James Cameron On Making Avatar 2 Visually Superior To The Original!

Yeah, James, because these things are so much more important than a decent, original story and well developed, non-cliche characters.

@tea i'm with you bro couldnt understand nothin


arse lol i love that word

Matches and Ron- Your words are like butter to my eyes...

Cybertron in 3D
The Best

I enjoyed the HECK out of avatar, so **** the haters!

Im with Lee and Spiderneil.... I cant wait for Avatar... I fyou didnt get it you must be retarted or something. They explain everything throughout the movie. 2.7 billion??? He did something right...

@DAHAMMA: yes, it has haters.... a lot of people saw through the thin plot and recognized the sci-fi version of "Pocahontas In Space" theme. It's a great visual movie due to the effects and cutting edge cgi, but all in all - does it really need a sequel? For me, the story was actually DONE once the movie ended. No need to continue beyond it. Some "masterpieces" don't need a sequel, they're better off standing alone. Take the Matrix Trilogy for example... the first was the BEST of the three movies and it ended not really needing the other two except for fan clamors. The story itself was finished at the end of the movie when Keanu flew. The same could be argued for Cameron's Avatar after Jake became a permanent Navi, it was practically HIS story after it ended. Rarely do sequels ever top the first one.

I hated Avatar. Why in hellfire is it talked about on this site? Last time I checked, it didn't come from comic books...

And shooting at 24 frames per second gives a film a dream-like quality. It is what people are used to. It is what their eyes tell them is right. If you pop it to 60fps, people won't like it and they will have no idea why they don't.

you know...besides the fact that Avatar sucks.

can't wait for the movie!! really looking forward too it!

phenomenon- Visual effects oriented films don't need a "deep" storyline. But it's not a crime to want a good yet simple one with details that make it seem original ON TOP OF those wonderful special effects. Those films you mentionned had that. Avatar didn't. Avatar had everything going for it and Cameron decided not to give a second thought to the plot and it's details. And it showed. Hell, the entire movie was filled beyond the brim with effects that felt like they were shoved in our faces just so we wouldn't notice how unoriginal and uninspiring the plot, characters and situations were. It doesn't make it a "bad" film, but it sure makes it qualify for the pile of films that "could have been better".

And no, Avatar doesn't "need" a sequel. It ended quite well in the first. You might "want" a sequel because the film's effects wowed you like none other, but the film/plot doesn't require one. Hell, if the effects is the only thing that sold you the movie, why the hell would you even want a sequel? Wouldn't just any effect heavy Cameron film satisfy you? So he could literally just leave his Avatar film on the pedestal that it's on and move on to a better/more original/just as effect heavy/brand new concept, no? You wouldn't NEED to see what ever happened to the characters of the first film after the first film so why bother? Just make a film called "Pandora", which just happens to be the same planet Avatar was on, with a brand new story about a brand new species or whatever. If his sequel is directly linked to his previous characters and plot, all that Cameron would be doing is trying to milk his cow dry. And old milk is never as tasty as the first squirt.

TurdFergunson- So everyone that didn't find the movie all that good, stands... alone? You do realise that Avatar made all that money on account of the special effects and the higher ticket prices of 3D right? And so far, from what i can see on here, everyone that complained about the plot actually did enjoy the special effects. So i just... i just don't get your comment at all. Because it made all that money as a special effects extravaganza, we should've liked the plot... or else, we all stand alone?

dragonking555- That is a great point. Cameron is the undisputed king of sequels. He just might be able to give us a way better film than the first Avatar. Which shouldn't be that hard really.

ha. its ok, i see how you can take my comment misleading.

Basically in not so many words (and numbers) i was trying to state that even thou this movie made a ton of cash it is hard to say that it just basically sucked. now if you target the story line, plot, characters and then separate them from the special effects, and all the fancy 3D stuff then comment on those aspects then YES, @Shaman and @Tea have legit debates.

So my reasoning is not saying to love it cause it makes a lot of money, I was saying if you didn't like it, then based on the cash it made you may be one of many few that didn't like it.

Unless you can say other wise, I can't recall a movie that sucked and still make over 2 billion dollars. Most the time if the film sucks then it dies on the screen

The only thing going for Avatar was the "VISUAL" stand point. It comes even from the horse's mouth judging from what he said alone: everything is about the visual experience. He says NOTHING about the story, etc. When it comes to the sequel, he says he wants to raise the bar off of the first one on the sequel VISUALLY... hey, it's entertainment, I agree... but if you're trying to look for something originally profound in the story: forget it.

The visual effects is what won Avatar its accolades.... never the story. It doesn't need a sequel. Too many people wasted money watching it over and over the theaters when simply doing it over and over the dvd/blu-ray was more sensible and cost-effective.

There are those minorities who didn't like the movie for what it was when it came to story were the smarter part of the spectrum: they KNOW that a good story can still sometimes trump the visual aspect when done intelligently. A GOOD COMPELLING story can take a visually great movie beyond even its supposed greatness. That's what is supposed to stay with you after you leave the theaters or after you finish the disk... it happened to me, I left the theater saying that the movie LOOKED great... but as for the story? I'd say "huh?"

LoganX35@ for some1 critical, you need to spell better. No matter what Cameron says, the basic gist was still "Pocahontas in Space". The whole plot was weak and the movie rode on the visual effects monster that it was.

MeanMachineAngel@ You're out of luck on the sequel story. According to the topic above, he was more concerned with the visual presentation aspect of the coming film if you read between the lines. It's gonna be another visual-fest while the story gets left behind.

LOL@ Indeed, the story was forgettable, all I remembered that that it looked awesome and that's it.

and ehhh tea...... you're wite.... small penis..... and english can't play football...... lol.... sorry buddy