James Cameron talks Avatar Sequels - possibly filmed back to back & more

I wish he would move on to something different. I have a feeling he's going to be stuck on doing sequels for every movie he makes from now on.

The biggest problem with doing films back-to-back is that there isn't time to reflect about what was right and what was wrong from film to film. Any flaws the second film might have will inevitably show up in the third film.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chad R 

The biggest problem with doing films back-to-back is that there isn't time to reflect about what was right and what was wrong from film to film. Any flaws the second film might have will inevitably show up in the third film.

Didn't seem to hurt the LOTR trilogy much. Besides, as George Lucas has shown, you can tinker with films forever if you're not happy with the original versions and keep re-releasing them.

The LOTR movies had a pretty good guide to go off of though (some guy named Tolkien wrote some little book about the whole thing ;) ). 

This would be more akin to The Matrix sequels. 

That said, Cameron seems to have a pretty solid handle on how to pump out a "big" movie like this and still maintain at least an adequete level of storytelling/character. 

Honestly though, I can't say I'm really dying to revisit these characters or this world. Underwater Pandora would be cool I guess. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete-D 

 

This would be more akin to The Matrix sequels. 

 

Either those (which I like but admit the quality slacks off from film to film), or the Pirates of the Caribbean films (which just got ridiculously bad). A film is just such a huge undertaking that I don't think more than one should be done at a time. One usually suffers as a result.

Might I add that a sequel might actually better than the original...Cameron may have learned from possible mistakes from the first one. He has experience under his belt with that kind of movie and maybe can shoot for a higher bar....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amadeus19 

Might I add that a sequel might actually better than the original...Cameron may have learned from possible mistakes from the first one. He has experience under his belt with that kind of movie and maybe can shoot for a higher bar....

Yeah, like the way too long run time. If he does a sequel, lets hope he sticks to a 90 minute run time. Avatar was great, just way too long. Not enough meat in the film to require a 160+ minute run time.

I enjoyed the film and didn't feel like it was too long. The Abyss was even longer. I hate going to the cinema and leaving after just 85-90mins, I feel cheated. Tickets aren't cheap, up to £20 a seat in some west end cinemas. Which is ridiculous. I want my moneys worth of sci-fi spectacle, and Avatar delivered.

Looking forward to sequels and the even longer special edition of Avatar, coming up soon on Blu-ray.

Avatar is long but James Cameron knows how to keep his movies moving at a good pace (and I've seen lots of 90 and 120 minute movies that feel alot longer than Avatar did). Considering that Cameron hasn't made a feature that runs under 2 hours in more than 25 years, I don't think there's any chance that he'll make a 90 minute Avatar sequel.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Christou 

I hate going to the cinema and leaving after just 85-90mins, I feel cheated.

Unfortunately, I think this idea has infected the movie industry and is why there are so many needlessly long movies today. I'd much rather see a well paced movie that runs 90 minutes over a movie that runs a bloated 2 hours or longer (Transformers, Superman Returns, Pirates Of The Caribbean, Clash Of The Titans and on and on) simply because the audience is concerned with the running time being long even when it becomes a detriment to the overall quality of the movie.

Oh bugger off Travis I don't think audiences give a crap about running times, it's just me spoilt by some epic running times and wanting more. 

The billion dollar grossing Toy Story 3 was barely more than 90mins long sans end credits and no one cared. Cloverfield? 70mins? And the movies you mentioned didn't feel long to me. Hey I can't help it if you have a low boredom threshold.

Oh and we're off track... Avatar sequels yeah bring em on.

You can't possibly be saying that "cloverfield" was a good movie no matter what the run time. Don't be that guy. 

Which guy? Travis? ;) Thankfully I waited and saw Cloverfield on DVD, shaky-cam movies hurt my head. Great monster, just couldn't get a decent look at it.

No shaky-cam in Avatar but the 3-D did give me vertigo in some scenes. Sequels, woohoo. :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by koufax 

You can't possibly be saying that "cloverfield" was a good movie no matter what the run time. Don't be that guy. 

Yes, Steve, don't be 'that guy'. You know the guy that has his own opinion despite what the internet movie lords of taste decree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Christou 

I enjoyed the film and didn't feel like it was too long. The Abyss was even longer. I hate going to the cinema and leaving after just 85-90mins, I feel cheated. Tickets aren't cheap, up to £20 a seat in some west end cinemas. Which is ridiculous. I want my moneys worth of sci-fi spectacle, and Avatar delivered.

 

Looking forward to sequels and the even longer special edition of Avatar, coming up soon on Blu-ray.

This is where we differ Steve, as long as I walk out happy, I don't care how short the run time is. But then again, I rarely even go, and you said why...it's not cheap, and it's not worth paying that price for 99% of the films that hit the silver screen.

If these directors must have 120+ run times then theaters should start introducing intermissions. 

The sticking point with getting the deal done for the two 'Avatar' sequels is cost.  While I haven't heard a number, I do know that the Cameron and the studio are said to be "far apart" in terms of how much Cameron wants to shoot the movies as opposed to what Fox is willing to pay.  Depending on who you talk to, Fox spent in the neighborhood of $250 million on the first film and don't want to shell out more than $500 million for the sequels.  Cameron's camp believe that since "Avatar" has so far earned $2.8 billion worldwide at the box office, that the writer/director/producer deserves essentially a blank check for the follow-ups. 

The studio is also leery because they absolutely took a bath on the toy-line for "Avatar".  While it is the most successful movie in history, the toy sales were extremely disappointing.  At the end of the day, I do think Cameron and Fox will come to an agreement, but expect a little bit of posturing from both sides. 

     Quote:

Originally Posted by TerryRL 

 

The studio is also leery because they absolutely took a bath on the toy-line for "Avatar".  While it is the most successful movie in history, the toy sales were extremely disappointing.  At the end of the day, I do think Cameron and Fox will come to an agreement, but expect a little bit of posturing from both sides. 

I could be wrong but to the best of my knowledge, it's the company that made the Avatar toys that would lose out and not Fox. Fox sold the rights to the toy company (whoever it was) and that company didn't make money but Fox had their money either way. Obviously, Fox won't be able to sell the rights to the toy line for the sequels for as much or maybe they won't be able to sell them at all but they didn't lose any thing on the toy line's failure.

Fox did get a percentage of the toy sales, which ultimately didn't amount to much.

Both the studio and the toy company are on the hook for any potential sequels for the movie.