While Releasing 'Avatar 3', James Cameron Questions the Future of Movies (thewrap.com) 66
"If I get to do another Avatar film, it'll be because the business model still works," James Cameron tells CNN in a video interview — adding "That I can't guarantee, as I sit here today. That'll play out over the next month, really." He says theatre is a "sacred space," and while it will never go away, "I think that it could fall below a threshhold where the kinds of movies that I like to make and that I like to see... won't be sustainable, they won't be economically viable. And that can happen. We're very close to that right now."
The Wrap notes he filmed his new movie at the same time as its predecessor, The Way of Water." "We did all the performance capture in an 18-month period for both films. Then we did a lot of the virtual camera work to figure out exactly how we were going to do the live-action," Cameron explained. "Then we did all live-action together for both films. Then we split it and said, All right, now we just got to finish [movie] two....." While Cameron has been iffy about whether the previously announced fourth and fifth films will actually happen, he has already shot some of the fourth movie. "We're in a fluid scenario. Theatrical's contracting, streaming is expanding. People's habit patterns are changing. The teen demo consumes media differently than what we grew up with. And how much is it changing? Does theatrical contract to a point where it just stops right and doesn't get any smaller because we still value that, or does it continue to wither away?" Cameron said.
It's a theme he continued in his interview with The Hollywood Reporter" "This can be the last one. There's only one [unanswered question] in the story. We may find that the release of Avatar 3 proves how diminished the cinematic experience is these days, or we may find it proves the case that it's as strong as it ever was — but only for certain types of films. It's a coin toss right now. We won't know until the middle of January."
I ask something that might sound odd: What do you want to happen? But Cameron gets the implication. "That's an interesting question," he says. "I feel I'm at a bit of a crossroads. Do I want it to be a wild success — which almost compels me to continue and make two more Avatar movies? Or do I want it to fail just enough that I can justify doing somethingelse...?"
"What won't happen is, I won't go down the rabbit hole of exclusively making only Avatar for multiple years. I'm going to figure out another way that involves more collaboration. I'm not saying I'm going to step away as a director, but I'm going to pull back from being as hands-on with every tiny aspect of the process..." Cameron won't reveal his next project — and he might even be unsure himself — but will give intriguing hints. In addition to co-directing Billie Eilish's upcoming 3D concert documentary, Hit Me Hard and Soft, Cameron has another globe-trotting documentary adventure in the works, the details of which are under wraps. His next narrative film probably won't be Ghosts of Hiroshima, which has generated considerable press after Cameron acquired the rights to Charles Pellegrino's book chronicling the true story of Tsutomu Yamaguchi, who in 1945 survived the nuclear blasts at both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Cameron promised Yamaguchi on his deathbed in 2010 that he'd makethefilm. "The postapocalypse is not going to be the fun that it is in science fiction," he says. "It's not going to have mutants and monsters and all sorts of cool stuff. It's hell...."
Cameron first portrayed the apocalypse in his 1984 debut, The Terminator, a franchise he's quietly working on revisiting. "Once the dust clears on Avatar in a couple of months, I'm going to really plunge into that," he says. "There are a lot of narrative problems to solve. The biggest is how do I stay enough ahead of what's really happening to make it science fiction?" Asked whether he's cracked the premise, Cameron replies, "I'm working on it," but his sly smile suggests that he has.... There needs to be a broader interpretation of Terminator and the idea of a time war and super intelligence. I want to do new stuff that people aren't imagining."
Maybe Cameron's best response was what he told USA Today: "Let's do another interview in a year and then I'll tell you what my plans are," Cameron, 71, says with a grin. For now, he's still catching his breath.
The Wrap notes he filmed his new movie at the same time as its predecessor, The Way of Water." "We did all the performance capture in an 18-month period for both films. Then we did a lot of the virtual camera work to figure out exactly how we were going to do the live-action," Cameron explained. "Then we did all live-action together for both films. Then we split it and said, All right, now we just got to finish [movie] two....." While Cameron has been iffy about whether the previously announced fourth and fifth films will actually happen, he has already shot some of the fourth movie. "We're in a fluid scenario. Theatrical's contracting, streaming is expanding. People's habit patterns are changing. The teen demo consumes media differently than what we grew up with. And how much is it changing? Does theatrical contract to a point where it just stops right and doesn't get any smaller because we still value that, or does it continue to wither away?" Cameron said.
