James Cameron's Avatar Sequels Possible Titles Revealed

[Kai "the spy"]

I think that Avatar's contribution was much more than simply that it was in 3D. The level of detail in what was being depicted in things both large and small, including seeds on the wind and tiny creatures barely big enough to see, the illusion that all of these things had ecological relations to each other, and then rendering that in 3D to create an experience that made it feel like you are there in something both otherworldly and real, that was the big achievement. It was scope+medium.

I absolutely agree, which is why I said "the 3D technology alone ...". I can kinda understand people critical of Avatar's plot and characters, even though I disagree with them, but to downplay the achievements of the movie in the SFX department is indicating a personal bias clouding judgement.

 

[Anwar]

This +100 million

Avatar might've been Dances with Wolves/The Last Samurai in Space, but I'll take it over * ANY* Marvel movie. There are some teenagers in the world who think "Infinity War" is the pinnacle of filmmaking. I just want to bang my head against the wall when I hear that.

Oh grow up. Teens and kids will be teens and kids. It's not different than how teens back in the day were the same with Star Wars. It's better than falling to your knees over pretentious artsy-fartsy fluff.

And for all the people that complain about it being 99% CGI...Avatar's use of CGI and 3D was groundbreaking and transformative. Marvel's use of CGI is ubiquitous, sloppy, and tired at this point. Much like all the forced jokes in their scripts.

Marvel doesn't make movies just for the sake of showing off CGI tech like Avatar did. And the jokes merely show they aren't afraid of naturalistic dialog and behavior.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I absolutely agree, which is why I said "the 3D technology alone ...".

Gotcha.

 

[Forbin]

B5's contribution to the development of CGI was to prove that it was a valid alternative to models and miniatures on a television show. They proved they could do it quick and cheap. Actually furthering the technology didn't play into it.

Oh but they DID further the technology. The B5 production worked hand in hand with NewTech to create the Video Toaster hardware and Lightwave Software. You've got that show to thank for the beginnings of affordable TV-level CGI.

 

[Mudd]

Both the Video Toaster and Lightwave existed and were sold prior to B5; in fact users of that device and software were keenly interested in the sale and eventual production of B5 as a result. I knew one game developer who was very pleased when Foundation Imaging contacted him about an animation recording plug-in he'd written for his game which had been on sale for a while. NewTek did work with Foundation Imaging to incorporate enhancements and functionality as their versioning continued - made sense, since FI was one of their most high-profile customers for several years.

 

[sttngfan1701d]

Oh grow up. Teens and kids will be teens and kids. It's not different than how teens back in the day were the same with Star Wars. It's better than falling to your knees over pretentious artsy-fartsy fluff.

I'm not talking about artsy-fartsy stuff. Avatar was transformative for cinema. It didn't just show off, it pushed boundaries and redefined 3D. Was it Kurosawa or Ozu or Bergman...nah. But it was innovative. Marvel movies are just the cinematic equivalent of McDonalds. So in that sense, Marvel can pump out 20 movies of warmed-over crap, of which maybe 2 are actually worth a damn.

Whereas James Cameron will go down in history for what he's done in cinema, even without being an auteur.

 

[JD]

These conversations always remind me of how incredibly differently people can interpret the same thing. It really amazes me, because what the experiences you guys apparently have had with the Marvel movies are pretty much a complete 180 from my experiences.

 

[Anwar]

I'm not talking about artsy-fartsy stuff. Avatar was transformative for cinema. It didn't just show off, it pushed boundaries and redefined 3D. Was it Kurosawa or Ozu or Bergman...nah. But it was innovative. Marvel movies are just the cinematic equivalent of McDonalds. So in that sense, Marvel can pump out 20 movies of warmed-over crap, of which maybe 2 are actually worth a damn.

Whereas James Cameron will go down in history for what he's done in cinema, even without being an auteur.

Feige will go down in history, for something more admirable than how cool CGI can look.

 

[Mudd]

These conversations always remind me of how incredibly differently people can interpret the same thing. It really amazes me, because what the experiences you guys apparently have had with the Marvel movies are pretty much a complete 180 from my experiences.

