, scifi flick. It seems people fall into the habit of feeling they need to knock something harder, if it's more successful. And Cameron is about as successful as it comes, so people are knocking far harder than seems fair! Agreed, I enjoyed it, and its a film that I will (and have) watch again. I think the 3D added to it as well, it was crisp & looked great, and the technology will only improve for future films. I think some people are just traditionalists who dont like things moving on, the same way my mate sneers at my new smart phone while sticking with his 10 year old Nokia. The plot was linear, agreed, but does every film really need to have an intricate multi-layered plot that is difficult to follow? It still came across as more intelligent than most of the teen pleasing dross that comes out usually, including the majority of living dead style films!

[bassman]

I enjoyed it as well. The same story has been told before, but what really hasn't? It was nothing amazing but entertaining at the very least. As for the sequels, i'm sure I'll see them. Cameron's one of the few to do 3D right. Imax, baby.

[darth los]

I think some people are just traditionalists who dont like things moving on. (mZ) The story was extremely linear and fairly simplistic, and although I would have prefered more depth in that department, I do think people tend to give it a hard time unfairly. The problem with Linear, as in a straight line, is that you can predict where it's going. Far to many films suffer from that mallady nowdays. Every film we see is something we've already seen before. And as for a film having to be explained to us, inception anyone? That movie has confused more people than a little bit. I haven't sen it yet but it just bears out the fact that audiences now days are dumb and can't really get into anything but rudimentary popcorn flicks.

[Neil]

The problem with Linear, as in a straight line, is that you can predict where it's going. Far to many films suffer from that mallady nowdays. I understand what you're saying, but there's surely more to enjoying a film than this?! For example, why ever watch a film a subsequent time, if you know how the story plays out? One of the defining moments in Avatar for me was when Jake took his first day and night walks in the forest. Nothing to do with storyline, utterly to do with visual and mental immersion, which surely is an important element of any film?

[AcesandEights]

You'd have to be pretty jaded not to enjoy this classic popcorn film! Haters gonna hate?

[darth los]

I understand what you're saying, but there's surely more to enjoying a film than this?! For example, why ever watch a film a subsequent time, if you know how the story plays out? One of the defining moments in Avatar for me was when Jake took his first day and night walks in the forest. Nothing to do with storyline, utterly to do with visual and mental immersion, which surely is an important element of any film? The same problem exists in gaming nowdays. I realize i always go back to that but the 2 mediums are becoming more alike by the day. Sure it looks pretty but it has no soul. Not to say I didn't enjoy the visual aspect of the film because honestly, it was stunning. However, It depends on what Cameron is in this for. If it's to make buttloads of money, then he has succeeded in making 2 of the top grossing films of all time. But if it's art to him then surely you want something more substantive, liket dawn for example. Something people will still be talking about in 30 years.

[Tricky]

And as for a film having to be explained to us, inception anyone? That movie has confused more people than a little bit. Yeah Inception is a complex film, I definitely got it & appreciated how well it was written, but it was hard work to watch & your brain has to be constantly engaged throughout so you dont miss anything & you have to think on several layers because thats how the plot works, whereas with avatar you could just kick back & enjoy the stunning visuals & action without having brain ache

[darth los]

Yeah Inception is a complex film, I definitely got it & appreciated how well it was written, but it was hard work to watch & your brain has to be constantly engaged throughout so you dont miss anything & you have to think on several layers because thats how the plot works, whereas with avatar you could just kick back & enjoy the stunning visuals & action without having brain ache The problem is, unfortunately most people nowdays suffer from adhd and are incapable of critical thinking. Anything but the most simple plot confuses and frustrates them.

[MinionZombie]

(mZ) Cheeky beggar. ... As for 3D - I saw Avatar in 3D, and that's all I've seen in 3D thus far. It was a cool thing to see as a treat once in a blue moon, but there is sod all point in 3D-TV. It should be a reserve of the cinema, to make things more of an event - but I'm not at all pleased about having to stump up extra cash on the ticket, PLUS paying for the glasses (which you at least get to use over-and-over). The 3D in Avatar wasn't flawless (some bits looked juddery), and I really enjoyed Avatar - it was one of those "transport me to a fully realised world" movies. Better plotting and character development would have been nice, but despite a script that could have easily been better, I loved it. I look forward to seeing the extended edition, although whether that's in the cinema or on DVD remains to be seen. ... As for 3D, I'll definitely want to see Tron Legacy in 3D - a visually stunning looking film ... just what 3D should be for. But in general, 3D doesn't improve the script, nor the acting, directing, editing, camerawork etc etc etc ... so like I said, for visually stunning flicks in the cinema, and that's it I say. ... As for Avatar sequels - yes please, but with more care on the script front.

[darth los]

Cheeky beggar. ... As for 3D - I saw Avatar in 3D, and that's all I've seen in 3D thus far. It was a cool thing to see as a treat once in a blue moon, but there is sod all point in 3D-TV. It should be a reserve of the cinema, to make things more of an event - but I'm not at all pleased about having to stump up extra cash on the ticket, PLUS paying for the glasses (which you at least get to use over-and-over). The 3D in Avatar wasn't flawless (some bits looked juddery), and I really enjoyed Avatar - it was one of those "transport me to a fully realised world" movies. Better plotting and character development would have been nice, but despite a script that could have easily been better, I loved it. I look forward to seeing the extended edition, although whether that's in the cinema or on DVD remains to be seen. ... As for 3D, I'll definitely want to see Tron Legacy in 3D - a visually stunning looking film ... just what 3D should be for. But in general, 3D doesn't improve the script, nor the acting, directing, editing, camerawork etc etc etc ... so like I said, for visually stunning flicks in the cinema, and that's it I say. ... As for Avatar sequels - yes please, but with more care on the script front. With that said, when viewed on standard DVD the experience almost has to be a letdown after what you saw in theater. And if a movie is dependent on gimickry to suck you in there's definitely no there there.