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

[Andy 4,083]

On 3/12/2022 at 1:27 PM, Nick1Ø66 said:

Sadly, I've gotten to the point where I wouldn't mind seeing some franchises fail, because I think they're doing more harm than good in their current form. But I want this film to succeed. I don't have anything invested in Avatar, and am not a particularly big fan, but Cameron has clearly poured his heart and soul into this, not to mention a good chunk of his life, and I respect his passion. At least it's not an assembly line movie, ala Marvel, and for that reason, and its ambition alone, I wish Avatar well.

 

I don't care for him as a person, but I respect James Cameron for sticking to his guns and also staying (mostly) to the genre of fantasy/sci-fi.  He could easily try to become the history professor like Spielberg, but he's clearly a showman.  

 

Don't really love Avatar, but I enjoyed it, and while the narrative is not new, it's at least not a reboot or adaptation.  And it's fine as entertainment.

 

Plus, I want 3D to come back.

 

#TeamCameron

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Never doubt James Cameron 

[greenturnedblue 372]

[Naïve Old Fart 9,496]

Now, just a damn minute!

"3.00pm" "3.40pm"? That's a very short film!

[mstrox 6,647]

If that’s true, this will be the best Avatar yet!!

[NL197 368]

15 hours ago, greenturnedblue said:

I used to work at the New West location of Landmark. 

Years before I worked at the Riverport Cineplex. 

I don't miss those days. 

[crumbs 14,300]

Heading for a $205m opening weekend in China alone. 

 

Franspeech reports that the sci-fi sequel is projected to earn anywhere from $185 million to $205 million in China alone in its opening weekend.

 

To put that in perspective, the original debuted to $73 million in its first two weeks of release in China before heading onto a total $265 million gross.

 

The sequel’s debut China haul would join the film’s U.S. domestic opening which is on track for anywhere between $167 million and $192 million next weekend.

 

https://www.darkhorizons.com/avatar-sequel-heads-for-205m-china-bow/

[King Mark 3,625]

On 06/12/2022 at 7:18 PM, TolkienSS said:

"It's an Avatar movie"

 

Another one of those eyeroll inducing attempts to make it sound like a whole Avatar universe and legacy exists because of one singular movie, and had always been planned to exist.

 

This is reason number umpteen why Hollywood is just intolerable these days, the shilling and bootlicking of so-called journalists that requires certain areas of the brain to be permanently shut down, and just function as an echo chamber for the loudest celeb dumbass in the room, in this case James Cameron.

 Well if it's reasonably entertaining and NOT lecturing us about diversity and gender/sexual identity issues, even a "bad" movie by the standards of 10 years ago will seem like a masterpiece compared to what we've been getting in the past few years.

[HunterTech 987]

I think I just got a stroke reading that.

[King Mark 3,625]

I forgot a critical word in my post by typing too fast

[HunterTech 987]

Well, there's a lot of movies out there that do essentially just lecture the viewer on quite a few subjects (regardless of if that is their intent). If the execution is there, then you can make just about anything compelling. I just blame the big studios that pull up "modern" concepts as window dressing, instead of allowing anything actually substantive, as to why the more mainstream approaches feel very shallow (largely because they need to market that shit to more law heavy countries also, so "small enough to cut/edit" it often is).

[King Mark 3,625]

I have no problems with movies tackling those subject matters when it's appropriate ,  but I just feel it's gotten so out of control in inserting it in every mainstream movie it just sucks the fun out of everything.

[HunterTech 987]

Every? I did say they still need to sell to places like China and (used to at least) Russia, so I'd be a bit confused as to which exact programs rely too heavily on these concepts in more than a thrown in manner. Quite frankly, a person's identity really shouldn't be restricted to afternoon specials about how discrimination is bad, so maybe we just need more programs like The Owl House where it's treated like a normal thing without too much attention drawn to it. Alas, corporations need to sell things, so it'll be a while before that is commonplace instead.

[King Mark 3,625]

Well my perception is they're trying to shoehorn all these social justice talking points in almost every movie in the past few years (especially Disney with Marvel and other IP's), but I'm from an older generation of movie geeks and some of you newer and younger JWfans might see things differently.