It's a theme he continued in his interview with The Hollywood Reporter" "This can be the last one. There's only one [unanswered question] in the story. We may find that the release of Avatar 3 proves how diminished the cinematic experience is these days, or we may find it proves the case that it's as strong as it ever was — but only for certain types of films. It's a coin toss right now. We won't know until the middle of January."
I ask something that might sound odd: What do you want to happen? But Cameron gets the implication. "That's an interesting question," he says. "I feel I'm at a bit of a crossroads. Do I want it to be a wild success — which almost compels me to continue and make two more Avatar movies? Or do I want it to fail just enough that I can justify doing somethingelse...?"
"What won't happen is, I won't go down the rabbit hole of exclusively making only Avatar for multiple years. I'm going to figure out another way that involves more collaboration. I'm not saying I'm going to step away as a director, but I'm going to pull back from being as hands-on with every tiny aspect of the process..." Cameron won't reveal his next project — and he might even be unsure himself — but will give intriguing hints. In addition to co-directing Billie Eilish's upcoming 3D concert documentary, Hit Me Hard and Soft, Cameron has another globe-trotting documentary adventure in the works, the details of which are under wraps. His next narrative film probably won't be Ghosts of Hiroshima, which has generated considerable press after Cameron acquired the rights to Charles Pellegrino's book chronicling the true story of Tsutomu Yamaguchi, who in 1945 survived the nuclear blasts at both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Cameron promised Yamaguchi on his deathbed in 2010 that he'd makethefilm. "The postapocalypse is not going to be the fun that it is in science fiction," he says. "It's not going to have mutants and monsters and all sorts of cool stuff. It's hell...."
Cameron first portrayed the apocalypse in his 1984 debut, The Terminator, a franchise he's quietly working on revisiting. "Once the dust clears on Avatar in a couple of months, I'm going to really plunge into that," he says. "There are a lot of narrative problems to solve. The biggest is how do I stay enough ahead of what's really happening to make it science fiction?" Asked whether he's cracked the premise, Cameron replies, "I'm working on it," but his sly smile suggests that he has.... There needs to be a broader interpretation of Terminator and the idea of a time war and super intelligence. I want to do new stuff that people aren't imagining."
Maybe Cameron's best response was what he told USA Today: "Let's do another interview in a year and then I'll tell you what my plans are," Cameron, 71, says with a grin. For now, he's still catching his breath.
Smurfs in Space (Score:2)
What's not to like?
Re: (Score:2)
Steaming Piles of Bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, movies are movies. Regardless of if it's at a theater, a drive-in, or on someone's iPhone in the subway, he'll always be able to make movies.
Disingenuous plea for everyone to save his billionaire status by consuming Avatar 3 the most expensive way.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
oh boy watch out we got a cool guy here! careful everyone he's so cool he's gonna be mean and cynical about movies he's never seen! so cool! everyone notice how cool he is!!!!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
the first was so abysmally bad I stopped watching midway through on relative's cable tv. I hear the 2nd was worse, just riding on the name of the first. A 3rd? who consumes this slop?
I tried three times to watch it. Fell asleep each time. Boring. I suppose blue alien boobs was titillating for some, and it made a lot of money, but I never had any reason to watch the sequels.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
who will win this round of "who can act the most smug about things they haven't seen yet have strong opinions on?" christ ya'll are such predictable losers on this site when it comes to anything cultural, why say anything if you're not interested. it's an option to just not say anything!
"everything is shit. i am very intelligent, please agree with me while we circle jerk eachother about how shit everything is".
Re: Steaming Piles of Bullshit (Score:1)
Re: Steaming Piles of Bullshit (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it was cool to watch in vr, a novelty. i haven't watched any sequel. i'm not sure, maybe i did watch avatar 2, but don't remember a single thing about it.
my sister absolutely loved it. the magical forest, the creatures and all that. she has a hippie vibe, and that part wasn't bad. she had watched it in an imax theater but had me download it and drove 70km to my place to go through the whole thing again with the headset, in one sitting, while i cooked some sauerkraut. she was delighted. horses for courses.
