James Cameron says Avatar 2 will beat Endgame.

[Somecrazyaussie]

4DX was a really stupid idea. I do not want to go to a movie to have water sprayed in my face. Rather than bring you into a movie this foolish junk would take you out of what is happening in the story on screen.

Imagine if you are an elderly person and go in there to watch a film. Sitting down and watching a film and suddenly the chair starts tossing you about. That's why I am curious to see how they fare here in Australia. Its just to draw more kids to the cinemas. By the time mum buys a ticket for herself, dad and the two kids, and visited the candy bar, they easily run up a bill of $100 or more.

[Somecrazyaussie]

"Avatar" was a really bland retread of movies like "Ferngully" and "Dances With Wolves". It made a lot of money because it was phenomenally beautiful with ground-breaking special effects. Since then those effects have become commonplace. What's he going to do to move the bar again? Create literal holograms? We're getting close to the point where the limit isn't the tech, it's the human eye. Since the tech can only be improved by tiny increments at this point, he's left trying to tell a better story. I'm not sure he has it in him at this age.

He claims he has developed a camera that will revolutionize the way underwater filming is done. So that will be his selling point. Same as 3D was for Avatar. Although, in that case, he said it "needed" to be in 3D so it would make the most of the CGI shots. He also wanted audiences to feel "immersed" in the film.

[WebLurker]

The story is not really important in both franchises. What made the Jurassic movies so sucessful is the CGI that made the dinosaurs look so real. I doubt that the same movies with stop motion animation would have been as sucessfull.

Weird fact, out of the movie's 127 minutes, there's only about 20 minutes with dinosaurs in them (and most of that was practical effects). While I have no doubt that the master level-effects elevated the movie, it's more then just spectacle. The story and themes are important to it and the through line of the series.

With Avatar story it is the same. And already told more than a few times. Ferngully or dancing with wolves was already mentioned. And for one more example you could add Karl May stories to it^^.

Thing is, the Jurassic Park franchise has something interesting to say and takes its narrative to interesting places over the series.

[Beaddle]

Do not underestimate the power of the Mouse.

After the mess of Star Wars, the downcasting of how Marvel films are perceived. I am sure many directors and writers are going to start challenging Disney for creative freedom. James Cameron is already established. I don't see him bowing down to the Mouse's formula even as powerful as Disney is.

I don't even see any future Xmen, Planet of the Apes or Alien director bowing to the Mouse's formula, talk less of a person like James cameron. You ask me not to underestimate, I ask you to overestimate, at least when it concerns certain franchises Disney now owns that never needed their help and Avatar counts as one as long as Cameron stayed in the director's chair.

One thing I would say about James Cameron is that he loved the celebration of his art as much as he loved all the box office he was breaking. if you notice anytime Cameron makes news, he is either bashing or praising another movie's film making choices. He is extremely passionate about making big visual movies, where he wants to get all the credit.

James Cameron is going to need that creative freedom drive if Disney wants Avatar to make money for them

[Beaddle]

Even I just went and wanted to see the effects. I never ever saw it again on tv, because I know it has no effect (Buddys were all disappointed after the rental)

And I can't remember a character by name, only the actors names in it like Saldana, Worthington, Lang etc...

It was when Saldana blew up and became the Science fiction queen of this generation. she was in star trek that year, and then Avatar. this was pre GOTG and Avengers.

I still recognised her in Avatar though, I don't know how Cameron did those effects. it was a bigger film visual leap than what Peter Jackson was doing with Gollum/Andy Serkis in Lord of the Rings.

Spielberg is masterclass of a director but only James Cameron could do Avatar.

[WebLurker]

After the mess of Star Wars, the downcasting of how Marvel films are perceived. I am sure many directors and writers are going to start challenging Disney for creative freedom. James Cameron is already established. I don't see him bowing down to the Mouse's formula even as powerful as Disney is.

Marvel Studios has already been granting creative freedom to its directors and LucasFilm did give Rian Johnson, at least, plenty of freedom (and wanted to rehire him for other projects). James Cameron might not "give into" Disney, but who's to say that Disney will "give into" him if it came to that?

I don't even see any future Xmen, Planet of the Apes or Alien director bowing to the Mouse's formula, talk less of a person like James cameron. You ask me not to underestimate, I ask you to overestimate, at least when it concerns certain franchises Disney now owns that never needed their help and Avatar counts as one as long as Cameron stayed in the director's chair.

It has yet to be established that Disney needs Cameron. Heck, if anything, the exact opposite, at least as far as Avatar is concerned.

One thing I would say about James Cameron is that he loved the celebration of his art as much as he loved all the box office he was breaking. if you notice anytime Cameron makes news, he is either bashing or praising another movie's film making choices. He is extremely passionate about making big visual movies, where he wants to get all the credit.