[HunterTech 987]

Without much context, it certainly can seem a bit sudden. Truthfully, it's rather unfortunate timing that a lot of these ideas are getting newfound airtime at the same point studios have become incredibly transparent in how much they consider most of what they produce now to merely be content. Everything has to appeal to every possible demographic, or else it just isn't worth selling. I can see why something like Top Gun Maverick managed to succeed in a time when the surrounding competition is just throwing overproduced shit at the wall, since as a result of it having the goal of being a very specific throwback, it actually ends up being much more razor focused than most other blockbusters now. Comparatively, something like Doctor Strange 2 seems a bit confused in what it's trying to sell as a result of having a few too many aims. It's the difference between being a real filmmaker versus only caring about the money.

[Thor 7,465]

Just came back from the film. Not allowed to say much about the plot or other main aspects until tomorrow, but in short: Superb film, pure cinema at its finest. But you must see it in a proper cinema, preferably IMAX.

 

A few comments about the score, though. The best parts are those that have Horner's DNA in them, whether it concerns themes or orchestration. The rest -- and especially the action/suspense music -- is completely generic. In one ear, out the other. Indistinguishable from the dominant Hollywood action blockbuster sound (trite, synthetic ostinati, a wall of sound, chords without a core etc.). Just because Franglen was Horner's assistant/programmer/coffeemaker doesn't mean he automatically inherited his talent. The underwater music screamed for James Newton Howard in "Swimming" mode. But I'll give the soundtrack a go just to hear it on its own and see if it's possible to make a decent playlist out of the no doubt excessive presentation.

[leeallen01 2,133]

I remember back in 2009 when I was involved in a box office forum, and I kept the view that Avatar was going to become the highest grossing film of all time after the first few weeks. Everyone said I was insane, but I kept doing the calculations (sad, I know) and I had percentages, drop offs, etc and knew by the way it was holding a near zero drop off week to week, that it was statistically impossible for it not to be the highest grossing ever. 

 

I never make solid prediction before a film comes out, because it's pointless without actual statistics, but I feel that this will break 3 billion. Call it idiotic intuition, but damn it, I believe it.

[publicist 4,643]

1 hour ago, Thor said:

Just came back from the film. Not allowed to say much about the plot or other main aspects until tomorrow, but in short: Superb film, pure cinema at its finest. But you must see it in a proper cinema, preferably IMAX.

 

I would never put it this way (it's a movie for dummies, the 'dialogue' takes the cake). But even with all the dumb spectacle in front of you, i give it to him that, like De Mille, when Cameron parts the Red Sea, it's something to behold and i enjoyed the last hour very much. It's not something i think anyone should spend years and billions of $ for, but given the competition it still comes out tops.

[filmmusic 1,823]

1 hour ago, Thor said:

Superb film

Superb film eh?

The thought alone on watching the Avatar sequel bores me, let alone watching the actual film.

I don't know, I LOVE Cameron's films, but I can't watch CGI for 3 hours...

[JNHFan2000 2,944]

1 hour ago, publicist said:

 

I would never put it this way (it's a movie for dummies, the 'dialogue' takes the cake). But even with all the dumb spectacle in front of you, i give it to him that, like De Mille, when Cameron parts the Red Sea, it's something to behold and i enjoyed the last hour very much. It's not something i think anyone should spend years and billions of $ for, but given the competition it still comes out tops.

I hear this of a lot of people.

 

The last hour is strong but the rest is a real slog and not very interesting all the time

[Edmilson 7,391]

I guess my fears were true then. Cameron should not have trusted a movie this big to an inexperienced composer like Franglen (I don't care how many years he was Horner's assistant, on his own he'd never done something like this). This should've been scored by someone older, more used to this kind of spectacle, like JNH or Silvestri.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

You're going to come to that conclusion just from Thor's post?  Thor who famously always holds the median consensus opinions on all film score related topics?

[Faleel 5,337]

10 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

 This should've been scored by someone older,

  The dude is 59!!

[Naïve Old Fart 9,496]

@Clockwork Angel.

Rush avatar! Now!

[publicist 4,643]

57 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

I guess my fears were true then. Cameron should not have trusted a movie this big to an inexperienced composer like Franglen (I don't care how many years he was Horner's assistant, on his own he'd never done something like this). This should've been scored by someone older, more used to this kind of spectacle, like JNH or Silvestri.

 

I know my tastes have long diverged from younger fans in terms of what they expect of a good, even great film score, but especially movies this big have a lame, often even shitty score, so i don't know why this is so important? Is Horner's Avatar suddenly considered great art? It wasn't.