Re: (Score:2)
it was cool to watch in vr, a novelty. i haven't watched any sequel. i'm not sure, maybe i did watch avatar 2, but don't remember a single thing about it.
my sister absolutely loved it. the magical forest, the creatures and all that. she has a hippie vibe, and that part wasn't bad. she had watched it in an imax theater but had me download it and drove 70km to my place to go through the whole thing again with the headset, in one sitting, while i cooked some sauerkraut. she was delighted. horses for courses.
Sounds like she's a nice lady, doing all that.
Re: (Score:2)
the first was so abysmally bad I stopped watching midway through on relative's cable tv. I hear the 2nd was worse, just riding on the name of the first. A 3rd? who consumes this slop?
I went to the theater and saw the first in 3D. Left with the impression that it was a blending of other films that were much, much better about the plight of the natives against an unrelenting colonial force, but this one came with flashy lights and mecha frames. Never had the urge to watch the other two, though I don't begrudge them for existing. I believe my partner at the time referred to it as "Pocahontas in space." Not completely off the mark.
They're spectacles without much substance. Frankly, I though
Re: (Score:2)
Come on. The second movie brought in nearly three billion dollars on a budget of under 300 million. There's no way they spent 2.7 billion on advertising and if they did... they deserve to stop. Also, movies are movies. Regardless of if it's at a theater, a drive-in, or on someone's iPhone in the subway, he'll always be able to make movies. Disingenuous plea for everyone to save his billionaire status by consuming Avatar 3 the most expensive way.
He's hung up on doing everything the old Hollywood way, where you need massive amounts of up-front money essentially thrown into an endless pit in order to produce a series of rehashed plotlines with astounding amounts of "production value" added over the top in a sloppy glaze so thick the audience doesn't notice they've been spoon fed the same story for the billionth time. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a spectacle movie from time to time, but I don't know that we need to continue to produce movies that eat a
Talk to management, not to me. (Score:5, Insightful)
It certainly remains very possible for a proper large scale theatre install to handily outgun anything you'd get at home, and definitely the 'whatever is cheap and 65in' best buy experience; but there doesn't appear to be much interest in making the overall experience a compelling sell.
If all you do is attend directorial release screenings with your colleagues I assume that isn't a you problem; but if you genuinely care about the viability, and survival, of the theater experience maybe you should care more; because it's not like people are staying away from theaters just because they are philistines who hate art and desire aggressively mediocre experiences; it's because the theater is an aggressively mediocre experience that squanders much of its remaining technical edge to apathy and cost cutting that can definitely make it more miserable than staying home; but will never make it a better value.
Re: (Score:2)
dickheads making noise or fucking around on their phones, some asshole who decided to bring a screaming-age child, the works.
Indeed. If Trump wanted to do something truly useful with the National Guard that we could all agree on, this would be the place.
Re: (Score:1)
dickheads making noise or fucking around on their phones, some asshole who decided to bring a screaming-age child, the works.
Indeed. If Trump wanted to do something truly useful with the National Guard that we could all agree on, this would be the place.
Maybe Trump will open his own chain of theaters - or simply rename an existing one, like he did with the Kennedy Center - patrolled by the National Guard (or ICE, or the Marines, ...) with the kicker being that those agents will have to buy tickets too. Cha-Ching! /s
Re:Talk to management, not to me. (Score:5, Informative)
If you think theater is a 'sacred space' perhaps you should get on theater management about that. Outside of some very atypical or heavily stage-managed cases the movie theatre experience is typically fucking dire. Paid admittance to a half hour of commercials; seats packed to remind your knees that they are trying to maximize the headcount per square foot(see also, seats in blatantly undesirable positions relative to the screen);
When was the last time you went to a movie theater? The one thing I find most notable about 2025 compared to the previous century is that the previous cheap fold-down seats in movie theaters have been replaced by wide, comfortable seats with plenty of legroom. In most of the theaters built recently the seats recline as well.