James Cameron is going to need that creative freedom drive if Disney wants Avatar to make money for them

Disney could very well grant him that freedom; I mean, LucasFilm, Marvel Studios, and Pixar are very much left to do their own things.

[Gaastra]

He claims he has developed a camera that will revolutionize the way underwater filming is done. So that will be his selling point. Same as 3D was for Avatar. Although, in that case, he said it "needed" to be in 3D so it would make the most of the CGI shots. He also wanted audiences to feel "immersed" in the film.

3-D craze is dead. 3-D tvs crashed and burned, 3-D blu-rays are mostly getting released in uk and not in America as much, universal studies is removing 3-D from a few rides and dropped it from the fatf ride before it's release and Disney is making less 3-D rides also.

Most movie chains play less 3-D also. Not everyone can see 3-D and it adds $3 more to your ticket price. Don't see 3-D making a huge comeback again like it was. That fad is done.

As for underwater we just had aquaman and there's those titanic underwater 3-D films also. I'm sure this movie will make good money (Disney is aready promoting it with avatar on Disney plus ads) but i'm not excited over 3-D or underwater swimming. James needs more then that.

[WebLurker]

At the end of the day, the story is going to outlast the 3D; the former is what needs to be good to keep it relevant.

[Beaddle]

Marvel Studios has already been granting creative freedom to its directors and LucasFilm did give Rian Johnson, at least, plenty of freedom (and wanted to rehire him for other projects). James Cameron might not "give into" Disney, but who's to say that Disney will "give into" him if it came to that?

No big Disney movie has creative freedom compared to what other studios call creative freedom. Let's not argue the James Cameron Titanic or T2 movie would have been the exact same way, if it was made by Disney.

It has yet to be established that Disney needs Cameron. Heck, if anything, the exact opposite, at least as far as Avatar is concerned.

Before Disney bought fox, Disney had already approached Cameron to do an Avatar theme park. Cameron can go to any other studios if he wants. Disney will rather keep him because of his track record. Disney definitely needs him more than he needs them.

It really is a bummer that Disney bought Fox instead of fox buying warner brothers as originally planned as I think James Cameron type of film making is more fitted for Warner brothers. We obviously can't compare Warner brothers to Disney in terms of creative freedom.

Disney could very well grant him that freedom; I mean, LucasFilm, Marvel Studios, and Pixar are very much left to do their own things.

Marvel, Pixar and Lucas are one and the same. the new star wars film is spy kids meets avengers meets Pixar. I can't imagine any Cameron directed-written movie turning out like that. Cameron said he is shooting the Avatar sequels back to back. if he had already wrapped Avatar 2 before the fox-Disney merge was complete, chances are Disney would not have much influence on the movie, its Avatar 3 and 4 that Disney would be interested in influencing.

3-D craze is dead. 3-D tvs crashed and burned, 3-D blu-rays are mostly getting released in uk and not in America as much, universal studies is removing 3-D from a few rides and dropped it from the fatf ride before it's release and Disney is making less 3-D rides also.

Most movie chains play less 3-D also. Not everyone can see 3-D and it adds $3 more to your ticket price. Don't see 3-D making a huge comeback again like it was. That fad is done.

As for underwater we just had aquaman and there's those titanic underwater 3-D films also. I'm sure this movie will make good money (Disney is aready promoting it with avatar on Disney plus ads) but i'm not excited over 3-D or underwater swimming. James needs more then that.

James Cameron so far has not told us much about the new Avatar movie. we have not seen any on set pictures of the actors. We don't even know if he is using the 3D we are familiar with.

[Arfguy]

Personally, I love the competitive nature of Cameron. Avatar is awesome and I try to watch that movie as often as I can. I just watched Aliens two nights ago and man does he know how to pace movies.

Very curious to see what Avatar 2 looks like.

[Beaddle]

Personally, I love the competitive nature of Cameron. Avatar is awesome and I try to watch that movie as often as I can. I just watched Aliens two nights ago and man does he know how to pace movies.

Very curious to see what Avatar 2 looks like.

I agree on its competitive nature, some do see it as arogant and at times egoistical, Kate Winset said he was too much of a perfectionist during titanic, but he loves the magic of movie making, he loves films, he loves how he can push the limits of film imagination. That is what drives him and it reflects on his films. I think Disney should see it as a blessing Cameron made movies under Fox and now they can use him as a director, regardless of Avatar 2 beating endgame or not, I hope Disney does not waste his talents.

