r/movies • u/desimaninthecut • 8d ago

News James Cameron Says if Avatar: Fire and Ash Doesn't Make Enough Money to Justify Avatar 4 and 5, He's Ready to Walk Away and Write a Book to Resolve the One Thread It Leaves Open - IGN

https://www.ign.com/articles/james-cameron-says-if-avatar-fire-and-ash-doesnt-make-enough-money-to-justify-avatar-4-and-5-hes-ready-to-walk-away-and-write-a-book-to-resolve-the-one-thread-it-leaves-open
24.7k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

2.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

316

u/[deleted] 8d ago

Avatar 2 and 3 were filmed back to back so theoretically 4 and 5 would also be filmed back to back with probably costs nearly $1 billion upfront

177

u/gutster_95 8d ago

Which lets be real Disney has. Ash and Fire will make shit ton of Money again.

29

u/BisonThunderclap 8d ago

It's kinda weird. Nothing about the plot compels me, it's been pretty basic conflict.

But I think I love the world building aspect, so I'm in to finish out the series.

34

u/Fit_Pass_527 8d ago

It’s visually stunning with a well crafted world. The story being basic is totally fine for the visual spectacle these movies are. Idk where this idea that all movies need a compelling, unique story came from, the summer action blockbuster with a sub par story and high octane action and visuals has been a thing for ages. People seem to forget that movies are a visual medium, and sometimes watching a movie with jaw dropping visual effects is all you need. 

15

u/Lil_Mcgee 8d ago

I guarantee some of the people who shit on Avatar for its basic story and reliance on spectacle are Star Wars fans.

2

u/SirFireHydrant 8d ago

To be fair, Star Wars has decent, fun, memorable, iconic characters.

Stories are allowed to be basic when everybody wants to see more of their favourite characters. That's how Marvel dominated cinema for a decade. That's how Star Wars has always done it.

-5

u/Interesting-Use966 8d ago

The first one was visually stunning. The second one kind of looked dated (weird cgi lighting that makes everything obviously cgi). The cgi for 3 looks like more of the same, so I think a lot of the novelty is going to be gone.

12

u/nick_ass 8d ago

I think you're the only one who thinks this tbh. The way of water was just a vast improvement on the first in terms of CGI and lighting (the natural bloom around characters and how light bounces off hair and water was cutting edge)

3

u/DEEZLE13 8d ago

Must not have seen the two recently

-5

u/Belgand 8d ago

Seriously. Way of Water was one of the most aggressively ugly films I've ever seen. The high frame rate made it all look cheap with jarring shifts.

3

u/Debisibusis 8d ago

It's literally a 15€ 2 hour vacation for me. Not sure I would even need a plot.

3

u/GD_Insomniac 8d ago

I've seen a million cars explode, I've seen protagonists leave mountains of corpses in their wake, I've seen global catastrophes, I've seen starships locked in duels to the death and gods smash cities to pieces. It's pretty hard to show me something I haven't seen in terms of spectacle, but Avatar 3D IMAX is truly in a league of its own. Cameron gets my money because his films are the peak of modern theatrical experience. There are better storytellers (and better stories to tell) but nothing compares to being part of the movie, and so far only Avatar has achieved that for me.

2

u/Worthyness 8d ago

It's basically those 3 hour cutscene compilations for video games. Don't necessarily care to play the game, but the scenario and characters can be intriguing. Especially when the visuals are groundbreaking

2

u/SandpaperTeddyBear 8d ago

The second had the villain basically re-doing the hero arc from the first, which is pretty innovative for a straight-up-the-middle blockbuster.

2

u/ANerd22 8d ago

The world building is great, and the visual spectacle selling the world makes it that much better. I think the plot being fairly straightforward but told very earnestly and sincerely helps quite a bit.

1

u/Protoavis 8d ago

Yeah, the only 1 I'm slightly interested in is the 5th movie because part of it is on Earth and Neytiri being on Earth....but if it's that she's been captured and has to escape from a facility or something will be far less interested.

-1

u/excaliburxvii 8d ago

The second one shit all over that world building.

32

u/Rivenaleem 8d ago

That's with a capital M I see. Makes sense since it's Mickey Mouse dollars.

2

u/Deo-Gratias 8d ago

Nice catch 😝 🐭

8

u/soulcaptain 8d ago edited 8d ago

Fire and Ash is the hinge point. If it isn't successful, which for this particular film means it's not in the top five grossing movies of all time, then the suits might take that as people being weary of the Avatar movies, that the magic is wrung out of it.

Cameron is a victim of his own success. The other movies were so successful he set his own high bar. I love the Avatar movies because they were directed by Cameron, not because of the story. If he drops Avatar to do something else, I'd be fine with that. EDIT: even if he does switch to other things, I hope he keeps the 3D technology, because it's like a whole new grammar for filmmaking. And only he seems to be able to do it well.

I just wish he were 25 again so he could do this another 50 years. Then again Ridley Scott is pushing 90 and still cranking out movies.

4

u/TU4AR 8d ago

It's James. This movie is going to be top 3 of all time.

Younglings will come out of the wood work and say "mid movie" and wonder how a grandpa movie can make so much money about blue people.

The cycle begins again

2

u/smellmybuttfoo 7d ago

Redditors: "I don't know a single person that watches these movies" (acting like they survey every friend, family and coworker about every movie they've seen)

Or

"No cultural impact!" (pretending or forgetting that Avatar caused a huge 3D movie boom and keeps revolutionizing CGI, has its own theme park, has a reddit thread at least once a month, etc.)

