James Cameron’s AVATAR was certainly pretty to look at. But aside from grand visuals and my strange attraction to Blue Cat Saldana, there wasn’t much meat on them bones. The film has its fair share of detractors and defenders, but at the end of the day it’s the money that talks. So too does Sigourney Weaver, who confirms three more films to Showbiz411, all with the intention of shooting back-to-back-to-back apparently:
Sigourney Weaver confirmed tonight that James Cameron is shooting “Avatar” 2, 3, and 4 all at the same time, all with her, and starting this fall.
When “Political Animals” finishes shooting, see if you can follow Weaver’s schedule: she goes right into a new Christopher Durang play for a short run at Lincoln Center. Then she films “Avatar” 2, 3, and 4 with James Cameron. That’s right: they’re making three sequels to the blue 3D phenom all at the same time. Weaver says she has no idea how long it will take, or how it’s going to work. “I just show up,” she said.
Cameron seems keen to make these, so I don’t doubt Ms. Weaver for a second. Still, three films is a daunting commitment for all involved. I’m highly suspicious that we’ll ever see a fourth AVATAR film in theatres, if for nothing else the zeitgeist that was the original hasn’t endured. There’ll be asses in seats no doubt, but assuming that an audience will stay with you for not one, not two, but three more films is ballsy. Not that there isn’t precedent, but for every Harry Potter there are roughly two Percy Jacksons. Not only are theatergoers asked to endure approximately 10 more hours of AVATAR, they’re also prompted to pay the ever-increasing ticket premium to do so. For anyone watching the current 3D trend slowly falter, this news flies in the face of that.
If anyone can pull it off, it’s James Cameron. And it’s hard to argue that AVATAR didn’t capture the popular consciousness like few films before. It just didn’t capture it for very long.
20 comments
Identifying zeitgeist is a keen observation. The reason why the first film was popular because it was apart of a “moment” that would be hard to reproduce. Same as with Titanic and why that film only worked at that particular moment. Cameron has little to do with these successes and is actually just lucky( sorry, truth hurts). The reason why Cameron has had such a good track record is because he has a low output- once that changes the odds are probably not in his favor so much.
I still just don’t understand where he could take this story…More adventures of Sully as a blue man? Boring. Space marines come back in full force? Boring and obvious.
I just don’t think there’s enough in the first one to warrant even a sequel. I certainly didn’t enjoy this blatant Dances With Wolves in Space ripoff as much as most, but visually I don’t think there’s a more ambitious director out there. This isn’t Terminator James, come to your senses and bring us something different that makes full use of your talents and stop trying to cash in on this surprisingly unoriginal entry.
Doesn’t say much for popular conciousness.
So…Weaver’s character is coming back as part of the Tree of Souls? And really, unless something spectacular is done via creature and environmental concepts, this doesn’t excite me. Hell, “Avatar” didn’t really excite me, either.
I say this without an ounce of sarcasm. This was the worst movie I can ever recall seeing. I hated it more than anything, ever, and with white-hot passion. If I was elected King of the World, I would round up every existing copy and destroy it.
yeah, its just luck that he has the biggest grossing movie of all time then tops that again. that sounds right
Actually, weren’t these supposed to be prequels? Or they were supposed to take place on different moons or…whatever. I forget all the various rumors that have flitted around about these, though if Weaver is back it may well be that the Prequel bits are true.
Obviously you haven’t seen any Tyler Perry turds…. Avatar was not that bad, if I was 12 it would of been the best shit I’d ever seen, next to GI JOE. Unuptanium?? thats brilliant…….
If I were King of the World, I’d make Cameron shoot a short epilogue to the first film where a familiar horseshoe-shaped ship lands, dumps thousands of eggs, and then leaves. Fast forward two years, and the planet is totally covered in gray/black resin. The end.
Well of course. I am sure you are a Cameron addict or something like that, but the what this actually looks like is just luck. The zeitgeist was tapped into at jus the right time and these films took off. But it is doubtful that it would work as well again. If Titanic was released in the summer of 97 it would certainly have not become as big of a hit, nor would Avatar. Also, if one looks at the culture surrounding these films, outside of the actual filmaking-Cameron’s impact is very small. Titanic was a big hit mainly because of the song and the chemistry of the leads-not the almost absurd budget busting recreation of a boat( although it did not hurt). Avatar was popular because it is a “moment” or an “event”, that people surrounded around-but, today people seem to care little at all about the film( when compared to something like The Dark Knight, which is still on the cultural radar or ( I regretfully say) the Avengers-which will still be on the radar in a few years). The hard truth is that Cameron got lucky and did not create something truly lasting in either works. It happens-just ask a filmaker by the name of Robert Wise. Although, West Side Story and The Sound of Music where well made for their time and certainly have maintained- Wise has little to do with their success and box office record breaking-both just tapped into a cultural zeitgeist the propelled them- for Wise this was just luck. it is much different then say Coppola’s impact on the Godfather or even( sigh) Lucas’ impact on Star Wars. So, luck in the marketplace and in cultural can just happen-sorry.
What a bunch of cynics on this site lately. Hey I didn’t think Avatar was exactly the bees knees, but I enjoyed it quite a bit, regardless of the Dances with Blue Cats comparisons. I say bring on the sequels, I will see every one of them, and likely in 3D, and you know you all will too. It’s become very hip to poo-poo all over Avatar, but this series (if you want to call it that) is all about world building at this point. I, for one, am very interested in the direction Cameron and Co. take these characters.
AVATAR was a well-made, extremely derivative adventure film. In a world where TRANSFORMERS 2 exists, I can’t imagine calling AVATAR the worst of anything.
Advice: watch more movies.
I don’t think it’s being “hip” to criticize a movie that spent a bazillion dollars on (admitedly stunning) visuals, but only $5,000 or so on the script. I actually enjoyed the movie as a mindless way to spend 2 or so hours, but I honestly don’t need to see any more of it. It’s a lot like Prometheus, only I didn’t enjoy Prometheus.
I don’t really want to comment about these three films since I don’t care and don’t really think they should be made as Avatar was okay not great as a standalone film, and will only get worse in my opinion as it goes along ala The Matrix.
I just want to say I loved the Requiem of a Dream reference really made me laugh thinking of that movie being mashed up with the naavi and there world would be amazing why can’t that movie be I’d totally see that instead!
, , , . . . ?
I had some spare punctuation in my pocket and thought you might be short. You’re welcome.
If Stephen Lang and/or Michael Biehn or Bill Paxton don’t show up anywhere in these, then fuck that blue shit.
”Well of course. I am sure you are a Cameron addict or something like that,” Thanks for the ad hominem. Now shut up. I don’t happen to care much for the two aforementioned highest grossing movies of all time. Here’s my ad hom in return. You’re an internet nobody who is trying to strip a talented film maker of credit for the financial success of his films. THAT’S PATHETIC. Now quit posting.
Today I learned that “zeitgeist” means “projecting my personal feelings onto the audience”. Fun fact!
Ad hominem? Give me a break. I never said that he was not in some way responsible for the financial success of his films, my point is that the reason why they are successful has more to do with timing then his participation. You are an idiot if you believe that Cameron alone is responsible for these grosses.
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.