For the most part, you also choose your seat when you buy your ticket online, so if the only seats available are in undesirable positions relative to the screen, go to a different show.
Re: (Score:2)
My youngest brother and his wife took my teenage kids to see a movie this year (I think it might've been Minecraft). The fancy adjustable seats didn't work, so they got a refund for their tickets. Not a bad deal.
Re: (Score:3)
I went to a couple movies a few months ago, and I didn't see any of that. My fat American ass had plenty of room in the reclining sear, and the next row of seats was a few feet beneath me and seemingly ten feet awa
Re: (Score:2)
I'm often a bit bewildered at the descriptions I see sometimes on Slashdot about people's movie going experience. Some folks must live by some shitty theaters as the only thing on your list that I get that's problematic for me is the commercials thing. If anything theaters around me have been getting better too, the food at least has gotten a bit more interesting and I can get beer at a few of the theaters which I like.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This sounds like a very shitty American cinema. I literally have not experienced anything what you say. I'm especially impressed by Schroedinger's Cinema. The one so dire no one goes there, but somehow needs to cram the maximum number of seats in because it's so busy?
Have you considered that cinemas aren't the issue and that maybe you live in a shithole, surrounded by antisocial selfish cunts who ruin things for others and don't know how to behave?
CGI (Score:2)
CGI has ruined movies. The over the top effects are way too distracting.
Re: (Score:3)
Sort of - but it's not CGI itself that has ruined movies, but rather lazy directors that over-rely on CGI and non-stop action / explosions rather than focusing on story telling and characters.
The Paddington movies are obviously all CGI, and are fine. Avatar part 2 & 3 are just CGI + action.
Re:CGI (Score:4)
Distracting from what exactly? Breathtaking CGI is the whole point of the Avatar movies.
Re: CGI (Score:3)
The movie going experience (Score:2)
Society itself has changed.
For the shared movie going experience in a theater to be enjoyable, that depends on most people following largely unwritten and unenforceable (except socially) rules. And we mostly don't have that anymore, as a society.
Re: (Score:2)
Society itself has changed.
For the shared movie going experience in a theater to be enjoyable, that depends on most people following largely unwritten and unenforceable (except socially) rules. And we mostly don't have that anymore, as a society.
Old person appears on screen
Idiot in the row behind: Is that Mozart?
Different old person appears on screen
Idiot in the row behind: Is that Mozart?
Third old person appears on screen
Idiot in the row behind: Is that Mozart?
Amadeus was released in 1984, so movie audiences have been inconsiderate and stupid for a long time.
Re: (Score:2)
Amadeus was released in 1984, so movie audiences have been inconsiderate and stupid for a long time.
To be honest, I didn't much care for movie going then either, lol. But the wait for some other method for any given movie was considerably longer.
The future of movies (Score:2)
"Picture Avatar sequels stamping on a human face forever."
--James Cameron
Re: (Score:3)
First movie was awesome as a tech demo. The plot was basically, as South Park put it, Dances with Smurfs. That was fine, as I went in expecting tech demo and some action. Good vs. bad with generally relatable characters despite being sort of archetypes (The Corporate, General Ripper, Disillusioned grunt who becomes hero, Native Girl he smooches over, the Mentor who dies...). But at least they had *some* depth into them.
Avatar 2 was...well, ok, fine, more finesse in the tech part (the water effects), but the
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. I hadn't read your comment, but I just posted pretty much exactly the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The whole point of a Christmas release date is to have a movie the whole family will enjoy. If the only word of mouth people are getting is that the movie is not suitable for kids,
It's still PG13, I imagine there will be a fair amount of horror that is told and implied than shown. Even with a darker tone and It's been awhile since I've seen the first movie (and I did not see the second) it still had scenes with plenty of Navi and humans getting bloodlessly fragged, more than a couple had some giant arrows impale them. Also that was 2009(!) so if you brought your 5 year old to see Avatar 1 they can drink in the theater now.
I am also of my cranky old man opinion that "kids movies" sho
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry Judge Doom. Hope I get fired for that blunder.
