Show of hands: Who here was asking for 4 sequels to James Cameron's "Avatar"?

[HardcoreD&Dgirl]

I always imagined that the whole planet was really a ship. the 'Gaia force' was the computer and them jacking in and activating defenses...

[Alent]

I would ask for it if only for

Avatar 2 : "Word gets back to the Imperium of Mankind"

Avatar 3 : "Na'vii Make good Tyranid food"

Avatar 4 : "Lets get us some blue cat girl slaves to sacrifice to Slannnesh so he doesn't eat our souls

Avatar 5 : "WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGHHHHHHHH!" (BLUE ONES SQUISH GOOD!)

I have to admit, I almost called it "Dancing with Spacewolves", and then realized the obvious and only logical place that could go.

[ryuplaneswalker]

I have to admit, I almost called it "Dancing with Spacewolves", and then realized the obvious and only logical place that could go.

There is a joke in here somewhere about Lensman Russ, the Spacewolf Gene Seed..and him being a Furry.

[The Fury]

*spittakes coffee*

That was exactly the reaction that I was hoping for!

[SaintRidley]

I'm interested. If nothing else, it will be gorgeous. And that's really all I cared about with the first - it was visually arresting in a way I'd never experienced in a movie before.

I have to admit, I almost called it "Dancing with Spacewolves", and then realized the obvious and only logical place that could go.

A Na'vi Werespacewolf in London.

[Knaight]

I'm expecting it to be mediocre at best, but that just makes it one more movie to ignore. It's not advancing some obnoxious agenda, it's probably going to push some of the technical stuff which will then allow other movies to benefit later, and if it ends up successful (which I expect it will) it will also signal to the industry that science fiction and space opera are viable again - although I suspect that we're already seeing a trend towards it, between the reboots of Star Wars, the reboots of Star Trek, and The Martian.

[GloatingSwine]

Sounds a bit like Terminator 2. Well, that should be easy for him to make!

It's all but custom written for Cameron, cyborgs, mechanical fetishism (even in Titanic we get long pans of steamer engines to satisfy that), kickass female lead, and he's owned the film rights to it since what, '99?



* Or George Miller. There's a lot of Mad Max influence in the manga, with bits of Sin City thrown in for good measure. (There's a side story where Yukito Kishiro basically wholesale reproduces Frank Miller's stark black and white style from Sin City).

[Aotrs Commander]

On topic, the only thing I'd really like to see set in the same setting as Avatar is a speculative/fiction documentary like 'the Future is Wild', 'Walking with Monsters' or 'Walking with Dinosaurs'. I'd like to see an exploration of the behavior and food chain of the wildlife of Pandora rather than bother poking around the rather dull cat people again, the ecosystem has a much greater potential for interesting stories than they do.

They'd have to make 'em move right first...

I'd be far more interested in seeing that (like, I'd be interested in seeing it, like, at all), though.

[Sam113097]

I feel like James Cameron has missed any chance of capitalizing on the success of the first film... it'll be almost 10 years between Avatar and Avatar 2. Despite the film's great visuals, it lacked depth, and it really hasn't left that large of a mark on pop culture for how much money it made.

[Alent]

There is a joke in here somewhere about Lensman Russ, the Spacewolf Gene Seed..and him being a Furry.

Nah, only Men can wield Arisia's Lens. *ducks*

[Giggling Ghast]

What's the overlap between W40K and Avatar again? I know there's some basis for the "suffer not the alien to live" jokes.

[Alent]

What's the overlap between W40K and Avatar again? I know there's some basis for the "suffer not the alien to live" jokes.

The human forces are PMCs, but they appear to largely be former US Marine Corps guys... in space. This opens the door for Space Marines jokes hence the slippery slope into 40k humor.

[The Glyphstone]

What's the overlap between W40K and Avatar again? I know there's some basis for the "suffer not the alien to live" jokes.

That's...pretty much it, really. Humans traveling to an alien planet to kill them and take their stuff.

[DataNinja]

That's...pretty much it, really. Humans traveling to an alien planet to kill them and take their stuff.

That sounds like every space-based RPG campaign ever.

[Legato Endless]

That sounds like every space-based RPG campaign ever.

No! Sometimes...the aliens come to us?

[GreatWyrmGold]

This thread was about one-quarter bashing Avatar, one-quarter rational points against Avatar sequels, and one-half cheesy-yet-funny comments. I can't think of any of the last and don't want to join in the first*, so I'll do the one in the middle.