[Richard Penna 3,670]

How about we actually wait until the score's released in a couple of days, instead of declaring the score a lost cause based on two people's reports?

1 hour ago, Edmilson said:

I guess my fears were true then. Cameron should not have trusted a movie this big to an inexperienced composer like Franglen (I don't care how many years he was Horner's assistant, on his own he'd never done something like this). This should've been scored by someone older, more used to this kind of spectacle, like JNH or Silvestri.

 

 

I agree with you on a lot of stuff, but Cameron is about as hands-on a director as it gets, so it's not like he would've just gotten Franglen to record a score and pop it in the film with 10 seconds to go. Given the hell he put Horner though on Aliens, if Franglen did indeed give us something nondescript then it's what Camero wanted, and not Franglen being inexperienced.

 

But then I seem to be conditioned nowadays to try to see the positive in all scoring assignments (a nice contrast to my highly cynical views on just about everything else in life) whereas it seems everyone else here is determined to complain about any assignment that doesn't give them am epic, operatic masterpiece.

[TolkienSS 405]

On 12/12/2022 at 7:21 AM, King Mark said:

 Well if it's reasonably entertaining and NOT lecturing us about diversity and gender/sexual identity issues, even a "bad" movie by the standards of 10 years ago will seem like a masterpiece compared to what we've been getting in the past few years.

 

I reckon - to stay in the Cameroniverse - that even relatively bad sequels like Terminator 3 or Jurassic Park 3 seem like great flicks these days. 

 

4 hours ago, Thor said:

 Superb film, pure cinema at its finest. But you must see it in a proper cinema, preferably IMAX.

 

Which means once you watch it at home, and it needs to deliver the goods of what actually makes a superb film, it falls apart, because you don't have the gizmos around you to make your brain go fizz and bang to detract from the rudimentary plot drawn to excruciating length.

[Thor 7,465]

Plot, schmot....just as with the first film, don't go into this expecting any kind of revolutionary or innovative plot. It doesn't have it, and it's not what it's about. It's more like a theme park attraction, and as such requires best possible set-up. If you for some reason can't or won't see it in the theatre, then I at the very least hope you have a good home cinema set-up. All films benefit from this, of course, but this type of film more than others. Just as with a great number of Spielberg films.

[MaxMovieMan 269]

1 hour ago, Edmilson said:

I guess my fears were true then. Cameron should not have trusted a movie this big to an inexperienced composer like Franglen (I don't care how many years he was Horner's assistant, on his own he'd never done something like this). This should've been scored by someone older, more used to this kind of spectacle, like JNH or Silvestri.

People are way too harsh on this thread. And also don’t base your opinion off what one dude says you could love it for all you know.

 

For me I know I actually enjoy a lot of scores that people tend to hate including Horner’s “Avatar” so if it’s anywhere close to that quality and retains the same style I’ll be happy. Consistency is key.

[JNHFan2000 2,944]

At this moment, with 70 reviews the films stands at 80% on Rotten Tomatoes

[publicist 4,643]

4 hours ago, Thor said:

Plot, schmot....just as with the first film, don't go into this expecting any kind of revolutionary or innovative plot.

 

Instead of going full hyperbole how it isn't 'revolutionary' why not instead just acknowledge it is really pretty awful on a storytelling basis (and Cameron takes his sweet time setting it all up). It's awfully lame and given what kind of time and money was put into it, it's a kind of sad achievement that it is as bad as it is.

 

It's basically a 1-to-1 remake of the first film. The humans are greedy and ruthless, the Na'vi a delicate creatures in harmony with nature, the great conflict of fate: reduced again to the battle between mercenary assholes and a new John Dunbar (i grant Cameron the desperate but understandable move to bring Weaver back from the dead) 

 

But even more unpleasant is Cameron's backwards ideology, ca. Reagan era: the wholesome american family ideal, the enchanted view of Native Americans - in 2009, well ok, but again, not even trying to update elements of it is really something to behold, even stuff like 'Black Panther' is better at indigenous cultures. Avatar 2 is old postcards from the colonial goods store: the tatooed reef Na'vi stick their tongues out at you in a warlike uproar - nothing more than flat Maori impressions. All the kids stuff, the tussle between them and the local youth is pitched at the level of 50's rebellious youth flicks.

