Avatar by Cameron

[r-type]

Is a sequel even possible?

Possible? Who knows where they are going with the story.

In the works? Since before the 1st one even opened. Also, according to Cameron, with a quicker turnaround time since so much time was already spent on movie 1 developing the tech.

Edit: Possibly off of Pandora.

[Z28 Autobot]

I love some of the comments.

It will flop..oh, well it wont beat ROTF..ohh, well it wont top gross..ohh, well it wont beat domestic...ohh, it cost more...yada yada yada. Who cares its a good movie.

Sure its a basic story. Like many movies. Look at Star Wars. Oldest story in the book. Yet its a huge hit.:lol

[BIG Tee]

Is a sequel even possible?

Any movie that makes that much money, the movie makers will make a way for a squeakquel...I mean a sequel.

[redqueenar]

Sam is signed on for three.

[Z28 Autobot]

Any movie that makes that much money, the movie makers will make a way for a squeakquel...I mean a sequel.

Yea some movies deserve a followup..some ...do not.

[BIG Tee]

Yea some movies deserve a followup..some ...do not.

Exactly, and there definitely shouldn't be any squeakquels. That movie was just irritating.

[Z28 Autobot]

Let me fix that for you

Exactly, and there definitely shouldn't be any squeakquels. That movie was just disturbing.

:lol

[BIG Tee]

Yes, good looking out. Very disturbing.

[TIMtationX]

Of course there will be a sequel..why? Because money is the root of all evil.

[Trailbreaker]

Finally saw it a second time!

[alexsm]

Before the release Cameron talked about a trilogy.

[Bayhem]

:lol - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jk7tUKaW59I

[Bayhem]

Sam is signed on for three.

A trilogy?

Sounds good to me.

[BIG Tee]

before the release cameron talked about a trilogy.

Nice !!!!

[lightning]

if i compare transformers revenge of the fallen to avatar, i like transformers 2 a lot more.

avatar itself is a pretty good movie on it's own. but for me, it's not the best movie of the year. at best i give it 3 out of 5. even star trek is way better than avatar.

the thing that troubled me with avatar is that it didn't look original. it looked like a collection of old movies like ferngully, the last samurai, the abyss, the emerald forest etc.

the 3d thing didn't impress me at all. it's the story that drives the movie, not gimmicks.

[Trailbreaker]

the 3d thing didn't impress me at all. it's the story that drives the movie, not gimmicks.

As it should.

Now somebody please merge this with the main Avatar thread.

[Bayhem]

I really liked "Avatar" and in my view it's one of the best movies of 2009... but like I already said, nothing can replace the feeling of watching a Michael Bay film in a packed theater with people cheering, laughing and crying start to finish. So in a way I agree with you, lightning.

[lightning]

but like I already said, nothing can replace the feeling of watching a Michael Bay film in a packed theater with people cheering, laughing and crying start to finish. So in a way I agree with you, lightning.

i agree with that. i like michael bay's style better than cameron.

[wingzero]

I loved Terminator1&2 and Aliens movies by James Cameron.. and as far as Titanic goes it was an excellent work technically wise with outstanding SFX and CGI and the whole giant reconstructions of the ship to film the scenes..
But Avatar.. no way. Avatar is a joke, really. It's really sad to see so many people worldwide in a rush paying a lot of money to watch what clearly is the worst movie that James Cameron ever made. Even his The Abyss movie still is way better than Avatar for sure.
The main issue with Avatar, more than childish simplistic plot and subpar characters is that the CGI is barely average and nothing like he and 20th Fox kept claiming for years, there is no revolution with Avatar as they promised.
The best CGI to date still are those on Transformers2 and District9 so far. Avatar CGI is way worse than the now outdated CGI on Jurassic Park movie, which is pretty silly for a James Cameron movie that was in development for 12 years and with a $500million budget including R&D and marketing..