Loosely speaking, there are four kinds of movie plots:
1. The plots which are left unfinished, to be resolved in sequels. E.g: Star Wars V.
2. The plots which have some plot threads dangling—enough to make a sequel and have it feel like it's directly connected—but which resolves of them to feel like it came to a conclusion, letting the movie stand on its own. E.g: Star Wars IV.
3. The plots which more or less wrap themselves up at the end. E.g: Star Wars VI.
3b. Plots like 3 but with a sequel hook tacked on just in case the film succeeds.
4. The plots which wrap themselves up at the end, but the resolution itself generates the seed of sequels. I can't think of any movies like that, but Worm qualifies.

Avatar is definitely Type 3, as are many great films*. (It's hard to make a solid narrative while leaving major conflicts hanging.) This is the source of many poor sequels. Ice Age, for instance, was a solid movie, where the three protagonists (well, Manny and Diego at least) went through significant character development and changed over the course of the film; at the end, they had learned from and grown through their experiences. It wasn't perfect, but it was pretty good...but there wasn't anything to build a sequel on. After all, a lot of what made Ice Age such an enjoyable movie is that growth and change...but it's hard to replicate that sort of feeling with the same characters. The Ice Age sequels were worse in my opinion, and objectively different, because they couldn't feature that same sort of change.
The same is true of non-character-driven plots. The Maximum Ride books are an example. The initial trilogy is structured much the same as the original Star Wars trilogy—one book which stands on its own, one book which takes threads left unanswered from the first to build a plot, and one to conclude that plot. Then another book tried to prolong that conflict by introducing remnants of the Big Bad's organization, then another introduced a new Big-Bad-of-the-Book, then another introduced a Marty Stu love interest, then another book or two came out. The books weren't really tied together the way the first trilogy was, and the more disjointed plot didn't hold up so well. (In my opinion.)
Avatar didn't have as much character growth or whatnot, but it definitely had conflict. Like the initial Maximum Ride trilogy, Avatar's plot was wrapped up pretty well in the one movie, and like Maximum Ride, I can see them prolonging that conflict to an extent. Also like Maximum Ride, I expect a degradation in quality over several sequels, but unlike Maximum Ride, there wasn't a lot of quality in plot or characters to begin with.

*Which isn't to say I like Avatar. It's a shallow blockbuster with unusually consistent alien wildlife, that's about it.

[ryuplaneswalker]

What's the overlap between W40K and Avatar again? I know there's some basis for the "suffer not the alien to live" jokes.

It is in space, and has Humans killing Xenos, you needed more?

[Legato Endless]

Avatar is definitely Type 3, as are many great films*. (It's hard to make a solid narrative while leaving major conflicts hanging.) This is the source of many poor sequels.

This is all excellent, but in fairness to Cameron, he has made sequels to films that didn't require any before and succeeded triumphantly. It's a bad practice, but there is the rare exception. Terminator 2 thematically contradicts Terminator 1 pretty resolutely and completely changes the way it's internal mechanics work, enough that fans going forward have a popular sport of attempting unifying theories for the franchise. But it's also one of the most popular action films of all time. Examining and deconstructing the pantheistic utopia of Pandora might give you a decent sci-fi yarn if framed obliquely enough. Avatar isn't supposed to be subtle so...what happens when the biological supercomputer controlling your world starts to go crazy?

[Forum Explorer]

I feel like James Cameron has missed any chance of capitalizing on the success of the first film... it'll be almost 10 years between Avatar and Avatar 2. Despite the film's great visuals, it lacked depth, and it really hasn't left that large of a mark on pop culture for how much money it made.

That's a good thing IMO. Any sequel will have to stand on it's own merits instead. As for Avatar, it was an alright movie. Not spectacular or favorite movie of all time, but I wouldn't turn it away if someone hadn't seen it for the first time. Though maybe my tolerance for it is because I've never seen Dances with Wolves. Though for all the complaints about the humans being idiots, I'm afraid that it isn't anything I haven't seen before (People really are that stupid).

Anyways, a sequel to Avatar? Sure, I'll give it a shot. Cameron has enough goodwill (he generally does a decent to good job), that I'll watch a sequel to a mediocre film. 4 sequels? Well that's kinda a WTF moment, but now I'm genuinely curious to see what he's planning to justify so many films.

[Wookieetank]

Number of times I've seen Avatar:1, number of times I want to re-watch it:0, amount of interest in the sequels: none. We really didn't need another Fern Gully/Pocahontas film (both of which I feel covered the same material better), let alone 4 more sequels of a cheap knockoff. Maybe I'm just picky, but shiny movies for the sake of shininess has never interested me. Main reason why SW:AotC is the single least watched SW movie by me, all flash and no substance a poor movie makes.