 

Since the movie spends considerable time for these non-spectacle scenes plus human interaction, i find the excuse that the spectacle completely makes up for it more than dubious. On the other hand, it's a small wonder Cameron could convince me i had a pretty good time watching this. Which, in essence, means he's still the old Cameron. He just needs someone less old and crusty writing his screenplays.

 

 

[Thor 7,465]

10 minutes ago, publicist said:

 

Instead of going full hyperbole how it isn't 'revolutionary' why not instead just acknowledge it is really pretty awful on a storytelling basis (and Cameron takes his sweet time setting it all up). It's awfully lame and given what kind of time and money was put into it, it's a kind of sad achievement that it is as bad as it is.

 

Because I couldn't give a rat's ass about story in a film like AVATAR. It's just a mechanism through which you enter a different world, and experience it. I'm generally opposed to the whole story-centered view on films, as if that's all there was to it. Especially when the film is in the hands of someone like Cameron, who revels in world building. If story was the be-all, end-all aspect of filmmaking, we would be reading books instead.

[publicist 4,643]

Just now, Thor said:

 

Because I couldn't give a rat's ass about story in a film like AVATAR. It's just a mechanism through which you enter a different world, and experience it. I'm generally opposed to the whole story-centered view on films, as if that's all there was to it. Especially when the film is in the hands of someone like Cameron, who revels in world building. If story was the be-all, end-all aspect of filmmaking, we would be reading books instead.

 

I think that's just your usual backwards engineering: by that logic Cameron could film 'Mein Kampf' and you'd still be a happy camper. But we both know that once you set your (very basic) premise, every further discussion is moot, so let's leave it at that.

 

On a more pragmatic note: doesn't Cameron have kids that tell him 'Dad, your old shit isn't cutting it anymore'?

[Jurassic Shark 12,028]

Well, the film is getting good reviews.

[publicist 4,643]

Just now, Jurassic Shark said:

Well, the film is getting good reviews.

 

Thank god, that spares people the nuisance of wasting precious mental efforts to make up their own mind. 

[Jurassic Shark 12,028]

If you were expecting a narrow artsy film I guess it's not for you.

[publicist 4,643]

Just now, Jurassic Shark said:

If you're expecting a narrow artsy film I guess it's not for you.

 

Old problem, eh? There is either a complete Lynch or von Trier brainfuck or Transformers Part 6. It's god's law there's no space in between! 

[Chen G. 3,943]

14 minutes ago, Thor said:

It's just a mechanism through which you enter a different world, and experience it. I'm generally opposed to the whole story-centered view on films, as if that's all there was to it. Especially when the film is in the hands of someone like Cameron, who revels in world building.

 

I look at this a bit differently. I don't think any narrative film that I can think of is ever truly about "world building", as such. If that were the case, we'd have National Geographic-esque pieces about Pandora, or about Tatooine, or about Rivendell, and we evidentally don't. Those places very much exist as backdrops for stories.

 

That being said, when a story is told in a medium such as film, there's absolutely no rule saying a filmmaker shouldn't take his time with the storytelling to celebrate character, be it the character of the characters or of said backdrop. If films were all about moving the story forward in the most time-effective way possible, there'd be no art to it. 

 

That doesn't mean that the film - any film - is about its own backdrop.

[TolkienSS 405]

5 hours ago, Thor said:

Plot, schmot....just as with the first film, don't go into this expecting any kind of revolutionary or innovative plot. It doesn't have it, and it's not what it's about. It's more like a theme park attraction, and as such requires best possible set-up. If you for some reason can't or won't see it in the theatre, then I at the very least hope you have a good home cinema set-up. All films benefit from this, of course, but this type of film more than others. Just as with a great number of Spielberg films.

 

Practically all Spielberg films from his real classic era from the 70s to the 90s do not - NOT - require anything other than eyes and ears to enjoy to their fullest. 

Just like you don't need to hear great music live with 100 musicians in order to feel how great it is.

That's just utter nonsense.

Don't compare the storytelling mastery of Spielberg to an overwrought 3-hour CGI fest interrupted by some of the most cliched dialogue in history.

 

If James Cameron wants to present how wonderful his "world building" is, do it in a 100 minutes movie, and don't stretch a basic children's fairy tale into 3 hours long ad for Greenpeace.