The same James Cameron in an interview stated that the CGI on Avatar is not that good anyway, when they asked him about his next sci-fi movie project Battle Angel Alita (based on ultraviolent japanese manga):

--

http://www.firstshowing.net/2009/12/...el-adaptation/

James Cameron Quickly Updates His Battle Angel Adaptation

December 15, 2009
Source: MTV, MarketSaw
by Alex Billington

A few people have been asking me what this Battle Angel project listed on James Cameron's upcoming filmography is all about. Here's our chance to explain what the movie is and give you a little update on it. James Cameron spoke with both MTV and MarketSaw recently and gave them each some juicy morsels of information on Battle Angel. The project is an adaptation of Yukito Kishiro's popular manga series from the 90's known as Battle Angel Alita. In short, the futuristic sci-fi manga is about a female cyborg warrior who is rescued from a scrapheap beneath the floating city of Tiphares by a cybermedic expert in the 26th century.

"We're not that far down the line," Cameron said. "We have a very good script and we've done a lot of production design. We've done about a year of production design and we've put together an art reel that shows the arc of the film. It's pretty much just add water and we're ready to go." So maybe Cameron could get to this before he returns to Pandora in an Avatar sequel? Not exactly. "I'm not even sure that I'm going to do that film at this point. I might, I still like it, but it seems like every time I make a movie it changes my perception of what I want to make next," he told MarketSaw. Instead, The Dive is probably Cameron's next.

What is one of the reasons Cameron is holding back on Battle Angel? The technology just isn't there yet.

"The mixture of live-action and CG is a little trickier in 3-D than it is 2-D," Cameron told MTV. "Now we see it's good to have done Avatar first before Battle Angel, because the tricky scenes are where you're blending live-action photography, stereoscopic photography and CG."
"Shooting live stuff in 3-D and then adding CG characters and landscapes beyond that, that's a little tricky," he explained.

You might be wondering why this is a problem if they made Avatar look as good as it does. Well, I have a feeling Cameron wants to make Alita - the cyborg girl - a completely CG character like the Na'vi in Avatar. But most of the movie would be otherwise be shot live action with real actors and real sets. So basically he's combining a completely CGI character with live actors who would be performing a sound stage, which they did a little bit of in Avatar. But he's saying that the technology still needs to progress further for them to be able to actually make Battle Angel. In essence, he wants another brilliant T-1000 character all over again.

That's what I love about James Cameron. Back in 1991 when he was making Terminator 2, he wanted a character that was unlike anything we'd ever seen before, and would look and act exactly like a robot from the future with a metal alloy that could form any shape it wanted. He didn't let technology hold him back and he created a flawless CGI character that still holds up today. Now, I think, he wants to do something similar with Battle Angel and create a CGI cyborg character that feels completely real but is actually just a cyborg. Pretty interesting when you think about it. But will he direct Battle Angel next? Only time will tell!

--

[r-type]

Subjective thread is subjective.

Both of these movies made me happliy part with my money. Multiple times. This pitting of two completely different movies against one another is pointlessly defensive, and at times hilarious.

[Trailbreaker]

Subjective thread is subjective.

Both of these movies made me happliy part with my money. Multiple times. This pitting of two completely different movies against one another is pointlessly defensive, and at times hilarious.

How about now?

[r-type]

How about now?

Not quite the Lol-ypmics, but yes.

[Trailbreaker]

Not quite the Lol-ypmics, but yes.

Alright then, if that's the case...

lmao

[BIG Tee]

Subjective thread is subjective.

Both of these movies made me happliy part with my money. Multiple times. This pitting of two completely different movies against one another is pointlessly defensive, and at times hilarious.

I agree with you R. It's like saying who is greater Michael Jordan or Walter Payton. I saw Avatar 3 times, ROTF 4, and Star Trek 3. If a movie is that good then I will see it more than once. I just love how advanced the CGI is now. It's so real it's scary. Especially District 9.

[Trigger Mike]

I love some of the comments.

It will flop..oh, well it wont beat ROTF..ohh, well it wont top gross..ohh, well it wont beat domestic...ohh, it cost more...yada yada yada. Who cares its a good movie.

Sure its a basic story. Like many movies. Look at Star Wars. Oldest story in the book. Yet its a huge hit.:lol

Yeah, it's kind of funny watching all the haters. Avatar is pretty much destroying everything in it's path and will likely wind up the highest grossing movie of 2009.

Oh and to the people saying Transformers 2 was a better movie... c'mon guys. I'm as big a Bay fan as anyone, but that's just a silly comment. Transformers 2 is just dumb summer fun. Avatar is aiming a lot higher and, I feel, reaching those goals.