Well, for the most part they're mediocre films - and certainly nothing about them represents innovation in any way. It's all trite and off-the-shelf.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

I personally believe Feige will go down in cinema history, while Cameron already has secured his place in cinema history. I enjoy Marvel movies for what they are, but I love Avatar, including the plot and characters (it's simple on purpose).

One thing that definitely puts Cameron above Feige in my book, though, is that Cameron created something new. He didn't have beloved characters with build-in fandom, but still made a movie that is not only still the most successful movie of all time worldwide (with his previous movie holding the second place), but created a cultural phenomenon. Some people around here might have forgotten what an impact Avatar had. Go back to news reports from 2009 and 2010 and remind yourself, how absolutely massive this was.

As for the movie itself, I'll simply quote Steven Spielberg, who said about Avatar:

The most evocative and amazing science-fiction movie since Star Wars.

 

[Anwar]

Well, for the most part they're progressive films - and certainly nothing about them represents the prior laziness done in CBMs in any way.

Fixed.

Cameron's more a flash-in-the-pan type. He creates things that do well for a moment but don't stand the test of time (Titanic, Avatar) in terms of quality. He DOES have Terminator, but there's the whole Harlan Ellison thing to take into account over that.

 

[sttngfan1701d]

We have to agree to disagree.

 

[JD]

Yeah, @Anwar, as much as I might agree with on the Marvel movies, I'm gonna have to side with the others when it comes to Avatar.
The overall story might have not been that original, but pretty much everything else about it was awesome. It had a great cast, some of the most incredible effects ever, awesome creature designs, and one of the most in depth, well developed alien worlds and cultures ever in a movie. And while I love adaptations like the LOTR, Harry Potter, and both Marvel and DC movies, the fact Avatar was not an adaptation, or remake, or reboot is a big plus.

 

[Smellmet]

Fixed.

Cameron's more a flash-in-the-pan type. He creates things that do well for a moment but don't stand the test of time (Titanic, Avatar) in terms of quality. He DOES have Terminator, but there's the whole Harlan Ellison thing to take into account over that.

I think the opposite. I wouldn't say titanic and avatar haven't stood the test of time. Titanic holds up incredibly well for a 21 year old film and like it or not, is seen as a classic movie now. Avatar, in the main looks like it could be released today and people wouldn't bat an eyelid.

Even the likes of aliens, the abyss and T2 all look streets ahead of their contemporaries in terns of visuals and cinematography. The only reason the first terminator film doesn't is because of it's limited budget.

I think James Cameron is in a league of his own.

 

[Cyrus]

Are these 4 sequels some kind of a story arc or are they standalone?

 

[Smellmet]

I would imagine it's a story arc, apparently quaritch will be returning as a villain in all 4 movies - how they bring his character back is unclear but I would imagine he will return as some sort of avatar having himself backed up into the humans computers before his death or something.

 

[Anwar]

I think the opposite. I wouldn't say titanic and avatar haven't stood the test of time. Titanic holds up incredibly well for a 21 year old film and like it or not, is seen as a classic movie now.

I always saw it as melodramatic fluff, especially Celine Dion's song.

Avatar, in the main looks like it could be released today and people wouldn't bat an eyelid.

I'm talking in terms of story and character though.

Even the likes of aliens, the abyss and T2 all look streets ahead of their contemporaries in terns of visuals and cinematography. The only reason the first terminator film doesn't is because of it's limited budget.

Beh, I thought Terminator 1 was better than T2. T2's just a rehash of T1. The Abyss isn't bad though. Aliens was predictable from start to finish.

 

[Mudd]

I haven't seen an original movie, other than possibly The Matrix, from an American studio since the 1980s. Cameron does better than most.

 

[Anwar]

I haven't seen an original movie, other than possibly The Matrix, from an American studio since the 1980s. Cameron does better than most.

That's a laugh, seeing how most of his most famous stuff was either stolen or "inspired" by others.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Titanic holds up incredibly well for a 21 year old film and like it or not, is seen as a classic movie now.

Pretty much because as far as it goes, it's a movie based on historical events and not the first movie to feature those events. Sure, he created some characters like Rose and Jack to add a romantic flair to it, but the core of it is what makes it timeless. I think its success is a testament to the harrowing events those people went through and the fact that it's just a fascinating story, period.