Jump to content

Avatar 2, 3 and 4 or how James Cameron stopped worrying and pulled The Hobbit on us


crocodile

Recommended Posts

It's funny to think when these sequels were first formally announced (in 2013!) they were to be out in December '16, '17, and '18.

Now the project won't be done until 2028, 10 years after their original intentions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

New Zealand is a good place to be in the film industry right now.  Talk about winning the pandemic lottery!  They'll probably wrap 3, 4, and 5 before H-wood really gets up and running in full again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/24/2020 at 3:47 PM, Jay said:

It's funny to think when these sequels were first formally announced (in 2013!) they were to be out in December '16, '17, and '18.

Now the project won't be done until 2028, 10 years after their original intentions

 

What happened?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he will - apparently he has actual script in hand and is in honest-to-god production.  The road to production has always been Cameron's biggest challenge.

 

Four sequels filmed at once in short succession will be the most fruitful time in Cameron's career, at least in the sense of sheer amount.  Fruitful regarding quality, who knows.  I thought Avatar was serviceable entertainment, but apparently it enthralled somebody out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They'd have to do it with an entirely NZ cast and crew at this point.  Film work isn't on NZ's list of valid reasons for travel (although I'm sure if palms are greased sufficiently enough, they can make it work - it does look like crew that was not quarantined in New Zealand was allowed to fly back in for Avatar).  There's also the question of whether the companies think a Tintin sequel would be worthwhile, of course.  When considering worldwide grosses, it looks like Tintin was profitable, but profitable enough for a sequel?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couldn't you film the actors in different cities, so long as they had a live feed of the other actor's performance? 

 

Guess it depends where Serkis and Bell are based (probably LA and London) but technology shouldn't be a barrier in this instance. If anything, the technology opens up the possibilities of filming remotely and separated, then stitching everything together at WETA. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I really must go back and rewatch Avatar. I didn’t care for it when I saw it in cinemas but maybe it’s worth another go as I like pretty much all of Cameron’s work. 
 

I will probably go see 2 in the cinema regardless just to support a blockbuster that isn’t a comic book movie. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bilbo said:

I really must go back and rewatch Avatar. I didn’t care for it when I saw it in cinemas but maybe it’s worth another go as I like pretty much all of Cameron’s work. 
 

 

I loved it in cinema.

When I rewatched at.home I was dumbstruck at its flaws!

The spectacle covered up the weak script.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even when I saw it I could see it is an extremely ordinary story cloaked in some really boundary pushing CGI.

 

Eventually that is why it was a cinema event in 2009, you hadn't seen FX at that level.

 

I wonder if that still holds true today. Maybe Cameron is again going to push the boundaries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cameron has always been a great conceptualist.

His scripts tend to be extremely derivative.

But, I wouldn't miss his films for the world!

Even his lesser efforts always contain brilliantly executed action sequences.

He would be great for a superhero flick.

 

 

Fyi

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bruce marshall said:

I loved it in cinema.

When I rewatched at.home I was dumbstruck at its flaws!

The spectacle covered up the weak script.

 

I'm in total agreement. 

 

I always judge films on their 're-watch value'. I really enjoyed Avatar on first viewing, in the cinema. Couldn't even make it half-way through on the second.

 

Which is sad because I've seen all of Cameron's other films at least 20 times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bruce marshall said:

He would be great for a superhero flick.

 

Yeah. Or literally anything else.

 

He's spending fucking 15 years on the same franchise - with nothing in between! 

 

The first two Terminator films were seven years apart but he managed to 'squeeze' Aliens and The Abyss into that gap. 

 

I have nothing invested in the Avatar universe - yeah it might surprise me and be amazing but Cameron is too interesting a filmmaker to literally put nothing out for years only to release 94 sequels to something that was ages ago and not THAT good anyway.

 

I'm drunk and angry. Everything I've posted here tonight has been angry. Because I'm drunk and angry. Go away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, LSH said:

I have nothing invested in the Avatar universe - yeah it might surprise me and be amazing but Cameron is too interesting a filmmaker to literally put nothing out for years only to release 94 sequels to something that was ages ago and not THAT good anyway.

 

Wasn't that long ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a Cameron super-fan, I've seen that show, Bruce. His list of guests is impressive, but alas, the series doesn't get out its potential. Mostly just general, surface observations about the genre and quick edits and snippets from the interviews. It's all very rushed. What I'd really like to see is a calm, unedited conversation between the guests -- like those between Cameron and Scott or Cameron and Spielberg. Like those Q&As you see on Youtube.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I first started watching I thought " Almost all the top writers of SF are white men; how will they diversify the interviewees?".

They did bring in some very good people who actually worked as writers and filmmakers. But, they also brought in folks who were ' tokens'. The time wasted on them could have been better spent on Spielberg, Lucas, Scott at al.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, bruce marshall said:

I loved it in cinema.

When I rewatched at.home I was dumbstruck at its flaws!

The spectacle covered up the weak script.


Yeah, I noticed the uninspired script in the cinema. 
 

still. I’ll give it another go with an opened mind over Xmas. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Thor said:

As a Cameron super-fan, I've seen that show, Bruce. His list of guests is impressive, but alas, the series doesn't get out its potential. Mostly just general, surface observations about the genre and quick edits and snippets from the interviews. It's all very rushed. What I'd really like to see is a calm, unedited conversation between the guests -- like those between Cameron and Scott or Cameron and Spielberg. Like those Q&As you see on Youtube.

 

I had the same reaction to the series Thor but you should really check out the book that accompanied it. It has complete unedited transcripts of the one on one interview Cameron conducted with Guillermo del Toro, George Lucas, Christopher Nolan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Ridley Scott and Steven Spielberg and they are absolutely fascinating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, The Big Man said:

I still can't work out what they are.

 

It's a Ridley Scott movie. If they don't bleed milk, they are not androids. 

 

1 hour ago, bruce marshall said:

 

JC mistakenly called the replicants robots and androids.

 

 

Jesus Christ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.