[Edmilson 7,391]

I think it's extremely funny (and, at the same time, depressing) seeing "professional" critics praising the "wonderful worldbuilding of Avatar". 

 

I mean, if you truly want to be immersed in a great fantasy world, you should watch Star Wars, LOTR, The Wizard of Oz, heck, even Harry Potter. Avatar's so-called worldbuilding is just some traditions of the original natives from South and North America and alien animals with funny names.

 

There are D&D campaigns that put more effort into their worlds than this. 

[publicist 4,643]

3 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

I think it's extremely funny (and, at the same time, depressing) seeing "professional" critics praising the "wonderful worldbuilding of Avatar". 

 

I mean, if you truly want to be immersed in a great fantasy world, you should watch Star Wars, LOTR, The Wizard of Oz, heck, even Harry Potter. Avatar's so-called worldbuilding is just some traditions of the original natives from South and North America and alien animals with funny names.

 

There are D&D campaigns that put more effort into their worlds than this. 

 

I think you confuse world-building with set design and matte paintings. The way the term is used here is mainly for the complete depiction of an ecosystem whose every tree, plant, bush flower and blade of grass is rendered in every weather condition – rain, sun, mist and so on. Which like in computer games has been created exclusively for this world. 

 

It is debatable if that is a good excuse for a fig leaf of a story, but it's still miles beyond Star Wars (1977) or Wizard of Oz. LOTR comes closer, but it's still mainly computer-enhanced location photography.

[MaxMovieMan 269]

3 hours ago, publicist said:

 

Thank god, that spares people the nuisance of wasting precious mental efforts to make up their own mind. 

The blue monkeys are getting to you.

 

I swear some people describe the plot of “Avatar” like it’s “The Room.” It’s thin but come on I see the same people hating on “Avatar” loving “Top Gun: Maverick” when that movie is just as thin and copies the plot of another movie. Not every movie needs a crazy story. Of course a story is required or else it’s a documentary but the story doesn’t need to be anything special every time. It just needs to propel the characters from place to place logically at least at the bare minimum and from there you can do whatever. Some films decide to focus more on spectacle and I don’t see anything wrong with that.

 

3 hours ago, TolkienSS said:

 

Practically all Spielberg films from his real classic era from the 70s to the 90s do not - NOT - require anything other than eyes and ears to enjoy to their fullest. 

Just like you don't need to hear great music live with 100 musicians in order to feel how great it is.

That's just utter nonsense.

Don't compare the storytelling mastery of Spielberg to an overwrought 3-hour CGI fest interrupted by some of the most cliched dialogue in history.

 

If James Cameron wants to present how wonderful his "world building" is, do it in a 100 minutes movie, and don't stretch a basic children's fairy tale into 3 hours long ad for Greenpeace.

I would say Spielberg’s films are definitely some of the closest comparisons to “Avatar” you can get. Obviously a lot of his films have amazing stories but also a lot of his famous ones like “Jurassic Park” and “Indiana Jones” aren’t anything crazy or new plot wise but their spectacle and imagery and characters are what make the films (Also John Williams). “Jurassic Park” is pretty closely related to “Avatar” in my opinion. Also I don’t personally find Avatar’s plot to be as bad as everyone thinks it is so maybe that’s why I hold it to an higher level. Oh and plenty of Spielberg’s dialogue is cliched.

 

2 hours ago, publicist said:

 

I think you confuse world-building with set design and matte paintings. The way the term is used here is mainly for the complete depiction of an ecosystem whose every tree, plant, bush flower and blade of grass is rendered in every weather condition – rain, sun, mist and so on. Which like in computer games has been created exclusively for this world. 

 

It is debatable if that is a good excuse for a fig leaf of a story, but it's still miles beyond Star Wars (1977) or Wizard of Oz. LOTR comes closer, but it's still mainly computer-enhanced location photography.

No I think it’s how every tree, plant, bush flower and blade of grass rendered in every weather condition – rain, sun, mist has a name and a purpose in Pandora. They created a full ecosystem.

[publicist 4,643]

1 hour ago, MaxMovieMan said:

The blue monkeys are getting to you.