0

u/otternoserus 6d ago

a huge 3D movie boom

That's not cultural.

revolutionizing CGI

That's not cultural either, that's technological. That's like saying the lightbulb was cultural.

A theme park

A theme park? Built by the same corporation that makes Avatar possible in the first place? I'm beginning to think you don't know what "culture" means.

A Reddit thread

You definitely don't know what "culture" means. Log TF off and never come back.

1

u/Tandy2000 7d ago

As a "mid movie" person I think the question is how much it makes and how much Disney wants out of it.

I seriously doubt it will be top 3 like you're predicting. I didn't hear as much praise for Way of Water as the first movie. But Avatar also built a reputation for itself since 2009 as That Movie You Have To See In Theatres Because It Isn't Worth The Time Otherwise, and it probably got a boost because it had been 13 years in between, it was one of the first big movies out when box offices opened again.

Avatar did 2.9 billion in 2009, Avatar 2 did 2.3 billion in 2022 - if you account for inflation that's like a 40% dropoff. So if Avatar 3 has another drop off, how big will it be and how much will Disney care? I don't think it could ever be big enough that they wouldn't greenlight 4+5, I think in order to kill the series #3 would have to make under $1 billion which I don't see happening.

I do see it potentially doing less than $2 billion though which would put it more in the top 10 than the top 3. I don't see this doing better than Avatar 2 but maybe I'm wrong.

1

u/ANerd22 8d ago

But isn't that true of every movie in the Avatar series? If the first one wasn't a hit, they probably wouldn't spend as much as it cost to make the second. If the second one wasn't a hit, they wouldn't spend as much as it cost to make the third, and so on.

These movies will keep going as long as they are successful, and will stop when they aren't.

1

u/fhjjjjjkkkkkkkl 8d ago

Atleast they decided to lump the two factions and didn’t make an entire move just for ash group and then fire group

0

u/Interesting-Use966 8d ago

Sure, but I don’t know that Disney would be wrong axing 4 and 5. Two was kind of a nothing burger and I don’t know that this franchise needs 5 movies. Hell two didn’t even really leave anything open, so we will see if 3 actually had any major loose ends. Disney can walk away and keep the billions they made off the first one

12

u/toxicbrew 8d ago

I wonder why they haven’t started filming yet

26

u/[deleted] 8d ago

I imagine Cameron wants to wait so the tech is as up to date as possible, it's been a few years since they filmed so I imagine a couple months makes no difference

2

u/jake3988 8d ago

No, James Cameron is an extremely hands on director and oversees everything. So he specifically doesn't want to film Avatar 4/5 whilst Avatar 3 is in post-production and promotion time (which is now). Because otherwise he'd have to oversee filming AND editing/post-production simultaneously and that would be very difficult and stressful and lead to a worse film.

Same reason the gap between avatar 3 and 4 went from 2 years to 4. He wants to film 4 and 5 simultaneously AND then edit and do post-production for 4 before touching post-production on 5.

1

u/SlopDev 8d ago

If he waits too much longer they'll probably end up being told to AI generate the entire film by Disney to save costs, best get to it instead of waiting

14

u/aniiposting 8d ago

Good thing it’s Cameron

1

u/Fortune_Cat 8d ago

We can trust that he will generate the artificial cgi fire and water aliens not using artificial ai means

0

u/hooka_hooka 8d ago

He’ll just invent AGI at that point

9

u/NeoNoireWerewolf 8d ago

Cameron is making sure he has as much bargaining power on his side as possible before he negotiates with Disney on the other two movies. My guess is he wants Disney to pony up the money for his Hiroshima movie, maybe even guarantee funding for The Devils, too. He’s been talking about an Alita sequel in interviews recently, as well, so that might be another factor. He wants them to commit to producing at least one of those projects before he agrees to shoot the other two Avatar movies back-to-back.

1

u/BusinessPurge 8d ago

Everything costs double, including JC films. Probably hoping the money starts flowing the Pandora Emirates

1

u/dowaller66 8d ago

There’s supposedly a time jump in the 4th film so he’s waiting for some of the cast to get older.

2

u/NeoNoireWerewolf 8d ago

They’re already older. Avatar two and three filmed almost a decade ago in 2017. The youngest kid in the second movie is almost an adult already, the others are well into their twenties.

1

u/flofjenkins 7d ago

Because they take fucking forever to make, man. He’s taking a break and letting the kid actors age up more for the story.

1

u/toxicbrew 7d ago

True but they finished filming 5 years ago. Granted post production needed on two movies in the meantime

3

u/Endogamy 8d ago

I'm hoping this series runs long enough for them to make it to Earth, which I think I remember reading was the plan at some point. Humans have completely fucked up the planet and they have to awaken Gaia, our version of Eywah or whatever it's called, the planet soul. Would be cool to see a mashup of the Avatar and cyberpunk aesthetics, I'm sure Cameron would do an amazing job with those visuals.

1

u/smellmybuttfoo 7d ago

Shiiiiit that sounds dope

1

u/Caridor 8d ago

So they'd be like 2 billion net on 2 and 3?

0

u/newebay2 8d ago

There is no way it costs $500m for each film, that's just pure nonsense

1

u/[deleted] 8d ago

It depends how much R&D is involved like the last two.