[Yora]

I'm just had rather sad thought, that Avatar 5 could actually be a reboot.

I thought it jokingly, but...

[Kitten Champion]

On the plus side, Jai Courtney would make a better Jake Sully than Kyle Reese.

[Reddish Mage]

Number of times I've seen Avatar:1, number of times I want to re-watch it:0, amount of interest in the sequels: none. We really didn't need another Fern Gully/Pocahontas film (both of which I feel covered the same material better), let alone 4 more sequels of a cheap knockoff. Maybe I'm just picky, but shiny movies for the sake of shininess has never interested me. Main reason why SW:AotC is the single least watched SW movie by me, all flash and no substance a poor movie makes.

You had to go to the Star Wars movie no one noticed existed to pick a bad movie? Picking on Attack of the Clones is like picking on a toddler in crutches, pick on a REAL movie that's all flash and no substance, and for extra measure you have a sequel to toss around:

I propose the most deserving movie of the "all flash no substance" label ever: INDEPENDENCE DAY!

[Donnadogsoth]

I propose the most deserving movie of the "all flash no substance" label ever: INDEPENDENCE DAY!

It's stinkin' it up with the worst of 'em, but you have to hand to it the sheer title and associated titular concept, which was as good a concept as that of Battlestar Galactica.

[The Glyphstone]

Hey. ID is not a GOOD movie, but it can be a damn FUN movie, which things like AotC can't even live up to.

[Lacuna Caster]

I appear to have wandered into the wrong crowd...

We could have been getting Battle Angel, but then Avatar happened.

That does sadden me a little. Apparently, Cameron feels it's more important to focus on the Avatar series because of the environmental subtext, whereas Alita is 'just' a 'kickass story'*.

I actually really enjoyed Avatar, partly on the basis of sheer craftsmanship, and partly because of sympathy for the agenda, but I honestly had no complaints about the narrative**. As I understand it, the initial sequel is supposed to involve deep-sea ecology of some kind, and Quaritch/Augustine are slated to make an appearance.

I think there's definitely room for a sequel, and it'd be interesting to see how the looming threat of terrestrial retaliation is handled. (Going by Terminator 2, Cameron does seem capable of moral nuance, so some delving into Na'vi politics might still happen.)

* I'd disagree, btw- Battle Angel has a good deal of commentary on the setting's divide between rich and poor as exacerbated by transhuman science, which is hardly the least relevant of modern-day political topics. But that's another discussion.

** There's nothing original about it, of course, but given that audiences flocked in droves to see Force Awakens, I don't know where this complaint is coming from.

[Legato Endless]

Hey. ID is not a GOOD movie, but it can be a damn FUN movie, which things like AotC can't even live up to.

If we're making this a contest, I'd enter Green Lantern as duller and shallower than either.

[Lethologica]

** There's nothing original about it, of course, but given that audiences flocked in droves to see Force Awakens, I don't know where this complaint is coming from.

Head over to the TFA thread for analogous complaints. Agree or disagree with the complaint, it's consistent between those movies.

[warty goblin]

Hey. ID is not a GOOD movie, but it can be a damn FUN movie, which things like AotC can't even live up to.

I for one quite like Attack of the Clones. It fulfills what is to my mind the greatest mandate of any Star Wars movie; have some cool looking weird stuff and some explosions. Plus it's chockablock full of a really 1950s pulp vibe that I totally dig. Clones vs droids! An arena execution! Insectoid aliens! Bounty Hunters! I'm a simple man, these things make me happy.

I appear to have wandered into the wrong crowd...


That does sadden me a little. Apparently, Cameron feels it's more important to focus on the Avatar series because of the environmental subtext, whereas Alita is 'just' a 'kickass story'*.

I actually really enjoyed Avatar, partly on the basis of sheer craftsmanship, and partly because of sympathy for the agenda, but I honestly had no complaints about the narrative**. As I understand it, the initial sequel is supposed to involve deep-sea ecology of some kind, and Quaritch/Augustine are slated to make an appearance.

Wait, you mean I'm not the only person who will actually stand up for liking Avatar in public? Well met, good poster!

[Lacuna Caster]

I actually did kinda hate TFA, partly on the basis of how utterly colour-by-numbers it felt. I don't know if that's just internal bias, but with the possible exception of Empire SW was never my thing.

I propose the most deserving movie of the "all flash no substance" label ever: INDEPENDENCE DAY!

Oh, while we're on this topic- Lindsay Ellis already did a thorough dissection: Basically, ID actually does have a substantive structure in terms of plot development and character arc- it's just formulaic, politically vacuous and propped up by CGI explosms.