 

I swear some people describe the plot of “Avatar” like it’s “The Room.” It’s thin but come on I see the same people hating on “Avatar” loving “Top Gun: Maverick” when that movie is just as thin and copies the plot of another movie. Not every movie needs a crazy story. Of course a story is required or else it’s a documentary but the story doesn’t need to be anything special every time. It just needs to propel the characters from place to place logically at least at the bare minimum and from there you can do whatever. Some films decide to focus more on spectacle and I don’t see anything wrong with that.

 

Did you even read what i wrote? Because nothing you write here indicates that. And yes, we got it already in several posts before yours that this movie needs no 'crazy' story. So rest assured, you will have a great time at the Multiplex.

[MaxMovieMan 269]

27 minutes ago, publicist said:

 

Did you even read what i wrote? Because nothing you write here indicates that. And yes, we got it already in several posts before yours that this movie needs no 'crazy' story. So rest assured, you will have a great time at the Multiplex.

Yeah but you describe the plot like it’s pure garbage🤣And you said the new one is awful and sad.

[publicist 4,643]

6 hours ago, MaxMovieMan said:

Yeah but you describe the plot like it’s pure garbage🤣And you said the new one is awful and sad.

 

Yes and i said why. To counter that with what you wrote doesn't make any sense, since i singled out very specific points, you came up with just the most basic generalities that can be applied to any dumb blockbuster. But i hand it to the companies, they did a great job training the disciples. 

[GerateWohl 4,333]

It does not make sense to answer people, who complain about bad storytelling, that the movie is not about plot.

I hardly care about plot in such a movie. About storytelling I do. 

King Kong and Alien have almost the same plot (People travelling to foreign place, for gaining profit picking up monster, things getting out of hand, many die, monster's fate sealed by a couragous lady, monster dead, lady survives). But the storytelling is fundamentally different. And in both cases interesting. And in both cases the movie is telling us different things about the characters, about people and the world in general. In both cases great world building. But these movies do not just consist of plot and world building and action.

 

If the Disney animated classic "Robin Hood" would just have been the Robin Hood plot with the characters played by animals it would never have become that successful. The story was told in a funny way enriched by intersting characters, their stories and fates around it.

[publicist 4,643]

1 hour ago, GerateWohl said:

hardly care about plot in such a movie. About storytelling I do. 

King Kong and Alien have almost the same plot (People travelling to foreign place, for gaining profit picking up monster, things getting out of hand, many die, monster's fate sealed by a couragous lady, monster dead, lady survives). But the storytelling is fundamentally different. And in both cases interesting. And in both cases the movie is telling us different things about the characters, about people and the world in general.

 

What i was additionally getting at is this kind of backwards, almost reactionary treatment of the 'nature' people in this world the movie portrays so vividly (you have a problem when stuff like 'Moana' runs circles around your own indigenous tribes). 

 

It's really not a very nourishing topic, it's Avatar 2, Cameron has turned into the George Lucas prequel phase of his own franchise and even suggesting it would have taken little effort to create a more engaging conflict beyond big white guys with huge machines fighting noble savages (again!) riles many people here and elsewhere up: they have been trained over decades to defend what little they get. 

 

So the rest has to contend itself with the occasional spectacular corral reef diving sequence and that's that. I'm just curious what Cameron has in mind for A3...the world is built, what's next? Tribe vs. tribe, maybe? (he may have seen Wakanda by now).

[GerateWohl 4,333]

1 hour ago, publicist said:

I'm just curious what Cameron has in mind for A3...the world is built, what's next? Tribe vs. tribe, maybe? (he may have seen Wakanda by now).

Probably the same next time, but it will take place at Pandora's arctic region with inuit-like Navi and a lot of snow animals and sleigh dog-like ants pulling sleighs.

 

[Jurassic Shark 12,028]

15 minutes ago, GerateWohl said:

Probably the same next time, but it will take place at Pandora's arctic region with inuit-like Navi and a lot of snow animals and sleigh dog-like ants pulling sleighs.

 

 

Of course they'll have to rebuild the world after the fights in A2.

[GerateWohl 4,333]

35 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

 

Of course they'll have to rebuild the world after the fights in A2.

No they don't. The idea is in each episode to wreck another reqion of the planet.

So, in movie number five they have to deal with huge streams of refugies intruding the only remaining habitable region of Pandora resulting in a big civil world war about the remaining recources between the four big Navi tribes from movie 1-4 and the greedy humans.

They could call that final episode "Battle of the Five Armies".