[Arfguy]

I agree on its competitive nature, some do see it as arogant and at times egoistical, Kate Winset said he was too much of a perfectionist during titanic, but he loves the magic of movie making, he loves films, he loves how he can push the limits of film imagination. That is what drives him and it reflects on his films. I think Disney should see it as a blessing Cameron made movies under Fox and now they can use him as a director, regardless of Avatar 2 beating endgame or not, I hope Disney does not waste his talents.

Agreed. I would like to see James Cameron really try and bring more new things. I see Christopher Nolan trying to do new things and I hope more film makers tries doing that. Honestly, I am not very interested in a lot of the stuff that Disney has coming up next, as I think they've gotten complacent.

[GozertheGozarian]

Personally, I love the competitive nature of Cameron. Avatar is awesome and I try to watch that movie as often as I can. I just watched Aliens two nights ago and man does he know how to pace movies.

Very curious to see what Avatar 2 looks like.

Where's that Scanners gif when you need it?

[WebLurker]

No big Disney movie has creative freedom compared to what other studios call creative freedom. Let's not argue the James Cameron Titanic or T2 movie would have been the exact same way, if it was made by Disney.

No movie would be exactly the same if a different studio made it. Different people would get involved, leading to different creative decisions, etc.

Before Disney bought fox, Disney had already approached Cameron to do an Avatar theme park.

Like they did with LucasFilm for Star Tours?

Cameron can go to any other studios if he wants. Disney will rather keep him because of his track record.

Maybe, maybe not. While it would make sense that working with him would be agreeable to Disney, I suspect that the bottom line would be what they want for their lineup of products and if working with Cameron helps that or not. I mean, while no company turns down a money-making deal, they do chose which money-making deals they take.

Disney definitely needs him more than he needs them.

I think you're grossly exaggerating Cameron's value; he's a successful filmmaker. Disney is a mega company that owns some of the most valuable IPs in the market, both in terms of monetary value and popularity with customers. They do not need Cameron at all; they have far more brand recognition and brand loyalty then he will ever have and run multiple franchises equal to his career. If Avatar fails as a franchise, Disney can cut the losses and be fine.

It really is a bummer that Disney bought Fox instead of fox buying warner brothers as originally planned as I think James Cameron type of film making is more fitted for Warner brothers. We obviously can't compare Warner brothers to Disney in terms of creative freedom.

Maybe?

Marvel, Pixar and Lucas are one and the same. the new star wars film is spy kids meets avengers meets Pixar. I can't imagine any Cameron directed-written movie turning out like that.

So you've told me before.

Cameron said he is shooting the Avatar sequels back to back. if he had already wrapped Avatar 2 before the fox-Disney merge was complete, chances are Disney would not have much influence on the movie, its Avatar 3 and 4 that Disney would be interested in influencing.

Maybe. It would also be 3 and 4 that Disney would have the power to cancel if the first two fail at the box office.

[Midvillian1322]

No movie would be exactly the same if a different studio made it. Different people would get involved, leading to different creative decisions, etc.



Like they did with LucasFilm for Star Tours?



Maybe, maybe not. While it would make sense that working with him would be agreeable to Disney, I suspect that the bottom line would be what they want for their lineup of products and if working with Cameron helps that or not. I mean, while no company turns down a money-making deal, they do chose which money-making deals they take.



I think you're grossly exaggerating Cameron's value; he's a successful filmmaker. Disney is a mega company that owns some of the most valuable IPs in the market, both in terms of monetary value and popularity with customers. They do not need Cameron at all; they have far more brand recognition and brand loyalty then he will ever have and run multiple franchises equal to his career. If Avatar fails as a franchise, Disney can cut the losses and be fine.



Maybe?



So you've told me before.



Maybe. It would also be 3 and 4 that Disney would have the power to cancel if the first two fail at the box office.

The bigger the budget the less freedom a director gets. James Cameron as a producer has some duds but a film that is all his so far is almost a guarentee hit. So hes earned more Freedom. But one flop and that can all change.

But WBs and Fox get hit with just as much or even more claims of studio meddling. For example if your gonna work for Feige on a Marvel movie there are certain guidelines you get going in. But if your ok with the guidelines it seems like most directors Love working for Marvel post Perlmutter. Gunn,Waititi, and Coogler can do any films they want. Gunn already got another franchise for Wbs. But they love making these movies so they came back for more. They dont need the MCU anymore and Iono about Waititi but Gunn and Coogler were not contractually obligated for another movie. Coogler was clear it might be a one and done and Gunn was fired and chose to come back. But in WB and Foxs case they have multiple issues with the studio meddling with a finished film. Trank and Snyder being the most egregious cases of that. I understand why the studio did it with those films but I feel like once you hire the director to execute a vision and hes filming... let then execute that vision, if you have no faith in it then don't let them do it in the first place.