Re: (Score:2)
You think that would have moms telling each other, hey you gotta take your family to see "Life is Beautiful"?
No but that's also because it's Oscar bait drama and not mass appeal popcorn blockbuster. However and while I don't recall that movie being released at Christmas mom's were telling each other to take your kids to it. "It's so important" it's like Schindler's List with some of the edge taken off.
But really if we have to compare Avatar 3 the franchise about the blue space elves to Life Is Beaufitful a Holocaust period piece I think we've stretched credulity a bit.
Re: or... hear me out... (Score:2)
Nobody wants 3+ hours in your sacred space (Score:2)
A 3+ hour movie is designed for home watching. Itâ(TM)s tough enough for 2 hours. Either shorten the movie or bring back intermission, and put the trailers back at the end. It takes more than cushy seats and seat assignments to provide a premium experience for the premium price â" we already get those 2 perks at home.
Maybe "Fire and Ash" will fail because it sucks ? (Score:2)
> If I get to do another Avatar film, it'll be because the business model still works
The first Avatar movie was amazing - it introduced us to a whole new world, and had an interesting story line.
The second Avatar movie ,"The Way of Water", was OK to extent that it revisited this world that movie fans had fallen in love with, but the story line wasn't great, and it was more of just a pure action / war movie than a story telling one.
This latest movie, by all accounts, is just a 3 hour long war movie. No do
Re: (Score:1)
Theaters are dinosaurs (Score:1)
...that should fade away
Some will survive as art houses or restaurants/bars that have a video screen, but the home theater is the superior choice
I can pause to take a break, rewind if I missed something and most importantly, get subtitles
I'm not forced to drive across town, pay to park, wait in line, and then be forced to watch commercials while eating astronomically overpriced snacks
Did we need a second Avatar? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
I heard lots of people squealed terribly after watching it too.
why are we complaining (Score:1)
movies are not going away (Score:1)
movies that he makes are going away. I love his movies but they are just outdated. I like the new lower budget series much better. plubus is much more enjoyable to me than Avatar. The insane over the top CGI is just to much.
Sacred space? (Score:2)
Sacred space? What? LOL Going to the cinema today is most unholy in my opinion. It just sucks for so many reasons. Sorry James, I've been avoiding your sacred space for well over a decade now. I'll watch your movies in my comfy home on my terms thank you. Besides, the last Avatar movie was kind of meh.
Re: (Score:3)
I've been avoiding your sacred space for well over a decade now. I'll watch your movies in my comfy home on my terms
Netflix says "No." You'll watch what they want, from their catalog, on their terms. Until they discontinue it and replace it with their new stuff. Because they know that you'll keep watching. Something.
I find it interesting that the Avatar series is still being broadcast on the TV networks. This is something that I imagine the streaming only services are eager to put a stop to.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't need no stinking Netflix.
Re: (Score:3)
I hope you have a good DVD collection. Because when Netflix buys the last remaining studio and locks up its content, the only thing you'll be streaming is their latest episode of "Ow, my balls!"
Re: (Score:2)
"Rehabilitation" should have some killer episodes too, but I won't need Netflix to watch them. Brought to you by Carl's Jr.
Re: (Score:2)
Luigi I got a job for you (Score:1)
Interesting (Score:2)
If Avatar 3 doesnt succeed, he says it wound be because people dont like theater. At no point does he consider that maybe it means the movie sucks?
Tired (Score:2)
I'm so tired of these garbage movies. Avatar has 1 thing and 1 thing only, it has very pretty CGI. That's it. The acting is mid. The plot is mid. People don't have an issue with movies, they have an issue with movie theaters - too expensive. Major movie theaters have been a bad value for, at least, two decades. If you want popcorn and a drink while watching the movie, it ends up being well over $10 per hour of entertainment. Regal, AMC, Cinemark... they all suck.
71?! (Score:2)
I didn't know he was that old now. :O
Avatar: it's so awful (Score:2)
They're about as subtle as a brick to the face, and just as enjoyable.
The guy can make movies. He just chooses to do this weird preachy gobbledygook.