Avatar

I think this movie might be a clue for Avatar's sequel.

Totally disagree. No offense. I totally disagree with your point of view on this one. LOTR trilogy was masterpiece but Avatar is not at all masterpiece. I really can't understand how come people could compare LOTR with Avatar. Avatar is nowhere near to LOTR. LOTR has good story, characterization, music, excellent acting by actors etc but in Avatar, just visual effects and nothing else was there. Very poor script, score and characterization and moreover, all the actors performances were pathetic. This movie Avatar might have become huge box office success but it has not succeeded to win millions of hearts around the world. You ask anyone in the world, they would say that they might have quite astonished by the movie Avatar just because of visual effects that, too, watching through it in 3D but if you ask anyone how about the movie overall, they would say not good.

Peter Jackson showed the world how a fantasy film should be made. In fact, James Cameron himself admitted he was impressed and inspired by Peter Jackson's LOTR. Oh! James, your failed to make your Avatar as a masterpiece.

Have a nice day!

Who is godifying here? I don't think nobody does that here. The only thing is you can't expect the quality from Avatar trilogy as were in LOTR. In fact, LOTR movie was merely based on J.R.R.Tolkien's book. See, my point is LOTR is timeless classic, but i don't think Avatar will be or is timeless classic. Of course, Avatar will be certainly remembered for its technical aspect but not as the movie whole. Somehow, i am pleased with the movie Avatar for being a decent Sci-fi action movie, Thank God! it wasn't like Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of Crystal Skull. Godawful! In this case, Avatar is far far better than Indy 4.

However, i have booked my ticket to see Avatar in 3D. I am going on 14th January. Let me see......

I am sorry. I don't get your point.

Certainly, not necessarily. In fact, you can't judge a film's quality based on its box office performance. For e.g take Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, it was huge box office success, but did you personally liked that movie? or any other people out there would say "I just adore this movie"? no, movie did brilliant at box office, but miserably failed to capture the hearts of audience. Many people are praying now for no more sequels. Do you know that?.

For your better understanding, take movies like Savior, Schindler's List which were not huge box office success, but those movies has certain quality. See, my point is if movie becomes success it doesn't mean that all the people liked that movie, there could be various reasons to become box office success. As far as Avatar concern, many people are astonished because of movie made in 3D and hype that surrounded the movie and Cameron returned after 13 years and you know, psychologically speaking, there are many people forcibly convince themselves to like the film even though if they really hate the film. This is the fact and human nature.

Wow, a psychology lesson from Sunil of all people.

My opinion of the movie is that it's a fantastic cinema-going experience. Not a masterpiece of emotion and storytelling, but certainly a spectacle worthy of much praise. (I don't think it will hold up quite as well for "home cinema", clearly, but it'll still be a very entertaining film without all the 3D effects.)

That's not Michael's point though: His point, and I agree with him, is that it would be more interesting to see Cameron turn his skills to a completely new project, regardless of whether or not he makes a superior sequel.

Avatar should be left to stand on its own, and I would much rather see a completely new set of ideas made into a film by Cameron than a sequel. It just doesn't need a sequel in my opinion.

I agree. I'd love to see other Cameron projects too, but I fear that if he ups his production schedule too much, it will come at the cost of his quality. There's a reason for why he hasn't been very prolific and why the few films he's made have been as successful as they have.

Can you really say wether Cameron didn't set this up as a trilogy? It's very likely that was his plan all along, but decided to make the first movie feel closed off, in case it didn't catch on.

TLOTR was already widely known as a three-book story made into a three-part film, it already had a following where Avatar was just totally new. Maybe Avatar is just the start of something equally bigger.

I guess some comparisons can be made to The Matrix: the first one felt like a stand-alone story, well rounded and with a riveting climax, however the sequels, though inferior expanded on the mythology of the first and so I'm very happy Reloaded and Revolutions got made. It provided us more of that awesome universe to delve into.

I think the movie screams for a sequel, because in the end, the humans got their asses kicked, but there is still a lot of money in Pandora´s precious soil. That´s one of the bigger questions that remains: If Earth really depends so much on this kind of stuff, it´s just a matter of time before someone gets the idea to develop a cost-effective solution (aka bioweapons). I am afraid the Na'vi just won one of many future fights.

On the other hand I´m not interested in seeing more of the same. And I don´t think we will. Pandora is a whole new world. There must be a lot more going on there than what we´ve seen so far. I expect to see a nice planet-bound storyline for the sequel, maybe about some kind of ancient mystery or a natural phenomenon causing problems. Part 3 could then be about the humans´ return, given Cameron has a quite different storyline for some kind of final battle in his pockets.

AVATAR might not need a sequel indeed, but clearly he needs the money, now that he's found the Hen with the golden eggs

The problem with your argument though is that people DO love Avatar. Not serious movie-goers, perhaps (but even most of those who I know think it was a remarkable spectacle). Ordinary people, who only go to the cinema once or twice a year, love it in a way they haven't loved a film since Titanic.

Same here. In my circles, it's liked ALMOST universally (there are always exceptions) by BOTH regular moviegoers AND cineastes/filmlovers that are usually into more arthouse stuff. And reviewers too!

Saying you don't like the film for whatever personal reason is fine. Saying that it didn't reach the hearts of millions, so it must therefore be bad, seems like a curious argument at best. Especially with a film such as AVATAR, which obviously did.

I read yesterday about circles of Avatar fanatics who have been depressed since it came out because they're disappointed with our world and are trying to find ways to cope with life away from Avatar.