James Cameron's Sequel to "AVATAR" - Part 1

[Lord]

About the price, he wil certainly get in total the double of what Avatar 1 did, but i'm not sure any of them will alone beat its record, and with each installment having such a small gap between releases, many may not want to return for the next film.

We all know the scale of these films, but his ideas for the plot is also going to take a lot of work, with this plan to make a "crescendo", it's been one of the most difficult tasks in a blockbuster film.

 

[Teelie]

He's talking about the length of the movies, not the cost of them. He says: I love to get the film down to a length that is affordable. There hasn't been a problem finding new and wonderful things to include in the movie."

That may mean the scenes as well. Some scenes are obviously going to be expensive either in the location, effects or the complexity. Like a scene with a futuristic weapon firing off a massive explosion that turns implodes an island and turns it into nothing would be too expensive to film.

 

[DA_Champion]

About the price, he wil certainly get in total the double of what Avatar 1 did, but i'm not sure any of them will alone beat its record, and with each installment having such a small gap between releases, many may not want to return for the next film.

We all know the scale of these films, but his ideas for the plot is also going to take a lot of work, with this plan to make a "crescendo", it's been one of the most difficult tasks in a blockbuster film.

He has good screenwriters, and he is one of the best directors.

 

[mclay18]

I heard they're costing 450 million total.

So it's much less than the first Avatar. Back-to-back shooting does save a ton of money -- but $150M apiece? I have a hard time believing that. Unless shooting for the three films takes a few months total, and most of the time is devoted to the complex visual effects like the first one was.

 

[Octoberist]

People's eyes won't melt but they'll get eye strain, headaches, dizziness, nausea and a few other minor inconveniences from 3 hours of faux-3D.

The problem with 3D is that in the past 5-6 years, out of the dozens and dozens of films that used the tech, only 3-4 effectively use 3D well. So there's tons of crap, then bits of greatness in movies like Great Gatsby or Gravity. Not a good ratio and most likely, it won't change either in the future

We can't keep on waiting for guys like Cameron to push the tech every so often; it takes a community. That's why 3D is here to stay, but no, it's not what Cameron has been hyping up for the past few years.

That and it's just expensive. Luckily, I live in an area where I can access many non-3D screens. I know some folks here from certain areas don't have that luxury and they're stuck with exclusively 3D showings.

 

[Lord]

The use of 3D is indeed improving, it's not stated often, but Transformers 3 actually had an amazing use of 3D, i heard that How to Train you Dragon did too, then, you have films that got a lot of interest in that like Gravity and Life of Pi, both of which were even called events.

I think its use is starting to be well used, with people like Michael Bay, Cuaron and Ang Lee trying to make the best use of it. I'm excited to see what more James Cameron can bring to the table, and besides Avatar, i also want to see all his other planned projects, like the one about a man that survived both nuclear attacks in Japan and Battle Angel Alita. He allways maked great blockbuster films, it's a shame that we have to wait a decade for him to release a new movie.

 

[Octoberist]

But let's say out of 20 movies, 3 might use 3D well. Hence it's reputation.

 

[Lord]

The reputation has improved, i haven't heard of any Clash of the Titans or Thor type of screw up when it comes to the 3D. Many films use it as just a way to get extra cash, but i still don't hear as many complaints. The Marvel Films seem to be using it only to get more money, since i've never heard anyone mention it as being necessary, with the tradicional cinematography, The Avengers doesn't look like something where 3D would make much of a difference.

I guess it's all about the film, i'm not forced to go to the 3D screenings in my cinema, so, i chose my films acordingly, if they're worth more seeing in that way like Gravity, then i try to get the best experience. I actually have no problem with 3D in movies, as long as the filmmakers make it worth it,

 

[Octoberist]

Ehhhh.

There's no way in gauging this sort of thing. So ehhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

 

[matrix_ghost]

While there isn't a Clash of the Titans level of badness to 3-d , the problem i have is that with the majority of movies the 3d is nonexistent.So often i've had moments where for example with Avengers i removed my 3d glasses and saw the screen exactly the same. Nothing was blurred , there wasn't any depth to the shots.
Not to mention that the scenes are often dark but this is a criticism that alot of the big directors like Cameron and Bay are saying.
I agree that TF3 had some fantastic 3-d shots with amazing depth.

 

[matrix_ghost]

The problem with 3D is that in the past 5-6 years, out of the dozens and dozens of films that used the tech, only 3-4 effectively use 3D well. So there's tons of crap, then bits of greatness in movies like Great Gatsby or Gravity. Not a good ratio and most likely, it won't change either in the future

We can't keep on waiting for guys like Cameron to push the tech every so often; it takes a community. That's why 3D is here to stay, but no, it's not what Cameron has been hyping up for the past few years.

That and it's just expensive. Luckily, I live in an area where I can access many non-3D screens. I know some folks here from certain areas don't have that luxury and they're stuck with exclusively 3D showings.

Here in Holland we don't even have a 2d option. If a movie is released in 3-d it'll play in 3d regardless of the quality ( crappy vs good 3-d)

 

[Octoberist]

dang, I'm lucky in live in LA

 

[Lord]

I think that it's kind of a shame that Cameron rarelly does a new movie, he's only getting older now, and the chances of new films seem to be getting limited. Aside from the Documentaries, short films and Piranha II, he only has 7 films under his 35 year old career, from 1984 to Titanic he seemed to be continuously on the move as a Director, doing event film after event film, but since he became imersed into Avatar, his career seems to pause constantly.

 

[Octoberist]

Yeah…that's why I'm not against Avatar as a franchise, but the man is only getting older. What are the chances he's going to do Battle Angel at this point is slim unless he can be like a Ridley Scott and still doing movies till he's in his 70's.

Avatar is a bit of a self-indulgent project for him. That's fine but he's really in love with the world that he has created. You can tell just by his interviews. He's in love. LOVE.

 

[redhawk23]

Folks should probably give up on the whole Battle Angel thing.

 

[Lord]

Never read or watched Alita, but from what i see, it's kind of a shame that Cameron doesn't do it, sounds quite interesting.

 

[dark_b]

Folks should probably give up on the whole Battle Angel thing.

 

[:eek:]

Sigourney Weaver to 'Transform' for Avatar 2, 3 and 4

Source: Vulture
May 9, 2014




It has been known for some time that, despite her character's death in the first film, Sigourney Weaver is planning to return to the world of Pandora for James Cameron's upcoming Avatar sequels. Today, she tells Vulture that not only will she appear in all three sequels (to be shot back-to-back), but teases that her character will "transform" in some way.

"It will be challenging for me," she tells the outlet. "I can't talk about it, but my part is a little different in each one. I'll transform somewhat."

Avatar 2 is scheduled for a December, 2016 release, Avatar 3 for December of 2017, and Avatar 4 for 2018. The original film remains the top grossing movie of all time with $2.782 billion at the worldwide box office.

 

[Dr. Evil]

Sigourney Weaver to 'Transform' for Avatar 2, 3 and 4

Source: Vulture
May 9, 2014




It has been known for some time that, despite her character's death in the first film, Sigourney Weaver is planning to return to the world of Pandora for James Cameron's upcoming Avatar sequels. Today, she tells Vulture that not only will she appear in all three sequels (to be shot back-to-back), but teases that her character will "transform" in some way.

"It will be challenging for me," she tells the outlet. "I can't talk about it, but my part is a little different in each one. I'll transform somewhat."

Avatar 2 is scheduled for a December, 2016 release, Avatar 3 for December of 2017, and Avatar 4 for 2018. The original film remains the top grossing movie of all time with $2.782 billion at the worldwide box office.

Didn't her character die in the first one?

 

[Lord]

Didn't Obi-Wan die? Characters return all the time, she was linked into that tree, i'm sure that's how she will return.

 

[dark_b]

i guess she will start in the second movie as a tree voice. in the third movie she will get a tree body who will be able to control parts of Pandora. in the 4th she will become so powerfull that she will control the animals. a god.

a director who is not into save storytelling would make her a villain. but no, lets bring back Quaritch

 

[Lord]

Actually, the 4th one's going to be a Prequel, so there she will be a normal human.

 

[dark_b]

i thought since it filmed back to back that they will be 3 sequels with one story?

 

[Lord]

It's simply cheaper, Cameron has only mentioned that each film will have its oun arc, that the 4th will be a Prequel, and that he wants to make a "crescendo", instead of something disapointing that doesn't give you a complete movie like Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions did. Hell, he seems to really dislike the idea of stretching plots of a sinle film into various, from his reactiong to the Matrix sequels and Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows

 

[Iceman]

I wonder how popular the sequels will be. I expect them to make more normal blockbuster box office numbers than the 1st. If they turn out really well they'll save a fortune doing it like this, although it could be a bad situation if 2 doesn't do well.